The ‘Hun’, the ‘Reds’ and World War One Imagery and Prejudice; the effect of the First World War on German and Russian minorities in early twentieth century America

Master Thesis; History of International Relations By: Annelieke Wognum, 10077790 Advisor: Dr. E. A. Buettner Date of submission: 01-07-2016

Table of Content

Chapter 1: The realities of immigration and immigrant life before 1914 7

Rules, Restrictions, and Regulations 7 Prejudices and Perceptions of the different ‘races’ 10

Chapter 2: The Great War and Immigration 23

Changes in perception and the effects of war propaganda 24 Revolution and the clash of political systems 32

Chapter 3: The Aftermath 41

The Great Red Scare 42 The Americanization movement and the integration debate 48

Conclusion and Discussion 56

Literature 60

Primary: 60 Secondary: 61

1

Introduction

During the early twentieth century, America experienced one of its largest immigration waves, acquiring an even more ethnically diverse society than it already had. But, as human history teaches us, multiple ethnicities often have difficulties living together, resulting in prejudice towards minorities. As Eric Foner puts it: “The ‘new immigrants’ were often described by native born Americans as members of distinct ‘races’, whose lower levels of civilization explained everything from their willingness to work for substandard wages to their supposed inborn tendency toward criminal behavior.”1 These races that Foner speaks of are now described as ethnicities, ‘a highly elastic concept applied to groups who say they share or are perceived to share some combination of cultural, historical, radical, religious, or linguistic features.’2 This is a concept that can easily be applied to the ‘melting pot’ of different cultures that cumulated in America in the early twentieth century. In addition to the immigration influx, America took part in another great event during the 1910’s: The First World War. This war primarily impacted Europeans, who fought or lived through it from beginning to end, but it did not leave Americans unscathed. Even before they entered into the conflict in 1917 due to German submarines and an intercepted telegram, there were lively debates going on in Congress between those in favor of joining the war and those against.3 So even though it was still relatively far from their beds, especially before their participation, the First World War was most definitely a hot news item. This war not only affected American politics, it also had an impact on its population. In addition to producing an influx of immigrant refugees; it also altered perceptions of these different ethnicities, specifically the Germans who were now viewed as the ‘enemy’ and the Russians who, after their 1917 Revolution, had adopted an ideology that clashed with American capitalism; communism. America’s immigration history is most often separated into four eras: the open door era between 1776-1882, the era of regulation of 1883-1916, the era of restriction from 1917- 1964, and the era of liberalization between 1965-2000.4 All of these eras are defined by the events that took place within the time period. For example, the open door era is so named

1 Eric Foner, Give me liberty, an American History 4th ed. (New York: Norton & Company Inc., 2014) 659. 2 Elisabeth Buettner, ‘Ethnicity’, in: Craig Calhoun (ed.), Dictionary of the Social Sciences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) 148. 3 Koen Koch, Een kleine geschiedenis van de Grote Oorlog 1914-1918 (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2010) 289. 4 Jeremiah Jaggers, W. Jay Gabbard, Shanna J. Jaggers, ‘The Devolution of U.S. immigration Policy: An Examination of the History and Future of Immigration Policy’ Journal of Policy Practice vol. 13 no. 3 (2014) 4. 2

because there were no or very few laws that governed immigration in that period, and each state had its own policies. The open door era became the era of regulation in 1882, for in that year, the first two federal immigration laws were approved by Congress. These laws were the Chinese Exclusion Act, and the Immigration Act. The first of these laws prohibited every person of Chinese descent to enter the USA. The second law levied a tax on immigration, stating that every immigrant who wished to enter the United States would have to pay a tax before they were allowed to enter. In addition, it also provided a list of ‘undesirables’, who from that point on were no longer allowed to enter the US, e.g. convicts, lunatics and idiots.5 They were the first but definitely not the last restrictions on immigration within in this time period. The next turning point in immigration eras can be found in 1917, the year that America joined the First World War, for in 1917, the (new) Immigration Act was accepted by Congress and signed by President Woodrow Wilson on 5 February. This act can be viewed as a combination of the Chinese Exclusion Act and the previous Immigration Acts (the immigration act of 1882 had been adapted a few times before 1917). It was mostly an extension of the list of ‘undesirables’, but this act had a new and controversial dimension to it: entry into the US was now denied to Asians who originated from the ‘Asiatic Barred Zone’. This zone included most of Asia and some of the Pacific Islands.6 It was the first time an entire race of people had been singled out for exclusion, not just a nationality, as had been done with the Chinese in 1882. These laws remained in effect until the era of liberalization, when immigration policy changed to allow immigrants easier access to the United States. The law might have restricted only Asians as an entire group, but racism surrounding immigrants was not restricted to the Asian community. Europeans, and especially Eastern- and Southern Europeans were also considered unworthy of joining America, as David M. Reimers reports in his book Unwelcome Strangers, American Identity and the turn against immigration. He states that Italians for example, were believed to be a particularly violent race who were all part of Mafia families. Immigrants from Eastern Europe, on the other hand, were believed to come from backward countries that had been lagging behind in terms of progress for years due to the lack of work ethic from its inhabitants. In short, Americans

5 E. P. Hutchinson, Legislative History of American Immigration Policy 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981) 83-86. 6 Hutchinson, Legislative History, 155-160. 3

believed that these people were simply unfit to become part of America and its workforce.7 In today’s society we are less familiar with this form of racism, for the racism of today is primarily focused of skin-color and the overall outward appearance. This is even true for today’s religious racism; if an immigrant of today does not look like a middle eastern Muslim, and shows no outward signs their religious motivation, they are largely left alone. In contrast, the racism of the early twentieth century was based mainly on the attitudes or behavior of people/an ethnicity, and only in part about their appearance. That does not mean that color racism did not exist; the African Americans were still heavily discriminated against for example and there were immigration laws that excluded ‘Asians’ and ‘Latinos’ as distinct racial groups since the turn of the century.8 Joe Feagin states that, due to America’s past with slavery, it has a deep-rooted systematic form of racism that is nearly unconsciously applied by everyone, even those who fervently shout that they are not racist.9 This is undoubtedly a factor that needs to be considered. However, he only focuses on the division between black and white, and links everything to the history of slavery. Matthey Frye Jacobson provides a different viewpoint in his book Whiteness of a Different Color, in which he states that in the early twentieth century, a form of systematic racism was applied to groups of Irish, German, Italian, Jewish and Slavic decent.10 These people were all ‘white’, which meant that the racism applied to them was more a form of racism based in culture rather than color. It is this last form of racism that will be applied to this analysis. Another point on which the immigrants were singled out was criminality. Most of the ‘native’ population believed that most of the immigrants coming to America’s shores ‘had an inborn tendency toward criminal behavior’, or that their children would be more inclined to violence than the children of native born Americans.11 Edward Ross described these tendencies by race in 1914; “The French and Hebrew stand out in bad eminence as offenders against chastity, the Italians lead in murder and blackmail, the Americans in burglary, the

7 David M. Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers, American Identity and the turn against immigration (New York; Columbia University Press, 1998) 15-16. 8 Hutchinson, Legislative History, 155-160. 9 Joe R. Feagin, Racist America, roots, current realities, and future reparations, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis group, 2014) xvi. 10 Matthew Frye Jacobson, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998) 5. Matthew Frye Jacobson, ‘Becoming Caucasian: Vicissitudes of Whiteness in American Politics and Culture’, in: Spickard, Paul, Race and Immigration in the United States (New York: Routledge Tylor & Francis Group, 2012) 131-147. 11 Foner, give me liberty, 659. Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers, 17. 4

Greeks in kidnapping, the Lithuanians in assault, the Irish in disorderly conduct.”12 A recent study by Moehling and Morrison suggests that there were no grounds for these assumptions. In fact, according to their research, when it came to the more serious crimes, ‘native’ Americans were just as likely to be found guilty as immigrants.13 Not everyone within American society was against immigration or the integration of immigrants, however. Within the intellectual community, there were three camps that could be discerned. The first were those in favor of the restriction of immigration and their beliefs ran along the lines of the racism outlined above. The second were those in favor of ‘Americanization’, which meant that they were in favor of integrating immigrants into American society through the ideal of the ‘Melting Pot’, which in short meant that they wanted immigrants to become completely ‘American’ and leave their native cultures behind. The third and last group were the ‘radicals’, or those who supported neither idea and were in favor of allowing immigrants not only to enter the United States but also to retain their native culture. They even suggested that the immigrant should integrate their culture with the American one, thus creating a new ‘transnational’ or ‘multi-cultural’ society.14 There are two groups of immigrants that are of particular interest to this thesis: Germans and Russians. Both groups had been coming to America’s shores since before the First World War, and both were greatly impacted by the war. Firstly, the Germans, who were singled out as the ‘enemy’ during this conflict. The war propaganda painted the Germans as a nation filled with barbaric ‘Huns’ who supported an authoritarian regime.15 This presentation of the German people led to a nearly complete rejection of the German culture across America. Entire enclaves of ethnic Germans living in America, who up until then had mostly been speaking German, rejected the language and culture. It even went as far as renaming ‘sauerkraut’ and ‘hamburgers’ to ‘liberty cabbage’ as ‘liberty sandwiches’ respectively.16 The second group are the Russians. As stated above, the Slavic people had never been welcomed

12 Edward A. Ross, The Old World in the New, the significance of past and present immigration to the American People (New York: The Century Co., 1914) 62. 13 Carolyn Moehling, Anne Morrison, ‘Immigration, Crime, and Incarceration in Early Twentieth-Century America’ Demography vol. 46 no. 4 (Nov. 2009) 739-740, 760-761. 14 Desmond King, Making Americans, Immigration, Race and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000) 19-21, 27-29, Randolph S. Bourne, War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919, Carl Resek eds. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964), Eric Foner, The Story of American Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998) 186-187, John Higham, Strangers in the Land, patterns of American nativism 1860-1925 (New Brunswick; Rutgers University Press, 1992) 234-263. 15 Foner, The Story of American Freedom, 170. 16 Foner, Give me liberty, 727, 748. 5

with open arms, condition which the Russian Revolution only strengthened. Communism was on the rise, the antithesis to the American capitalist dream. It could not have been easy for either group to live in America during these times, for not only were they immigrants and subject to the racism that surrounded immigrants of the time, they were also part of a race that was deemed undesirable among the general American population due to the events of the First World War and the Russian Revolution. In the existing literature on the subject of the First World War and American immigration, neither of these immigrant groups are discussed in relation to each other and their specific connection to wider international events. Therefore, this thesis will focus on the following question: How did the First World War and Russian Revolution affect Russian and German ethnic minorities in American society? Since this is a very broad subject it will be divided into three parts: before, during and after the Great War. Each chapter will discuss the events in both their home countries and America which shaped the perception of the Germans and Russian. Chapter one focuses on immigrant legislation and the prejudice surrounding the two groups before 1914. Chapter two discusses the effects of war propaganda on the Germans and the Russian Revolution on the Russians between 1914-1918. Finally, chapter 3 discusses the Americanization movement in relation to the Great Red Scare and race inequality between 1918-1930. The literature on which this thesis is based consists of both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources are the written works by multiple intellectuals who fall within the three categories discussed above. Well-known examples of these intellectuals are; Randolph S. Bourne, a radical, Jane Adams, who advocated Americanization, and Edward A. Ross, a Nativist. These will be augmented by the works of President Woodrow Wilson, the Dictionary of Races or Peoples published in 1911, The passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant, a bestseller published in 1916 and articles published in the New York Times between 1900 and 1930. The secondary literature consists of relevant historical works, generally published after the mid 1980’s. The most significant of these are Eric Foner’s books on general American history, Reimers’ book Unwelcome Strangers, Jacobson’s books and articles on the significance of skin color, a collection of works on German-American and Russian-American culture, and Davis’ and Trani’s work named The First Cold War, in which they speculate on America’s reaction to the rise of communism.

6

Chapter 1: The realities of immigration and immigrant life before 1914

The period of American immigration history that is now known as the ‘Great Wave’ or ‘Third Wave’, falls roughly between 1880 and 1914. As stated in the introduction, this period is also named the era of regulation, due to the ever increasing amount of laws regulating and restricting immigration. Hopeful immigrants arriving on America’s shores were no longer guaranteed entry and many were sent back to their homelands. Yet for those who were admitted, it was not an automatic guarantee for a better life than what they had left behind. They were hopeful, believing that a new world filled with opportunities had been opened to them, only to be bitterly disappointed by the realities of being a ‘foreigner’. Prejudice and racism ran rampant, preventing immigrants from creating the new life they had so longed for when they arrived. What were the realities in terms of regulations, restrictions, and prejudice that German and Russian immigrants faced before the First World War?

Rules, Restrictions, and Regulations

The main immigration port of the early twentieth century was a tiny island located in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty in New York Harbor: Ellis Island. Between the years 1892 and 1954, nearly twelve million immigrants from across the Atlantic had passed through its halls, looking for a better life in the fabled America. The vast majority of these twelve million landed between 1890 and 1915.17 It was at this port that most of the new policies of the era of regulation were implemented, and immigrants there bitterly realized that getting into America would not be as easy as stepping off the boat. Why did Congress see the need to implement these new regulations? At the end of the 19th century, America was struggling with an ever increasing amount of immigrants. During the Civil War and the decade following it, America had encouraged immigration in order to stimulate the depleted workforces of the cities. Immigrants provided cheap, unskilled labor that was needed for the ever increasing amount of factories of the industrial Revolution. Of the ‘old’ immigrants, only 55 percent had consisted of unskilled

17 Foner, From Ellis Island to JFK, 1. Archdeacon, Thomas J. Becoming American, and Ethnic History (New York: The Free Press, 1983) 114. 7

laborers; in contrast, 81 percent of the ‘new’ immigrants were deemed unskilled.18 These ‘new immigrants’ were seen as inferior to the original immigrants, for not only were they unskilled, but they no longer came to find a new life. A life free of persecution, as the old immigrants had pursued and found. They came for the available jobs, without having the intention of settling permanently within America’s borders.19 In addition, the labor unions were worried that these immigrants would not only take the jobs of ‘native’ Americans because of their willingness to work for lower wages, but that they would also be used as ‘strike breakers’. This meant that factory managers could ‘break’ a strike by simply hiring immigrants who were willing to work, which would decrease the impact of the strike, and keep the wages down.20 Despite these protests, immigrants were generally made welcome until the demand for cheap labor waned and the immigrant flood refused to cease, forcing the government to implement laws that regulated the ever-increasing immigration stream. As stated in the introduction, there were two acts that kick-started and defined the era of regulation: The Chinese Exclusion Act and the Immigration Act of 1882. The immediate significance of these acts was not their content but their scope, for they were the first immigration acts that were adopted on a federal level. Before these two acts were accepted, immigration was organized on a state level, meaning that every state had their own immigration laws, and therefore an immigrant could be welcome in one state, but not in another. From 1882 onward, this changed, for every immigration law adopted after this point would be implemented on a federal level, and immigration was no longer regulated by the different states.21 These first two laws seem very significant, yet they changed very little for immigrants, since most of their policies had already been in effect in most states. In the years following 1882 a number of new laws were adopted and implemented, most of which were updated versions of the Immigration Act, providing an extension of the list of undesirables and the implementation of the Head Tax, which every immigrant had to pay, in an attempt to deter the extremely poor from emigrating.22 None of these measures had a significant effect however,

18 Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues, the United States encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad, 1876-1917 (New York; Hill and Wang, 2000) 65. 19 Fitzgerald, Keith, The Face of the Nation, Immigration, The State, and the National Identity (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1996) 97-98. 20 Drew Keeling, The Business of Transatlantic Migration between Europe and the United States, 1900-1914 (Zurich: Chronos, 2012) 148. 21 Hutchinson, Legislative history, 83. 22 Hutchinson, Legislative history, 157. 8

for the list of undesirables and the Head Tax excluded and deterred only a small percentage of European migrants. It was for this reason that Congress established the Dillingham Commission in 1907, with the task of investigating this extreme flow of immigration and giving advice on policies the state should implement to dampen the stream.23 The Dillingham report, which consisted of 42 volumes, was published in 1911. The main body of this report was comprised of mostly unanalyzed data on the economic and social impact of immigrants in the US. The little data that was analyzed supported the prevailing idea that the different racial backgrounds explained the difference in general living conditions among immigrants. If they came from a relatively wealthy country (race), they would pursue better jobs, increasing their living conditions, and vice versa.24 In addition, the report published there was no evidence to support the claim that immigrants were more inclined toward criminal behavior than the previous immigrants. However, it did assert that the children of these immigrants would be inherently more inclined to adopt criminal pursuits, and that immigration in general had increased the amount of criminality.25 The report of the commission concluded with two recommendations to decrease the immigration flow. It advised to add radical thinkers to the list of undesirables, for they could inflame unrest, and to implement a literacy test to the immigrant screening process. The commission believed that literacy would be the defining factor in weeding out the ‘undesirables’.26 That this idea was quite popular is strongly illustrated by the inaugural address of President William McKinley in 1897.

“Our naturalization and immigration laws should be further improved to the constant promotion of a safer, a better, and a higher citizenship. A grave peril to the Republic would be a citizenship too ignorant to understand or too vicious to appreciate the great value and beneficence of our institutions and laws... Illiteracy must be banished from the land if we shall attain that high destiny as the foremost of the enlightened nations of the world which, under Providence, we ought to achieve.”27

McKinley’s address was not the first time a literacy test had been suggested as a means of selecting immigrants and it was mentioned again in 1898 and 1902, but each time it had

23 Reimers, David M., Unwelcome Strangers, American Identity and the turn against immigration (New York; Columbia University Press, 1998) 14, 17. 24 Fitzgerald, The Face of the Nation, 128. 25 Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers, 17-18. 26 Fitzgerald, The Face of the Nation, 128. 27 Inaugural address by William McKinley, Yale Law school; the Avalon Project, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/mckin1.asp, (last visited on 24-4-2016). 9

not been able to pass through Congress.28 The literacy test was eventually added to the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1917, stating that every immigrant above the age of 16 had to be literate to be allowed passage through Ellis Island. President Wilson tried to veto it, but Congress overruled him.29 This literacy test was based on the idea that it would exclude the intellectually inferior, who would mostly originate from Southern or Eastern European countries., who were considered more undesirable than those originating from Western Europe.30 This belief was based on the following numbers, as reported by Thomas Archdeacon: “Among immigrants who were at least fourteen years of age and who arrived between 1899 and 1909, the Germans, the Scandinavians, the English, and the Irish had illiteracy rates of 5.1 percent, 0.4 percent, 1.1 percent and 2.7 percent, respectively. By contrast, the Italians, the Jews, the Poles and the Slovaks had rates of 46.9 percent, 25.7 percent, 35.4 percent, and 24.3 percent, respectively.”31 The flood of immigrants did wane after the implementation of the new law in 1917, but it had been dropping significantly ever since 1914 and could therefore be attributed to the outbreak of the First World War, instead of the literacy test.

Prejudices and Perceptions of the different ‘races’

The Dillingham Report provides tangible evidence that racial thinking was a defining factor when it came to immigrant policy before the First World War. Prejudice and misconceptions surrounding immigrants ran rampant, especially the conviction that all ‘new’ immigrants were inherently lazy and inclined toward criminal behavior. However, these were general ideas and beliefs that applied to every immigrant of every background, so what were the prevalent prejudices surrounding immigrants of specifically Russian and German descent? The distinction between the image of the ‘old’ and the ‘new’ immigrants at this time was great. The old immigrants were seen as the giants of the past, as they were the pioneers who had laid the groundwork that made America great. These early immigrants were believed to have had a strong work ethic, to strive towards assimilation, to have good family values

28 Foner, Give me Liberty, 749. 29 John Higham, Strangers in the Land, patterns of American nativism 1860-1925 (New Brunswick; Rutgers University Press, 1992) 162, and: Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers, 18. 30 King, Making Americans, 61. 31 Archdeacon, Becoming American, 152. 10

and be people of the book, that is the Bible (be they Jews or Christians). In contrast, the new immigrants were believed to resist integration into American culture, for they had not come with the intent of settling permanently, and they were only coming for the government handouts. As E. A. Ross defined the distinction, “America’s free land was gone, and ruder peoples, with lower standards of living, were crowding into her labor markets…The current runs still, but it is a current of ‘job seekers’ rather than ‘home seekers’”32 The main worry among the critics of immigration however, was that these ‘new’ immigrants would undermine the values on which America was build and pollute its population with inferior genes.33 It was on this belief, the pollution of a race, that the book The passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant was founded. This book, originally published in 1916, was a best seller at the time. It was based on the idea that the mixing of races through immigration was extremely undesirable, for it would pollute the progressive spirit of America. The preface of the book opens with:

“European history has been written in terms of nationality and of language, but never before in terms of race; yet race has played a far larger part than either language or nationality in moulding the destinies of men; race implies heredity and heredity implies all the moral, social and intellectual characteristics and traits which are the springs of politics and government.”34

It is quite clear from these words that Grant believed that a person was shaped by the race that they belong to, and that that person in turn shapes society. If one follows this logic, the conclusion follows that if a person’s race is polluted, they would automatically become lesser human beings than if their racial background was pure. It was in essence the application of Darwin’s biological evolution theory, applied to social development: The survival of the fittest, best adapted, smartest and purest race. The theory was therefore called Social Darwinism.35 In keeping with this logic, the Germans were believed to be hardworking and desirable immigrants at this time, for they were part of the Western European races. In contrast, the Russians were part of the Eastern European races who were considered lazy and backward, stunted in their development and altogether undesirable.

32 Ross, Edward A., The Old World in the New, the significance of past and present immigration to the American People (New York: The Century Co., 1914) 48, 68. 33 Foner, From Ellis Island to JFK, 3. King, Making Americans, 59. 34 Madison Grant, The Passing of the Great Race or the Racial Basis of European History, fourth Edition (New York; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, original 1916) vii. 35 King, Making Americans, 54. 11

In the period between 1876 and 1915, nearly two and half million Germans and nearly three million ethnic Russians (of which about 300,000 originated from Russia, the remainder were ethnic Russians form other states) emigrated to the United States. Of these numbers however, only 40% of Germans settled permanently, whereas 96% of Russians would become permanent residents.36 The greatest distinction between these two groups, had nothing to do with the number of immigrants however, but rather with their origins and if they had been part of the first immigration waves or not. Germans had been emigrating to the United States since the First Wave in the 18th century. They would often travel with their entire family and found a German enclave in an unsettled area of the East Coast, most often somewhere in Pennsylvania. The people living within these enclaves would speak the German language and retain much of the German culture. They thought of themselves as Germans first and Americans second, founding what is now known as German-American culture. These German enclaves persisted well into the beginning of the twentieth century, which meant that the Americans had become used to their presence.37 By contrast, the Russians did not come to the United States in any significant numbers until the ‘Third Wave’ of the early twentieth century.38 This was mainly due to the new anti-Semitic ‘May Laws’, implemented by the Tsar in 1881-82, which greatly restricted the freedom of Russian Jews, causing many to flee to America.39 E. A. Ross describes this development as follows:

“The first stream of Russo-Hebrew immigrants started flowing in 1882 in consequence of the reactionary policy of Alexander III. It contained many students and members of scholarly families, who stimulated intellectual activity among their fellows here and were leaders in radical thought…The second stream reached us after 1890 and brought immigrants who were not steeped in modern ideas but held to Talmudic traditions and the learning of the rabbis. The more recent flow taps lower social strata and is promoted by economic motives. These later arrivals lack both the idealism of the first stream and the religious culture of the second.”40

36 Matthew Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues, the United States encounters Foreign Peoples at Home and Abroad, 1876-1917 (New York; Hill and Wang, 2000) 64. Archdeacon, Becoming American, 118-119. 37 Marianne Wokeck, ‘German Immigration to Colonial America: Prototype of a Trans-Atlantic mass migration’ in: Trommler, Frank, Josheph McVeigh, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three- hundred-year history, volume one: immigration, language, ethnicity (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 4. Foner, Give me Liberty, 112-114, 748-749. 38 Vladimir Wertsman, The Russians in America, A Chronology & Fact Book (New York: Oceana Publications, 1977) 8. 39 Frye Jacobson, Barbarian Virtues, 64. 40 Ross, The Old World in the New, 145-146. 12

The reason that most of the Russian migrants were Jews was mostly due to the anti-Semite May laws, but as John Commons, professor of political economy at the University of Wisconsin in 1907, describes in his book Race and Immigrants in America, Russia had a tendency to create laws that excluded minorities. Commons reports that due to the constraints of the Russian serf system, which does not allow anyone to move without permission, the main body of Russian immigrants existed of those people Russia no longer desired or tolerated within its borders. Commons describes the Russians migration habits as follows: ‘…does not migrate across the water, but drives away those whom he cannot or will not assimilate.’41 Therefore, those who emigrated from Russia before the First World War mainly consisted of Russian-Jews, Russian-Poles, Russian-Finns, Russian-Lithuanians, and Russian-Germans.42 This development, compared with Ross’s statement above, illustrates the prevailing idea that earlier immigrants were of a better quality than those that followed them, that skilled immigrants were better than unskilled and that most of the migrants which came to America at this time were people who had been rejected by their own societies, which made them ‘undesirables’ in the eyes of the American people. E. A. Ross was a professor of Sociology at the University of Wisconsin between 1906 and 1936, who possessed an outspoken opinion on immigration and the different immigrant races and their usefulness to America in general. He documented these opinions in his book The Old World in the New, published in 1914. Ross’ ideas on immigration are those of one who truly believes that the tide of immigration needs to be curtailed. As he states in his preface:

“I am not of those who consider humanity and forget the nation, who pity the living but not the unborn. To me, those who are to come after us stretch forth beseeching hands as well as the masses on the other side of the globe. Nor do I regard America as something to be spent quickly and cheerfully for the benefit of pent-up millions in the backward lands. What if we become crowded without their ceasing to be so? I regard it as a nation whose future may be of unspeakable value to the rest of mankind, provided that the easier conditions of life here be made permanent by high standards of living, institutions and ideals, which finally may be appropriated by all men.”43

41 Commons, John Roger, Races and Immigrants in America (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1907) 35. 42 Commons, Races and Immigrants in America, 120-121. 43 Ross, The Old World in the New, preface. 13

Ross clearly did not look favorably on immigrants, yet that is exactly what makes his book so valuable when it comes to discovering the imagery and prejudices surrounding the different immigrant ‘races’. Ross ordered his book in terms of the different immigrant groups, and in every chapter, he describes the different immigrant races in terms of desirable and undesirable characteristics that he attributes to every member of that particular ethnic origin, which is the very definition of a stereotype. The three chapters of this book that are of particular interest in this analysis are Chapter III, the Germans, Chapter VI, The Slavs and Chapter VII, The Eastern European Hebrew. The latter two chapters combined provide the image of the Russian migrant, for as stated above, the Russian migrants consisted mostly of Jews, and it is clear from Ross’s description of the Slavs that he considered the Russians to be a part of that group as he names them among the Poles, Bohemians, Moravians, Slovakians, Croatians etc. at the start of that particular chapter.44 Ross’s opinion of the Slavs can only be described as unfavorable which is illustrated from his general description of this group:

…the bulk of the Slavs remain on a much lower plane of culture. In ignorance and `illiteracy, in the prevalence of superstition and priestcraft, in the harshness of church and state, in the subservience on the common people to the upper classes, in the low position of women, in the subjection of the child to the parent, in coarseness of manner and speech, and in low standards of cleanliness and comfort, a large part of the Slavic world remains at the level of our English forefathers in the days of Henry the Eighth.45

In this paragraph Ross summarizes all the problems he believed the Slavic people to have, which he described in detail in the rest of the chapter. According to Ross, the Slavs mostly worked as unskilled laborers, for they did not possess the education or intelligence to fill any other kinds of jobs, and they were used to taking orders due to the serf systems their home countries still employed. In addition, they were all physically strong and hard-muscled which made them ideal as “the unskilled laborer in the basic industries”. Ross is particularly vocal on his disapproval of their family dynamics. He described in detail how the Slavic man considered his wife his property and that her only use was to bear him children, of which the Slavs had too many in Ross’s opinion. They also behaved in a barbaric and uncivilized manner and consumed alcohol to excess. On their criminal behavior Ross states: “The Bohemians have about the same criminal tendencies as the Germans. The other Slavs reveal the

44 Ibidem, 124. 45 Ibidem, 123-124. 14

propensities of a rude, undeveloped people of undisciplined primitive passions. Animosity rather than cupidity is the motive of crime. When the Slav seeks illicit gain, he takes the direct path of violence rather than the devious path of chicane; he commits robbery or burglary rather than theft or fraud or extortion.”46 Ross concludes his chapter by stating that America should fear a further influx of Slavic immigrants, especially the Russians, for they had not come in force until that point, preferring to send their unwanted citizens ahead of them, but the “true Russian” had so far not emigrated to the United States.47 Overall Ross was very negative about the Slavic people, as the only part he seems to admire was their willingness to work in very dangerous circumstances, and even then he alluded that the only reason they were willing to do that was the fact that they simply did not understand the danger. This description however, does not give us a clear view of the prejudice concerning the Russian immigrants, for Ross does not discuss the Russians in detail in his chapter on the Slavic races. He does however, discuss the Russian-Hebrews in detail in his next chapter. Ross described the Russian-Hebrews in terms of occupations, morals, crime and racial traits. According to Ross, two-fifths of the Russian-Hebrews worked in the garment industry. The other three-fifths are either occupied in the tobacco industry or the distilleries, “…the Jewish distiller is almost as typical as the German Brewer.”48 The majority however is occupied in the Sales industry, be it peddler, pawnbroker, bankers or heads of department stores. In Ross’s view, “None can beat a Jew at a bargain, for through all the intricacies of commerce he can scent his profit.”49 The job proclivities that this group displayed were according to Ross due to their race- traits and morals. The moral code of the Eastern European Jew was steeped in a sense of strong family values. They were a close knit community, and the cooperation among them was great. However, their attitude towards outsiders seemed to be based, according to Ross, on a belief that they deserved more than everyone else. “The Jewish… are always seeking something extra… The last thing a son of Jacob wants… is a square deal.”50 He also stated that the Easter European Jew displayed four distinct racial traits. The first is a high measure of intelligence; “On the whole, the Russo-Jewish immigration is richer in gray matter than any other recent

46 Ibidem, 129. 47 Ibidem, 140. 48 Ibidem, 147. 49 Ibidem, 147-148. 50 Ibidem, 149. 15

stream, and it may be richer than any large inflow since the colonial era.” Ross was however, less positive about the manner in which these immigrants used their intelligence, which becomes clearer in his description of their second trait: abstractness. What he meant with this is that the Jew, more than any other race, was capable of thinking in an abstract manner, which made them excel in literature, music, acting and theology, yet fail at the manipulation of materials and the study of nature. For the Jew “does not relish his work […] what he cares for is the value in it … he makes his craft a mere stepping-stone to business…” The third racial trait was defined as ‘little feeling for the particular’, which indicates a certain level of adaptability that brands the Jew as ‘no gentleman’, yet; “flexible and rational the Jewish mind cannot be bound by convention” Lastly the Jew displays a tenacity of purpose, which in essence means that they were extremely stubborn. This trait originated, according to Ross, from their nomadic background, and it served them well when it came to their careers but it has also earned them the epithet of ‘stiff necked’.51 These racial traits and morals combined with criminal behavior, Ross called “criminals of cunning [rather] than criminals of violence”52 Jews at this time had a reputation of being un-commonly law-abiding. Ross however, did not believe that this was because they truly were less inclined toward criminal behavior. In his opinion it had more to do with the type of criminality they practice; “gambling, larceny, and the receiving of stolen goods rather than…crimes of robbery and burglary”.53 In his last paragraph, Ross described the prejudice that these Russian Jews experience in the following manner;

“In New York, the line is drawn against the Jews in hotels, resorts, clubs and private schools, and constantly this line hardens and extends. They cry ‘Bigotry’ but bigotry has little or nothing to do with it. What is disliked in the Jews is not their religion but certain ways and manners. Moreover, the Gentile resents being obliged to engage in a humiliating and undignified scramble in order to keep his trade or his clients against the Jewish Invader.”54

It is evident from Ross’s description that the Russian-Jews were considered to have strong family values and a keen intelligence, but that their manner toward others was considered selfish, rude, ill-considered and sneaky, where the latter is mostly applicable to their

51 Ibidem, 159-164. 52 Ibidem, 155. 53 Ibidem, 155. 54 Ibidem, 164. 16

businesses and criminal tendencies. Yet how much of Ross’s description of the Russian- Hebrew applies to the Russians immigrant in general and how much to anti-Semite ideas? Anti-Semitism was common during the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, and just as in Europe it ran rampant from the 1920s to 1940s in America. This Anti-Semitism was based on a number of negative images and preconceptions that surrounded the Jewish people at this time. The first was that the Jew was always associated with money. The average American believed that the average Jews was richer than they were. However, this was not always seen as a negative image, as long as they had come by their wealth in an honest manner. The true Anti-Semite saw the Jews not simply as richer, but as money mad and un-ethical in the way that they came by their wealth. This allegation of un-ethical behavior was also attributed to the Jewish businesses, a quarter of the American public believed Jewish businesses to be dishonest and unethical in their dealings with others. A third prevalent prejudice about the Jews was that they were clannish people. Ever since the middle ages, Jews were often forced to live in their own communities and neighborhoods, a practice they maintained even after it was no longer mandatory. Applying this practice when they came to America made about twenty-six percent of Americans believe that they did not wish to become a part of American society and that they only cared about their own kind. The fourth and fifth prejudices stated that the Jews were prideful and conceited, because the Jews saw themselves as ‘Gods Chosen People’. This is directly stated in the Tora, but made the American think that the Jews saw themselves as better than Christians. The sixth and most prevalent prejudice surrounding Jews was that they were power hungry. Fifty-four percent of Americans believed that they Jews wished to always be on top of things and that they controlled the movie and television industry, and thirty percent believed that they controlled international banking. The last prejudice, and the least widespread, states that the Jews were pushy, aggressive and intrusive. About eighteen percent of Americans believed that Jews were pushy and aggressive in their business dealings and that they often intruded where they were not wanted.55 Many of these prejudices directed at the Jewish community are similar to Ross’s description of the Russo-Hebrew, for they are both seen as communal, anti-social to outsiders, greedy, profit oriented, opportunistic and intrusive. This means that those traits cannot be attributed specifically to the Russians as an ethnic group but rather is should be seen as the

55 Quinley, Harold E., Charles Y. Glock, Anti-Semitism in America (New York: The Free Press, A division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979) 2-5. 17

anti-Semite believes being projected onto the Russian Jews, thereby making the American see the Russians in the same light as the Jews, and making it nearly impossible to separate one group from the other. The Slavs too are viewed as communal and anti-social, however, when Ross’s description of the Jews is put in comparison to the Slavs, two great distinctions emerge. The first is that he views the Slavs as cruel to their families, while he does not hold a similar opinion on the Russian-Hebrews, all he states on the subject concerning the Jews is that they are very family oriented but not cruel to one another. The second distinction concerns their level of intelligence. Ross clearly believes the Slavs to be very unintelligent, yet he waxes poetic on the cranial capacity of the Russian-Jews. Which then is true about the general American view of the Russian immigrant? In a New York times article published 27 February 1907, the author describes the Russian intelligence levels as follows: “I am told by well posted people that public education, especially in high school and colleges is in fearful shape. Nobody has studied for the last three years, and for a decade previous to 1904 only purely formal rules were enforced so ignorance is on the increase”.56 These words corroborate Ross’s assertions that the Slavs and by extension the Russians, were less intelligent due to a lack of education. This description viewed in connection with the fact that Jews in general were considered intelligent, lead to the conclusion that the Russians were on average considered an unintelligent people. The only aspect that can be stated as an absolute fact based on these two sources however, is that the Russian immigrants were viewed in a negative light, and seen as an undesirable group of immigrants who were unwanted in their own countries as opposed to Jews who were viewed in a more positive light.

The German experience with immigration and integration into the American culture was quite different from that of the Russians, which was mostly due to their far more extended history with the country. The Germans had been emigrating to America in large numbers since before the Civil War, and had retained much of their culture. As John Roger Commons noted in 1907, if America existed of 14243 people, 10376 of them would be English, 1439 would be Irish, and 659 would be German, making them the third largest racial group in America.57 In the same logic, only 1 person would be Russian. This means that the ratio of Germans to

56 Newspaper article: ‘New Duma’s life may be short’, 27 February 1907, The New York Times digital archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1907/02/27/106742023.html, (last accessed on 26- 06-2016). 57 Commons, Races and Immigrants in America, 44. 18

Russians in early twentieth century America was 659 to 1, making the German presence in America far larger than the Russian, and therefore more visible to the average American. In addition, Commons also reported that the Germans did not integrate with the other cultures, ‘…they were compelled to move to the interior, to become frontiersmen, to earn their living directly from the soil, and to leave to their English-sprung predecessors the more prominent occupations of politics, literature, law, commerce, and the army. The Germans, … were further handicapped by their language and isolation, which continue to this day in the counties of Pennsylvania where they originally settled.”58 These German immigrants however, had long been settled and were therefore no longer a part of the increased immigration of the early 20th century. That did not mean that there were no more Germans coming to America during that period, however, for as Commons states, in 1882 nearly 250,630 Germans arrived in America and in 1902 another 26,304. Most of these immigrants were relatives of the previous group, seeking to reunite their families. Others fled to America in the hope of escaping military service.59 The fact that Germans had been a part of America’s colonial history meant that they were seen in a more favorable light than the Russians. This is clearly reflected in Ross’s description of their race. Just as with the Russians, Ross describes their proclivities toward jobs, trivial pursuits and criminal behavior. He mainly states that the German identifies strongly with farm life:

“Thanks partly to good farming and frugal living, and partly to the un-American practice of working their women in the fields, the German-American farmers made money, bought choice acres from under their neighbors’ feet, and so kept other nationalities on the move. This is the reason why a German settlement spreads on fat soil and why in time the best land in the region is likely to come into German hands.”60

Yet that they are mostly farmers, does not mean that their culture was simple or left nothing to admire. Ross emphasizes that the Germans have spread their love of good music and high- quality drama. According to Ross, it was due to the German influence that many Americans lost the puritan stiffness and learned to enjoy the pleasures of life. This included the enjoyment of fine spirits, for he writes that although the German loves a good beer, he knows his limits,

58 Ibidem, 46-47. 59 Ibidem, 98-99, 101. 60 Ross, The Old world in the New, 53. 19

in stark contrast to the Irish or even the Native Americans.61 Not only did the Germans provide a new form of enjoying life, but they also introduced America to a wealth of thought, through their philosophy and ‘dignity of science’, although Ross does state that this was mostly introduced by Americans who studied at German universities.62 Even in the German political aptitude Ross finds something to admire: ‘No immigrants have been more apt to look at public questions from a common-welfare point of view and to vote for their principles rather than for their friend.’63 Ross’s idea on the superiority of German culture is most evident in his description of their criminal activities; ‘…the German lacks distinction in evil, never coming near either the top or the bottom, of the scale in predilection for any form of crime. On the whole the criminal bent is very close to that of the Native American.’64 In contrast, Ross describes the other races as all having a clear flaw, the French and Hebrews violate chastity laws, the Italians lead in murder and blackmail, the Greeks in kidnapping and the Irish in disorderly conduct, yet the Germans can do no wrong, something that becomes even more evident when Ross describes the Germans’ racial traits. Ross names the Germans as a stocky race who, when blended with the lankier American should produce fine offspring. The German is a social creature who takes his pleasures sitting down, he can often be hardheaded but apt to gain skill and deliver good work. Ross notes that the German displays a complexity of thought that often leaves him silent, yet makes sure he is comprehensive and thorough before voicing his thoughts, which according to Ross makes him a born investigator. The only true critique that Ross expresses is that the German is often materialistic and that the German-Americans of later generation lose the idealism, spirit and resemblance to the Germans of the old country that their ancestors displayed.65 Overall it is quite clear that Ross believed the Germans to be a superior race, however when you read between the lines, you get a sense that he still sees them as inferior to the Americans, for he often compares the two, and always finds the Germans slightly lacking, or in need of education. That the Americans thought highly of the Germans and valued its German-American citizens is further evidenced by the fact that the New York Times published a generous amount of articles on matters concerning this group. On 2 October 1900 it published an article in

61 Ibidem, 54, 60. 62 Ibidem, 58. 63 Ibidem, 57. 64 Ibidem, 62. 65 Ibidem, 63-66. 20

which they stated that the German-Americans would be voting for the Republican presidential candidate William McKinley, proving that this demographic group was considered important when it came to winning electoral votes.66 In another article, published 6 October 1907, The New York Times reported on the Fourth Biennial convention of the German-American National Alliance, where the topic of discussion is the Germany influence in American history.67 This proves that the Germans were aware of their influence in American society. A development that is underscored by the report of a German-American protest against the new consular regulations, which prevented them from doing business in both Germany and America, published 2 February 1908.68 Evidently, the German-Americans were understood to be a large part of the American population, important enough to publish on their opinions concerning presidential elections and they were aware of the fact, for they felt that their protests concerning new legislation would be heard and headed. Ross’s and Commons descriptions of these two distinct races are the very definition of stereotypes. However, they provide us with the most likely way in which the American of the early 20th century viewed these two immigrant groups. This is evidenced by the fact that many of the assertions Ross and Commons made about the different races are corroborated by the way these two groups are discussed in the New York Times in the year leading up to 1914. As well as the fact that they are nearly identical, if more subjective, to the description of both races and the Jews in The Dictionary of Races and Peoples, published by the Immigrant commission in 1911.69 This was a view is further supported by Frederick Luebke in his essay on the stereotypes of German immigrants in America. However, Leubke adds a further dimension to the discussion by stating that there was a distinct difference in the way that upper class and lower class Americans viewed the immigrants, for those of the upper class mostly dealt with those who had either been to German universities or university educated Germans, where the lower classes formed their image by rubbing elbows with the barbers, farmers and shopkeepers. In the overall and generalized view of the Germans however, he echoes Ross’s

66 Newspaper article: ‘German-Americans vote’, 2 October 1900, The New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1900/10/02/101067326.html, (last accessed on: 26-06-2016). 67 Newspaper article: ‘German-Americans’ plans, alliance discusses recognition of German influence in our history’, 6 October 1907, The New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1907/10/06/106764294.html, (last accessed on: 26-06-2016). 68 Newspaper article: ‘German-Americans Protest, naturalizes citizens of this country annoyed by consular regulations’, 2 February 1908, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1908/02/02/104716861.html, (last accessed on: 26-06-2016). 69 The Immigrant Commission, Dictionary of Races or Peoples (Washington: Government printing office, 1911) 64-68, 73-75, 111-115. 21

description.70 Despite the fact that these are stereotypes, it is quite clear that before the First World War the German was in general accepted as part of America, where the Russian (specifically the Russian-Hebrew) was still very much a newcomer and a social outsider. However, the events of the First World War would adversely affect these perceptions.

70 Frederick Luebke, ‘Images of German Immigrants in the United States and Brazil, 1990-1918: Some comparisons’, in: Trommler, Frank, Josheph McVeigh, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three- hundred-year history, volume one: immigration, language, ethnicity (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 209. 22

Chapter 2: The Great War and Immigration

The First World War broke out in 1914; it would last until 1918 and become the most devastating conflict that the world had seen to date. Yet until 1917, it was to remain largely a European and imperial conflict, for the United States did not participate in a military capacity until after the Russian Revolution in 1917. However, the fact that it came into the conflict late did not mean that the United States remained unaffected by it between 1914 and 1917.71 During the first years of the war, President Wilson was a staunch supporter of American neutrality and he tried diligently to be a peace arbitrator between the Allied and Axis powers, thereby involving the country in the conflict, if not in a military fashion. In addition, by placing himself in this position, he broke with the American policy of nonintervention that had been prevalent throughout the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth century. Wilson hoped that by remaining neutral and brokering peace between the European nations, he could save Europe from itself as well as gain the financial benefits that walked hand in hand with war. However, as the war progressed, Wilson realized that this idealistic attitude could not be maintained. The sinking of the Lusitania, an American passenger ship, by the German unrestricted submarine warfare around the British Isles in May 1915, adversely affected American public opinion toward the Germans. Also, by 1915, the allied powers had become so dependent on American aid that Wilson could no longer remain completely neutral.72 Therefore he implemented a policy of ‘preparedness’, steadily increasing the US armed forces in preparation for war and with the intention of scaring Germany into leaving America alone.73 This policy worked for a time, for it briefly ended the Germans’ submarine threat, but also compromised America’s position as a peace arbitrator. America maintained this mostly neutral position until March of 1917, when Germany resumed their unrestrained submarine warfare around the British Isles, sinking several more American passenger vessels. In addition, the British intercepted a German telegram intended for Mexico, in which the Germans promised Mexico the territories they lost to the US in the 19th century if they joined the Axis powers. These two measures combined meant that Wilson was now forced to declare war on Germany, a motion which passed through Congress without

71 Foner, Give me Liberty, 734. Koch, Een Kleine Geschiedenis, 293-296. 72 Floyd, M. Ryan, Abandoning American Neutrality, Woodrow Wilson and the Beginning of the Great War, august 1914-december 1915 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013) 3-6. 73 Foner, Give me Liberty, 734-735. 23

much opposition.74 In his speech before Congress, Wilson stated that he meant to answer Germany’s aggression with war for it was the only solution possible, yet the most famous and also most interesting part of this speech were the following words: ‘The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundation of political liberty.’75 Both the moment at which Wilson declared war and these words specifically are curious, for in nearly the same month that America declared war on the German Empire (not the Axis powers in general), there was another momentous event: The Russian Revolution. The Russian Revolution took place at the end of February and beginning of March, 1917. It was not an organized event but sprung up out of the public unrest caused by heavy war losses and food shortages. The unrest lasted until the 15th of March when Tsar Nicolas abdicated the throne and Russia became a republic. Instead of the imperial regime, a provisional government was formed which intended to continue the war effort on the eastern front. That Wilson spoke of making the world safe for democracy, while declaring war on an imperial state, and Communism being on the rise in Russia seems like more than a coincidence. This chapter will therefore focus on the changes these two events brought about when it came to the perception of Russians and Germans within America.

Changes in perception and the effects of war propaganda

Wilson’s ‘preparedness’ policy of 1915 meant that most of the armed forces required more recruits to fill their ranks. And the most effective recruitment policy is to give people an enemy to fight against. It is clear from Wilson’s speech to Congress that the US found this enemy in the German nation, for he employed the word ‘German’ or a variation thereof twenty times in a speech of sixteen paragraphs.76 It is therefore unsurprising that the image of the German as the enemy surfaced quite often on the face of propaganda and recruitment posters. How did the government portray the Germans on these posters and how did this affect the life of the German-Americans? The posters in which the German as the enemy played a central role that were employed between 1914-1918, enticed people to do two things: to enlist in the armed

74 Foner, Give me Liberty, 735. 75 Woodrow Wilson in: John Braeman, Wilson, Great lives observed, (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall INC., 1972) 67. 76 Woodrow Wilson in: Braeman, Wilson, Great lives observed, 63-67.

24

forces, or to buy war bonds and thus raise money for the war. A theme can be discerned from the strategies the posters employ in order to entice the American masses. To start with, the recruitment posters attempt to recruit young men by enlisting one of three options. Either scare people by portraying the Huns as monsters, make them proud of the accomplishments of the men that serve in the armed forces, or use humor to ridicule the enemy. One of the most well-known and iconic posters of this time portrayed the ‘Hun’ as a very large ape, carrying a half-naked and distressed woman in one arm, and a club with the word ‘Kultur’ in the opposite hand. On his head sits an imperial German helmet on which the word ‘militarism’ is written. Behind the ape, on the horizon of the poster, a ruined city is shown and the ape is standing on the sand of a beach, and beneath his feet the word ‘America’ is displayed. Above and beneath the ape are the words ‘Destroy this mad brute, enlist US Army.’77 It is clear from this image that the Ape is supposed to be a German soldier walking into America, there to bring a militaristic political system, destroy the cities, beat their ‘Kultur’ into the American people and violate the American women. It is an image that clearly clashes with the image of the jovial, hardworking and cultured German that had been prevalent before the war. Yet we cannot assume that the image of the German so drastically changed based on only one image. The poster described above was, however, far from being the only recruitment poster that displayed the German as a brutal and uncivilized ‘Hun’, although it was the only one that displayed them as apes. Another poster was perhaps even more unsettling for it was subtler in its display of German brutality. The main image was that of a pirate who looked suspiciously like the German Kaiser with a skull and crossbones on his imperial helmet and a bloodied scimitar and dagger in both hands. Like the ape, he is stepping onto the beach out of the tumultuous waves of the ocean. The brutality of the image however cannot be found in the main figure but what is displayed at his feet. It is easy to miss at first glance but beneath the waves, there were shapes of dead people, and all are women or children. At the bottom of the poster the words ‘only the navy can stop this’ are emblazoned. The fact that only the swords, the Kaisers’ nose and the words are in red, where the rest of the image is black and white makes the entire image feel eerie.78

77 First World War Propaganda Posters, 1914-1918, comprehensive website on the First World War, http://firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm (last accessed on: 29-5-2016) 78 First World War Propaganda Posters, 1914-1918, comprehensive website on the First World War, http://firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm (last accessed on: 29-5-2016). 25

The other recruitment and war bond posters of the time employ a combination of pride and humor in their strategy. For example, one of the posters proudly proclaims that the German soldiers call the American troops ‘teufel hunden’ or ‘devil dogs’ with the image of an American bulldog chasing a German dachshund. Or they are attempting to recruit pilots, by showing them two eagles fighting, the American eagle is a healthy, even beautiful bird, clearly superior to the gray and sickly looking German version of the same species. Another tactic they employ is to incite anger by displaying the way the Germans treat and ridicule their prisoners of war. This poster tells the story of how some ‘fishermen’ were caught and sentenced to be ridiculed without trial. Their heads were shaved of hair on one side and they were marched through town to be laughed at by the German people. And lastly they display humor, when the image of a giant boot, clearly worn by uncle Sam, in coming down on a tiny and ridiculous image of the German Kaiser.79

79 Ibidem, (last accessed on: 29-5-2016). 26

27

These posters portray a very different image of the German people from the one that surrounded the ethnicity before the war. The German had gone from a sociable, hardworking and culture rich people, to a ‘Hun’, portrayed as violent apes, burning, raping and pillaging everything in their way. These posters were visible throughout the United States and people were confronted with them every day, instigating a period of rejection and prosecution of the German-Americans, causing many that had been so proud of their background before the war to now distance themselves from their ethnic heritage. Before the war, nearly a quarter of all high school children in the U.S. studied German and many people still spoke German to each other in the Pennsylvanian enclaves, but it did not take long into the war years for it to be prohibited to speak any language other than English. After the war only one percent of high school children still studied German. In addition, many communities banned German music or any other form of German culture.80 This separation from anything to do with the German language and culture even went so far that they renamed persons, food, streets, parks and towns that were even remotely connected with anything German. When America officially declared war on Germany, this behavior toward the Germans escalated, and Americans imagined that they saw signs of German sabotage everywhere. For example, believing that German Red Cross volunteers were putting glass in the bandages or purposely spreading influenza, or they thought that every German who they came in contact with were German spies.81 This is evidenced by a newspaper article, published 11 May 1915: “Lindell T. Bates, son of Lindon W Bates of New York…was arrested at Kinsale yesterday on the charge of espionage while searching for the body of his brother, Lindon W. Bates, Jr., who is believed to have perished on the Lusitania…The Sergeant who made the arrests accused them of being officers of a German submarine. After having been confronted with a Captain, they were being detained at the Barracks half an hour, until United States Consul Frost, at Queenstown, vouched for their innocence.”82 Besides accusing them of espionage, many Americans forced German-Americans to kiss the American flag, buy war bonds or sing the anthem in a show of patriotism. German language newspapers

80 Foner, Give me Liberty, 748-749. 81 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 207-208. 82 Newspaper article: ‘Hold Searchers as Spies, soldiers mistake American for German submarine officers.’, 11 May 1915, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1915/05/11/100153280.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 28

were closely monitored, and books were burned. There were also frequent instances of vandalism, beatings, arrests for illegal patriotic utterances and even a lynching.83 The escalation of the anti-German behavior after the war declaration in 1917 becomes quite evident through the analysis of Newspaper articles that mention the German-Americans. Before 1917, the mention of German-Americans can mostly be found in articles where professors and intellectual of German descent, try to ease the tension by elaborating on the contribution Germany made to America in the last few decades, and by underscoring that German-Americans are not strictly speaking German.84 Or they try to put the war and its effect on the American and German people into perspective, as evidence by the article written by Prof. Hugo Munsterberg of Harvard published The impeachment of German-Americans in the New York Time, published 19 September 1915 in which he states:

“This is not written in my own defense. Whenever during this year of displeasure Gramophonic voices have thundered against me the crushing question, are you an American or merely a German-American? I have answered every time with a clear conscience: Neither. I am a German and have never intended to be anything else… I have always proclaimed – the history of the war has proved the complete through of this conviction – that not the practical interests, but feeling sand emotions control the political events. The feelings between nations depend upon their mutual understanding. The harmony between Germany, England, and the United States at which I aimed could thus best be furthered if I helped to interpreted the German ideals to the English-speaking lands and the Anglo-Saxon ideals to Germany…I did not attack the enemies of Germany, but tried to show that Germany was not to be blamed either, that every country fulfilled its historic duty.85

What these articles have in common is that they try to act as a counter balance to the anti- German feelings by explaining the German culture or the German motives behind the war, and they employ a mild and persuasive tone in doing so. This changes drastically after 1917 when there is an influx of articles that call for German-Americans to demonstrate their loyalty to America. On 5 April 1917, the New York times published an appeal by the ex-Mayor of

83 Luebke, Images of German Immigrants, in: Trommler, McVeigh, American and the Germans, (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 2016. 84 Newspaper article: ‘An Anthropologist on German-Americans’, 10 January 1916, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1916/01/10/104662345.html, (Last Accessed on: 27- 06-2016), Newspaper Article: ‘Says Germans fail to uplift America, little infusion of German Thought into Country’s life, dr. von Kleuze Declares.’, 23 October 1916, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1916/10/23/100223688.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 85 Newspaper article: prof. Hugo Munsterberg of Harvard ‘The impeachment of German-Americans’, 19 September, 1915, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1915/09/19/301821662.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 29

Philadelphia, who was himself of German descent, to the German-Americans: “In this hour of stress and strife it behooves all citizens of German birth or descent to declare their unflinching allegiance to the country of their adoption and to show by word and deed that they are true and unfaltering Americans…We have sworn troth to the flag and we shall follow the flag, ready to do our duty…We are not German-Americans, but Americans of German birth or descent, and as Americans we shall live and, if need be, die.”86 This appeal to pledge allegiance, came on the heels of a pledge by Henry Weismann, president of the German- American Alliance, to support president Wilson.87 These pledges were instigated and called upon by the German-Americans themselves, but they were also encouraged by the Americans, as evidenced by an article published on 12 July 1917, in which the New York Times reports on a declaration by the Security League. “German-Americans were called upon to assemble in meetings and condemn the German Government’s conduct of the war and to show their loyalty to the United States in resolutions which were adopted by the Executive Committee or the National Security League… by standing up and being counted, German-Americans could distance themselves from any stigma and at the same time show the German Government that this country was not divided.”88 Not all German-Americans heeded this advice or let the Americans treat them as spies and unwanted citizens. On 25 September 1917, the NY Times reported: “The German-American Central Association of Newark is drawing up a protest to Congress against ‘the spread of Slanderous stories throughout the land’… ‘the Foreign Rabble under cover of our association with the allies are going about sowing seeds of hatred and discord by their lies about the German soldiery. We know, and every German knows, they are lies, but the average American doesn’t know, and we have a right to be protected against these stories.’”89 Not every American was unware of the slander or agreed with this treatment of the Germans, however, for in his essay, American use for German Ideals, written in 1915, Randolph Bourne makes an impassioned argument that Americans could still learn from the

86 Newspaper article: ‘To German Americans, an appeal by ex-Mayor Brandenburg to be true to their oath’ 5 April 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/04/05/102329066.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 87 Newspaper article: ‘Pledges German-Americans, Henry Weismann, president of Alliance, backs Wilson.’ 5 March 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/03/05/102320406.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 88 Newspaper article: ‘Want Loyalty Shown. Security League urges German-Americans to declare themselves.’ 12 July 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/07/12/96255017.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 89 Newspaper article: ‘German-Americans Protest.’, 25 September 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/09/25/102367639.html, (last accessed on: 27-06-2016). 30

culture they so thoroughly rejected. In this short essay of two and half pages, Bourne underscored the American hypocrisy in the matter concerning the Germans. ‘In all the intensity of feeling aroused by the war, we have somehow let escape us the consideration that the German ideals are the only broad and seizing ones that have lived in the world in our generation.’90 These two short lines, the opening sentences of the essay, summarize Bourne’s whole point; that Americans need to remember that before they started the war, the German culture was considered the height of fashion:

‘British political thought for forty years has come straight from German sources…Our educational framework has been German, though unintelligently so. Architecture and art-forms in England and Scandinavia are strikingly German. Town-planning methods and ideals have been lifted bodily… Scarcely a country has been untouched by German influence. No other country, except Russia, has been so flooding in its influence over the twentieth-century world…We cannot seriously think merely of spewing everything German out of our mouths. To refuse the patient German science, the collectivist art, the valor of the German ideals, would be simply to expatriate ourselves from the modern world. They will not halt for any paltry distaste of ours. By taking sides against Germany we have committed ourselves to the arduous task of setting up ideal more worthy than hers to win the allegiance of our generation and time.’ 91

It is clear from these words that Bourne thought highly of the German culture, and believed the Americans to be too hasty in their condemnation of the entire culture. He even went to see it for himself in 1914, when he went there on holiday just before the War broke out. Bourne names Nietzsche and Hegel as counting among the most influential philosophers of the century.92 This admiration is probably why he singled out the way the Germans were treated by the Americans in favor of the other cultures, immigrant or otherwise, that were being repressed in his society during his time. From his words on the treatment of Germans and their culture, it is apparent that Bourne was very disappointed in the way Americans shunned everything that had to do with their ‘enemy’, even aspects of their culture that were quite harmless, like language, art, or

90 Randolph Bourne, ‘American use for German Ideals’ (1915) in: Bourne, War and the intellectuals: collected essays, 1915-1919, 48. 91 Randolph Bourne, ‘American use for German Ideals’ (1915) in: Bourne, War and the intellectuals: collected essays, 1915-1919, pp. 48-49, 50. 92 Christopher Phelps, ‘The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne’ Social Democracy, vol. 21, no. 1 (March 2007) 125. Randolph Bourne, ‘American use for German Ideals’ (1915) in: R. Bourne, War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919 (1964) 50. 31

foodstuffs. It was the same kind of prejudicial behavior and generalized judgment that was quite common toward immigrants at this time. It would not be so farfetched to conclude that Bourne, even if he does not discuss it in so many words, did not agree with the way the immigrants and their cultures were treated any more than he agreed with the American treatment of the German culture during the First World War. Even the name of the essay, American use for German Ideals, suggests that Bourne wants Americans to learn something from the German society that they so readily shun, advice they clearly ignored during the war. The combination of the propaganda posters, newspaper articles, reports of the American public behavior toward the German minorities and Bourne’s commentary, tell us that the American perception of the German and the German-American changed drastically during and due to the war. The sociable, good natured German became the ‘Hun’, a brutish figure who would bring chaos to America. The German-Americans meanwhile were harassed, accused of being spies for the Germans and forced to declare their loyalty to the United States. As a result, many German-American leaders called for a demonstration of complete alliance in the Newspapers. This change was present in 1914, but gradually escalated until 1917 when American became an active participant in the Allied war effort.

Revolution and the clash of political systems

Unlike the Germans, the American perception of the Russian and the Russian immigrant did not change drastically with the outbreak of war in Europe, as Imperial Russia was a part of the Allied forces which meant they were an ally of the Americans until 1917. The main event that influenced the perception of Russians as an ethnicity within America was therefore not, or not only, the war, but the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Russian Revolution and the new government it had installed were lauded by the Allied forces, especially its newest member America, who had been uncomfortable about starting a war that would clear the way for democracy, as Wilson had put it, at the side of one of the most autocratic regimes of the early 20th century. This new government, however, was no more successful in beating back the Germans than the Tsarist regime had been, and therefore was unable to relieve the unrest that had plagued Russia for years and had led to the Revolution. After a heavy defeat at Riga on 1 September 1917, the Russians effectively withdrew from the war. Lenin’s party, the Bolshevik communists, supported by the Germans (for Lenin openly stated that he wished to end Russian

32

involvement in the war), took advantage of the ongoing unrest and managed to overthrow the provisional republic by October of 1917, thereby officially ending Russia’s part in the First World War and establishing the first communist government.93 Russian-American relations before the First World War could at best be described as ‘amicable’, and were mostly based on economic benefits for both countries. The trade between the two counties consisted mainly of Russians buying American machinery and goods that would aid the country in its march toward industrialization.94 President William Howard Taft, predecessor to Woodrow Wilson, gave a few speeches to Congress about increased trade between the two countries. His tone in these lines is cordial, but he places heavy emphasis on the signed treaties and the fact that Russia should hold both to the letter and the spirit of these accords when dealing with Russian-American trade relations.95 Aside from trade, the cordial relationship between the two countries was also based on the fact that the Russian Tsar supported America as a counterweight to Great Britain. By joining together, they could often oppose the British naval power or simply take a stand against British foreign policies.96 This mutually beneficial relationship started to fray at the beginning of the 20th century. In 1911, there was a growing civil unrest aimed at the Russian Tsar and his anti- Semite laws. These laws, as previously discussed in chapter one, prevented Jews from signing deeds, mortgages or rental agreements, and restricted their occupations and education, forcing many Russian-Jews to seek a better life in America, forming the bulk of the Russian immigrants that entered America. The second grievance that was present at this time among the Jewish Americans had to do with Russian policy toward Jews wishing to enter Russia. The Russian government prevented Jews from entering the country, even if they held a valid American passport, even subjecting them to a religious test at the border. The American Jewish Committee took the plight of these immigrants and the Russian discrimination of Jews to heart and started a campaign to raise awareness of the Tsar’s policy by calling for the abolition of the commercial treaty between the two counties. Instead they wanted a treaty that would force Russia to treat foreigners that visited the country equally. The committee managed to get the backing of none other than prospective President Woodrow Wilson, who

93 Koch, Een kleine Geschiedenis, 296-301. 94 Donald E. Davis, Eugene P. Trani, The First Cold War, The legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S. – Soviet Relations (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002) 3-4. 95 President William Howard Taft, in: Staley S. Jados, Documents on Russian-American Relations, Washington tot Eisenhower (Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1965) 42-43. 96 Benson Lee Grayson, Russian – American Relations in World War 1 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979) 5-7. 33

stated that Americans were unwilling to profit from the prosperity that came from trade with Russia if Americans were forced to suffer contempt for it.97 The Committee’s cause met with limited success as they had wished to incite the Jewish communities of France, Great Britain and Germany to support it as well, yet failed in their ambition. In their own country, however, they managed to elicit a political response. President Taft addressed the matter as follows in his annual message to Congress in 1911, stating that the ambassador was negotiating with the Russians.98 According to the American Ambassador in Russia, the Russians admitted that they would never allow Jews who carried an American passport into Russia. However, the Russians were prepared to consider a treaty that would transfer every Russian-Jew to America; a statement that supports Commons’ claim that the Russian emigrants consisted of those minorities that Russia no longer tolerated within its borders.99 This matter of the Jewish Russians, the Russian-American protests and the political reaction to it, was significant during these pre-Revolution years due to two reasons. The first was that is raised awareness for the plight of Russian-Jews among the American public. The second reason is that they raised a political question, why did America ally itself with an imperial and autocratic system that thoroughly oppressed and mistreated a minority? On 19 July 1914, the New York times published an elaborate article named The Exodus from Russia and its meaning, how the Government System of Oppression is Affecting the Countries which are receiving the Steady Stream of Russian Refugees. This article states that the main reason that America experiences so many Russian-Jewish immigrants, was due to the cruel and inhuman way that they are treated in their own country: “Cannot some successful means be devised against senseless torture of human beings, some league against the barbarous murder of people, leaving out of the question whether the moral torture of Jewish legislation or pogrom is the more infamous?... I am sure the whole of educated Russia would co-operate even though its leaders are imprisoned, banished and sent to penal servitude when they call for nothing more than a constitution – which even the Chinese and the Turks possess.”100 A

97 Davis & Trani, The First Cold War, 5-6. 98 President William Howard Taft in: Jados, Documents on Russian-American Relations, Washington tot Eisenhower, 42-43. 99 Davis, Trani, The First Cold War, 7. 100 Newspaper article: ‘The Exodus Form Russia and its Meaning, how the Government systems of oppression is affecting the countries which are receiving the steady stream of Russian Refugees.’, 19 July 1914, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1914/07/19/100098731.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 34

second article, published 14 February 1915, bears the headline The Jews in Russia, renewed allegations of Ill-Treatment credited in Paris. This is a report on the treatment of Jews which remained “…unchanged: they are still confined to the Ghetto and subject to all the same disabilities as before the war…How can we pretend with any decency that we are fighting for the liberation of oppressed peoples when one of our allies tolerates in her own territory such acts of savagery? Does the Czar know?”101 America had been aware of this mistreatment of the Jewish minority before the war, as evidenced by two newspaper articles reporting on the massacre in Kishineff on 20-21 May 1903. They report on a brutal and senseless massacre of a large Jewish community by government officials. However, both of these articles agree that is was not the Tsar who ordered the brutal murders. They also reported how the Russians stated that the Jews themselves were to blame for the fact that they were so thoroughly resented, since they refused to work in the fields and took advantage of the Russian peasant, getting them into their power through money lending practices, and then destroyed the poor man when he was unable to repay the debt.102 This was the Russian view of the Jews, however neither of these reports elicited a political or public response in America, nor did either of these reports display any indication that they disagreed with the way the Jews were viewed or treated. In contrast, the articles published in 1914-16 that reported on the Russian-Jew’s plight display a more nuanced opinion of the Jews. The New York Times published on 10 march 1914 that the heavy illiteracy among the Jews was not their fault, but caused by the Russian government who refused the Jews access to schooling.103 The article The Exodus from Russia and it’s Meaning decried the treatment of Jews within Russia but also within America, as it reports that the Russian and polish Jews are mistreated not only by non-Jews within America, but also by the American and European Jews.104 These allegations against Russia were offset

101 Newspaper article: ‘The Jews in Russia, renewed allegations of ill-treatment credited in Paris.’, 14 February 1915, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1915/02/14/301780532.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 102 Newspaper article: ‘Official Russia and the Jews.’, 21 May 1903, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1903/05/21/102000457.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). Newspaper article: ‘The Jews of Russia’, 20 May 1903, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1903/05/20/102000089.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 103 Newspaper article: ‘Closes schools to Jews, such is the policy in Russia now’, 10 March 1914, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1914/03/10/101753906.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 104 Newspaper article: ‘The Exodus Form Russia and its Meaning, how the Government systems of oppression is affecting the countries which are receiving the steady stream of Russian Refugees.’, 19 July 1914, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1914/07/19/100098731.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 35

by a report on 18 March 1915 in which Russia denied that they persecuted Jews.105 Which indicates that Russia wished to remain allied with America and that they knew that their treatment of the Jewish minority was an important factor within that discussion. These articles together indicate that Russia and its policies, were a much larger subject of interest within America during the war years than before 1914. And that the image of the Russian Jews, both within America and in Russia, had become that of a victim in need of a champion, instead of an unwanted immigrant. None of these changes however were caused by the Russian Revolution for that event had not yet occurred. It is likely that the renewed interest of the Russians and the treatment of Russian citizens stemmed from the war and the alliance, through the allied forces, between America and Russia. The Americans wished to know what kind of country they had allied with, and the papers provided them with information. What they found was that Russia’s Imperial system was the opposite of the American ideal for democracy. That the alliance with an imperial power did not sit well with the Americans is perhaps most evident from the way Wilson spoke of Russia in his response to the Revolution in 1917:

‘One other great autocracy, the Government by the Russian Czar, had long been hostile to free institutions; it had been a stronghold of tyrannies reaching far back into the past; and its presence among the allies had seemed to be in disaccord with the great liberal principles they were upholding in this war. Russian had been a source of doubt. Repeatedly during the conflict liberal Europe had been startled by the news of secret accord between the Kaiser and the Czar. But now at this crucial time for our nation, on the eve of our entrance into the war, the free men of all the world were thrilled and heartened by the news that the people of Russia had risen to throw off their Government and found a new democracy; and the torch of freedom in Russia lit up the dark phases of the situation abroad. Here, indeed, was a fit partner for the League of Honor.’106

Wilson was clearly not, or no longer, a supporter of the Tsar, especially since he represented the opposite of all Wilson stood for, an imperial and authoritarian power instead of a democratic one. That Wilson would be overjoyed when this government was overturned and replaced by a democratic system is not surprising, for it allowed him to firmly state that the United States would be fighting on the side of democracy, which was the very reason to declare war on Germany he employed in his address to congress.107

105 Newspaper article: ‘Russia denies that Jews are persecuted.’, 18 March 1915, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1915/03/18/104642588.html, (last accessed on: 28- 06-2016). 106 Woodrow Wilson in: Jados, Documents on Russian-American Relations, 43. 107 Woodrow Wilson in: Braeman, Wilson, Great lives observed, 67 36

The Russian Revolution and the new republic were met with approval within America. America was the first to grant their support to the new provisional Russian government, granting them over 450,000 dollars in economic aid. These funds were mainly used to keep Russia in the fight by buying American military hardware and improving on the Russian transport system by employing American engineers.108 That this approval changed image of Russia and the Russian becomes quite evident from the way in which The New York Times reported on the Russian in 1917. An article that reported on the revolution and the Russians requirement to improve their country on 12 April 1917 stated: “Americans will have great satisfaction in giving all possible aid to the new Russian Government. We were the first to extend recognition, and we have noted with very great pleasure that response of Russia to the President’s proclamation to all the world that we enter the war for the defense and triumph of the principle of democracy. Democracy is the very soul of the Russian revolution, the sustaining principle of the new government.”109 Other headlines at this time included, Wilson Encourages ‘Awakened Russia’; Improved Railroads Russia’s chief need; Russian-American Trade, its extend, and reasons why much can be made permanent and Would enlighten Russia, A. E. Corbin urges American to Aid work of Ambassador Francis.110 Most surprisingly, there is also an increase in the amount of articles that discuss Russian literature, Russian music, and popular stories that involve Russian life. On 27 May 1917, an article was published headed: Russia of Today as seen by Two Americans. The piece discusses two books that had just been published, written by Americans. Both books discuss the changes in Russia and the Russian in comparison to the prevalent views at the time. The first book that the article discusses was written by Richard Wright called The Russians, an interpretation, in which Wright dispenses with many of the incorrect assumptions of the Russians. He states that; “…the Russian of today: …who is a clear-headed though ease-loving business man, to the Russian who is a non-vodka drinking working-man…The Siberian is compared with our Westerner – a man very much up and coming, liberal in thought, ambitious and independent.” The second book bore the title White Nights: and other Russian impressions by Arthur Ruhl. According to the article, Ruhl’s book should reassure Americans who were anxious about the events in Russia for by displaying the Russian way of living and thinking

108 James K. Libbey, Russian-American Economic Relations 1763-1999 (Gull Breeze; Academic International Press, 1999) 68-71. Grayson, Russian – American Relations in World War 1, 119-120. 109 Newspaper article: ‘The Russian Position.’, 12 April 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/04/12/102331973.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 110 News Paper Articles on American Russian Relations, February – September 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 37

the book “bring[s] out the underlying democracy of Russian life and character and the training in team work the nation has been having ever since the beginning of the war.” Overall, Ruhl states in his book that he found in Russia “a considerable number of brisk, youngish, westernized men of a very different type from that usually recognized as Russian. The sort of men with whom it would be possible, as Americans say, to ‘do business’ – men who were not heretofore found in Russian public affairs, but who have been brought forward by the exigencies of the last two years.”111 Not everyone was entirely pleased with this new influx of Russian culture into America however, in a special interview in the New York Time of 8 April 1917, Stephen Leacock states: “that’s one unfortunate thing about the discovery of Russia…we’ve been deluged with a lot of modern Russian trash that has harmed the reputation of the Russian novel with us. We’ve been given books by Artzibashef, and that sort of rubbish. It’s as if someone were to translate the contents of Snoopy Stories and the Splashy Magazine into Russian and tell the Russian that this is representative American Literature. We should read Dostoievsky and Turgenieff and the classics if we would know what Russian literature really is.”112 These articles prove that the image of the Russian was on the rise, and that Americans had developed a new interest in Russian culture. This development was partially due to the possibility of a democratic Russia, as evidences by the numerous references to the new political system and the democratic spirit of the Russian. However, this support of the new republic by the wartime allies, and the aid it provided, was not enough to keep the provisional government afloat. They proved unable to truly implement a new system and the new government was soon as anachronistic as the Tsar’s had been. This meant that they were unable to negate the still present unrest, and had neatly left the door open for the Bolsheviks. They took control on 7 November 1917, handing control of the government to the council of People’s Commissars which was chaired by Lenin himself.113 The American governments reaction to the overthrowing of the new republic, a government system they approved of and supported, by the Communists, was very different

111 Newspaper article: ‘Russia of Today as seen by Two Americans.’, 27 May 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/05/27/98250283.html, (last accessed on: 28-06- 2016). 112 News Paper Article ‘Democracy of the Joke and lack of German humor discussed by Leacock, famous Canadian wit also give his views on the perversity of the Russian verb’, 8 April 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/04/08/102330621.html, (last accessed on: 28- 06-2016). 113 James K. Libbey, Russian-American Economic Relations 1763-1999 (Gull Breeze; Academic International Press, 1999) 68-71 and: Grayson, Russian – American Relations in World War 1, 119-120 38

form their response to the provisional government.114 Instead of immediately endorsing the communist regime and providing the country with aid, the Wilson administration’s first response to the new Russian government was to watch and wait for any indication that this regime would fail as well. By December 1917, Wilson still had not officially endorsed the Bolshevik power, and he remained reticent to do so for the remainder of the war. He did refrain from interfering in Russia by military means, a measure some of his advisors deemed prudent. The other allied powers followed his lead, and Russia was not invited to the table at the Versailles peace negotiations.115 In early November 1917, the Americans were voting for a new Mayor of New York, and among the candidates was Morris Hillquit, born Moishe Hillkowitz. On 2 November 1917, the New York Times printed the following message:

“Among the voters on whom Mr. Hillquit counts are many who, like himself are of Russian birth. If they follow his misleading, if they vote for a general peace, that is, now, a German peace, they will vote against the will of the majority of their former countrymen and in accord with the Leninites and Bolsheviki, the tools and the dupes of Germany. They will vote for the ruin of free democracy in Russia, for the Triumph and restoration of German influence, of the revival of anti-Semitism. They will vote for the benefit of the German autocracy to which the Russian autocracy their brethren overthrew sought to surrender the Russian nation. They will vote for the dismemberment, Germanization, vassalage of Russia. They will vote to overthrow democracy and freedom not only in Russia but in every other free democratic nation, fighting on its side and by its side in the supreme struggle that will determine whether the world shall be free or German, whether Germany shall itself be free. They will vote for the oppression of small nationalities, for civil inequalities, for religious persecution. They will vote for the old Russia and against the new. They will vote against the United States. It is the singular fortune or genius of Mr. Morris Hillquit that he seeks to betray at once the land of his birth and the land of his adoption.”116

The election that this message alludes to is not important here, the feelings this message displays however, are of great importance. For it displays a fear that the Russian Americans could sympathize with communism, and wish for the implementation of the system within

114 President Woodrow Wilson in: Jados, Documents on Russian-American Relations, 43 115 Davis, Trani, The First Cold War, 99-100 116 News Paper Article ‘The Russian Born’, 2 November 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/11/02/102374079.html, (last accessed on: 28-06-2016). 39

America, even before Lenin’s coup was successful. This fear for the communist regime would escalate in the years following Lenin’s coup eventually leading to the Red Scare.117 The change in perception toward the Russians due to the War and the Russian Revolution was far less dramatic or visible when compared to the change in perception toward the Germans. However, that does not mean that these events had no effect on the perception of Russians within America’s borders. Before 1917, the war had a positive effect on the way the Russian- Jews were perceived, for they were no longer viewed as just unwanted immigrants who had been forced out of their own country due to new legislation. Now they were more often viewed as victims in need of a champion who would bring about a change in their living conditions. This new awareness and closer scrutiny of Russia and its policies was the result of the new alliance between Russia and America, for the Americans wished to know who their new ally was. The effect of the Revolution on the image of the Russians was also positive, for the new republic was seen as the first step toward a Russian democracy and therefore encourage and hailed by the American government. This had the effect that more news and books appeared on Russia and the Russian, providing Americans with a more nuance and positive image of the Country. The rise of Communism would however, halt these positive changes.

117 Robert K. Murray, Red Scare, A study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955) 36-37. 40

Chapter 3: The Aftermath

The First World War is often seen as a turning point in American history, the boundary between the old and the new, where the 1920’s was the new and roaring era and everything was possible. As Sean Cashman puts it,

‘Legend has it that America was suddenly different at the end of World War I, with the controversy over the league of Nations, the Great Red Scare, the commercial use of radio, the scoring of Jazz, the imposition of national prohibition, the introduction of women suffrage, the campaign for normalcy, and immigration restriction.’118

Throughout the First World War, the great wave of immigration had slowed to a standstill, for America had mostly closed its borders. But by 1918, the immigrant debate, and the need for immigrant restriction, flared back up. As outlined in chapter one, since the Immigration Act of 1917, immigrants were forced to undergo a literacy test before gaining entry, and by 1921 even that was no longer enough. This because by then, the Americans had implemented a new policy that allowed only 357,000 immigrants from Europe per year, which was a third of the annual average from before the war. By 1924, Congress had limited this number to only 150,000 a year, of which only a small percentage originated from southern and eastern Europe. 119 These new restrictions were born out of a fear for immigrant radicalization, which was mainly the fear of socialism and communism, and to ensure that the descendants of the “old immigrants” would forever outnumber the “new immigrants”, as well as keep the ‘American people, American’, as President Coolidge described it when signing the Immigration Act of 1924.120 The First World War had inspired and fostered a renewed sense of nationalism among the American population, increasing their fear of foreigners and raising the demand for the ‘Americanization’ of all immigrants, which meant that they wished every newcomer to become entirely American in their behavior. They feared that the divided loyalty of the Immigrants could lead to radical behavior. Therefore, the immigration act of 1917 allowed for the deportation of any ‘alien’ who allegedly displayed radical thoughts.121 In addition, the

118 Sean Dennis Cashman, America in the Twenties and Thirties (New York: New York University Press, 1989) 40. 119 Huntington, Legislation history of America, 210-213. Foner, Give me Liberty, 793. 120 Foner, Give me Liberty, 121 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 221. King, Making Americans, 87. 41

immigration laws of the post-war years were increasingly based on racial factors. Whereas before the war the policy had still mostly been focused on gaining a workforce, Americans now believed that the law should take a biological definition of the ideal population into account as well, meaning that the Social Darwinist way of thinking had only increased in popularity. What was the American ideal for immigrant behavior? And how were the Russians and Germans perceived after the conclusion of the First World War?

The Great Red Scare

The need for increased immigrant restriction was born out of a fear for radical behavior that the immigrants would bring with them. And this fear was not without cause, for the 1920’s was marked by a period of unrest that would be called the Great Red Scare. In 1917, Wilson had stated that ‘while we are fighting for freedom, we must see to it among other things that labor is free.’122 Labor organizations took these words to heart and linked the success of the war to a new industrial order in America. In response to the success of the communist regime in Russia, many American radical socialist newspapers started reporting that a similar event was necessary and imminent in America. Out of the old socialist parties, at least two new communist groups arose, as well as a number of small anarchist groups. They quickly spread their beliefs, and not all of it in a verbal manner. The violence escalated to the extent that bombs exploded at the houses of several public officials. The anger was not aimed only at public figures, for in the following months, there was increased labor unrest and multiple labor strikes in factories, starting in the New York garment industry.123 The largest and most effective of these strikes was the 1919 Chicago Great Steel Strike, where 365,000 workers, most of them foreign-born, took to the streets to demand union recognition, higher wages and an eight-hour workday.124 Although the strikes started as a class conflict, the counteroffensive by the employers quickly ceased on the fact that foreign-born workers and radicals formed a significant part of the protesters. The factory owners therefore spread the belief that the strikes were ‘alien outbreaks intended to inaugurate an actual Revolution’. Add to this that most of the Russian- American peasant’s/factory workers supported the Bolshevik regime and the public opinion

122 Woodrow Wilson in: Foner, Give me Liberty, 758. 123 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 225. 124 Foner, Give me liberty, 761. 42

on communism and immigrants quickly plummeted. As Murray describes in his book on the Red Scare: “The doctrine ran counter to all accepted American traditions of political philosophy and economy and struck terror into the heart of the average American conservative. Already harassed by domestic radical who advocated big changes, the nation viewed the emergence of Russian bolshevism with extremely grave concern and feared that it might portend serious domestic consequences.”125 Sherrow Pinder adds to this discussion that radicalized groups were seen as “de-Americanized and are looked upon as foreigners.”126 Which meant that third generation immigrants, who had been raised as Americans, but who adopted radical views, were again viewed as the ‘other’, as un-American, and as an immigrant. Due to these views and the growing fears, many employers quickly discharged their Russian workers and refused to hire anyone of Russian descent. By this point the first Red Scare was in full swing.127 As Higham has summarized,

‘On all levels of government, authorities moved to crush the Reds. Local police made many raids and arrests on their own initiative. It was not uncommon, for example, for Russian workers or suspicious appearance could be seized, held overnight, and then released…the federal government, however, had no similar powers to cast any one into prison, simply for his beliefs or associations…. the United States government possessed only one legal instrument for stamping on the propaganda activities which the postwar radicals conducted. It could deport the foreigners who supposedly were causing all the trouble; or, rather, it could deport those who had not acquired citizenship. This limitation on federal power tended to accentuate the Anti-foreign emphasis in the Red Scare, for the whole weight of the distinctively national attack on radicalism fell upon the Immigrants.’128

Between 1919 and 1920, Attorney General A. Mitchell Palmer deported hundreds of immigrant radicals, compiled files on thousands of Americans believed to entertain radical ideas and arrested over 5,000 people, holding them without charge for months. These ‘Palmer raids’ came under heavy scrutiny and criticism in 1920 and collapsed quickly, effectively ending the Red Scare. That they had lasted only two years did not mean that they did not do any damage. Many of the labor and radical organizations had dealt with a severe setback and the new communist party had become nonexistent.129 The fever of anti-radial feeling cooled

125 Murry, Red Scare, 34. 126 Pinder, Sherrow O., The Politics of Race and Ethnicity in the United States, Americanization, De- Americanization and Racial Ethnic Groups (New York, Palgrave MacMillan, 2010) 134. 127 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 225-226. 128 Higham, Stranger in the Land, 227. 129 Foner, Give me Liberty, 760. 43

by 1920, but it did not disappear; “as social conditions changed-different in 1919 than in 1918, and altered again in 1920 - they modified the expression of nationalism but preserved its inner spirit. Nothing occurred in 1920 to destroy the ongoing force of 100 per cent Americanism. In spy-hunting and in Red-hunting it assumed only the first of its many forms.”130 This fear of communism and the Revolution it called for marked the Russians as outsiders. As evidenced by the quote above, the Russians were marked as communists even if they did not support the regime. In addition, they were racially profiled and violently handled by the police or the self-appointed ‘neighborhood watch’ without cause. But the Russians were not the only group affected by the Great Red Scare: Germans were also targeted. The threat to the Germans due to the Red Scare was based on two reasons. The first was their ties to the socialist movement, which was led by German-speaking, if not German- born, politicians in the United States.131 Communism and socialism were nearly synonymous in American eyes during the 1920s, for they believed that Communism was simply another form of Socialism. Therefore, the fact that the socialist movement was promoted by German speaking politicians, on the heels of the Anti-German movement of the First World War did not ameliorate the image of the German in the eyes of the Americans. A newspaper article, published on 15 august 1918, bearing the heading Our German Socialists states: “Mr. Debs say’s that every message he has received in his recent correspondence with member of his party ‘was fraught with a spirit of militant socialism.’ Militant German socialism, that is. These American Majority Socialists are perfectly in accord with their comrades in Germany. They are playing the German game. They are hot for a German peace. Let us keep in mind the principles and purposes of these German Socialists in America. In effect and purpose, these people are alien enemies.”132 This point is best illustrated by the case of Victor Berger, a socialist who had been elected to congress form the Fifth Wisconsin District in November 1918. Half of the members of the House were furious by his appointment, believing that he was ‘a German at heart’ and that his type of social pacifism was ‘of the same cloth as Russian Bolshevism’. Therefore, a committee was called to assess Berger’s qualifications as a House representative. Berger’s

130 Higham, Strangers in the Land, 223. 131 La Vern J. Rippley, ‘Ameliorated Americanization: The Effect of World War 1 on German-Americans in the 1920’s’, in: Trommler, Frank, Josheph McVeigh, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three- hundred-year history, volume two; the relationship in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985) 225-226. 132 News Paper Article ‘Our German Socialists’, New York Times Digital Archives, 15 August 1918, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1918/08/15/97017790.html, (last accessed on: 30-06-2016). 44

testimony sounded much like a revisionist historians report on the causes of the war, however the verdict was clear, Berger was labelled a traitor and a Bolshevik.133 This case was closely followed by the various newspapers of the country, and on 10 January 1919 the New York Times reported that the case had been justly tried, that the evidence against Berger had been conclusive and overwhelming, and that the protests of the Socialist that he had been judged solely because he was a socialist were based on ‘fraudulent reasoning’.134 The second reason the Germans were just as affected by the Red Scare as the Russians was because the American believed that the Bolshevik movement was German-spawned.135 As evidenced by multiple articles published in the last months of 1917, the Americans believed that the Germans had influenced and secretly supported Lenin’s coup. Feelings that were acerbated by the Brest-Litovsk treaty, when Russia officially signed a peace treaty with the central powers, and the ‘secret’ treaty Russia signed with Japan December 1917.136 This view that Germany had undue influence over Russia was already present before the November 1917 coup. On 20 May 1917, an article appeared in the New York times under the Heading German Grip on Russia began 200 Years Ago. In the article, a special agent of the Russian Consulate explains the relationship between Russia and Germany, and how Germany had been influencing Russian culture for years. “And many a small Biron of German origin we may find in Russia at every reign, especially when the Emperor was not strong enough to struggle with the German octopus spreading its arms to the furthers frontiers of the Russian Empire.” He concludes the article with the words “Today we have more chance to fight successfully against the German influence than ever before, and I am sure we shall never return to the old system.”137 Based on the date of publication, these last words refer to the new Russian Republic, the system the Americans endorsed and encouraged. When Lenin’s coup succeeded, and he so quickly brokered peace with the Germans, many Americans believed that the Germans had wanted to renew their influence within Russia, an influence they had lost when the Tsars empire fell.

133 Murray, Red Scare, 226-227. 134 News Paper Article ‘Berger and the Socialists’, New York Times Digital Archives, 10 January 1919, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1919/01/10/102848358.html, (last accessed on: 30-06-2016). 135 Murray, Red Scare, 34. 136 News Paper Article ‘New ‘secret treaty’ revealed in Russia, said to be Aimed at US.’, 22 December 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/12/22/96282171.html, (last accessed on: 29-06-2016). Murray, Red Scare, 34. 137 News Paper Article ‘New ‘German grip on Russia Began 200 Years ago.’, 20 May 1917, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1917/05/20/102346204.html, (last accessed on: 29-06-2016). 45

As the war came to its conclusion, the feelings toward the Germans that had pervaded the war years, were now directed at the Russians through their association with communism, resulting in the Red Scare. This period did not last overly long however, as stated above, the Red Scare had run its course by the year 1920. It did not however, alleviate the fear of communism, nor the Russians association with the regime. Throughout the 1920’s, articles concerning Communism appeared in the New York times, form reports on the amount of communist the country held in 1921, to an extensive analysis called Socialist Thought form its beginnings to Communism in 1927, to an article that disproved the accusation that professor John Dewy held communist views in 1928.138 In the conclusion of their book, Davis and Trani call the 1920’s the First Cold War era, for in their analysis they found that Wilsons and the American public’s response to the Bolsheviks, bore a very close resemblance to the reaction of the Americans to the Stalin’s regime.139 In contrast to the Russians association with Communism, the Germans association with socialism seemed to wane throughout the 1420’s. The German image until the end of the Red Scare was closely entwined with the socialist movement yet the mention of Germans and German socialists in the New York Times dwindle quickly after 1920. Between the years 1918 and 1930, only five articles published by the New York Times used the term German-American, and only three of those articles are noteworthy. The first is an article published on the 26 February 1918 under the headline Says Dr. Hexamer is Kaiser’s deputy. The article outlines the argument on why the German- American alliance charter should not be reinstated. The main argument is that “the alliance was un-American and a tool of the German General Staff propaganda.” It further reported that the arguments against reinstatement were based on the official bulletin of the German- American alliance, stating that the bulletin showed that the alliance had “justified the sinking of the Lusitania”. The report does not state if the charter remained revoked.140 As second article published on 12 March 1921, in which the German-American citizens league states that they wish the American government to disentangle themselves from European Affairs, thereby stating their allegiance to America.141 The third article is dated 26 October 1926, and

138 Newspaper articles on ‘communism’ between 1920-1930, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser, (last accessed on: 30-06-2016). 139 Davis & Trani, The First Cold War, 200-206. 140 News Paper Article ‘Say’s Dr. Hexamer is Kaiser’s Deputy’, 26 February 1918, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1918/02/26/102674483.html, (last accessed on: 29- 06-2016). 141 News Paper Article ‘Viereck tip to Harding’, 26 October 1926, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1921/03/12/103559522.html, (last accessed on: 29-06-2016). 46

contains a report on a dinner at the Steuben Society at which Mayor Walker stated that he “lauded Americans of German ancestry for their honest industry and observance of the American laws”. This indicates that the image of the German American had regained much of its previous luster, yet most noteworthy of the article are the words at the very bottom: “…referring to the World War, [he] said: ‘I don’t know who started the war and I don’t know who won it, but what I do know is this: Let’s forget once and for all!”142 These articles show that in 1918, the German-Americans were still firmly believed to be supporters of the German war effort, and that in 1924, the German-Americans still felt the need to publicly ally themselves with America and distance themselves from Germany. Yet the report form 1926 shows that the German-American image had been nearly restored to that of the pre-war years. What had happened in between these events? In her article Elusive Affinities: Acceptance and Rejection of the German-Americans, Christine Totten states that as a result of the conclusion of the war and due to the increase efforts to integrate immigrants in the 1920’s, German-Americans became far less visible. “Their image became static, no longer subject to alteration.”143 This integration was called Americanization and is was employed with ever increasing frequency throughout the 1920’s. How did this Americanization influence the German-Americans? The First World War had been a catalyst in the Americanization of the German- American population, hastening a process that had already begun before the war. The heavy Anti-German feeling of the war did not dissipate immediately after the treaty of Versailles had been signed, and many German-Americans continued to distance themselves from their ethnic origins, especially their language. If America would be divided by the language they spoke, then 28% of all non-English speakers before the war spoke German, which was 11% of the entire population. In contrast, by the time of the 1920 census, the numbers of German speakers had declined by 5.6%. This was not caused due to a sudden departure of German- Americans or a decline of German immigrants; in fact, the 1920s saw one of the three largest waves of German immigrants of the 20th century. The reason the German language declined so much was due to the fact that German-Americans who were born in America no longer

142 News Paper Article ‘Mayor at Steuben Dinner, praises American of German Ancestry for Observance of Laws’, 26 October 1926, New York Times Digital Archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1926/10/26/98401030.html, (last accessed on: 29-06-2016). 143 Christine M. Totten, ‘Elusive Affinities: Acceptance and Rejection of the German-Americans’, in: Trommler, American and the Germans, volume two, 194. 47

registered German as their mother tongue when reporting to the census.144 Yet, as la Vern Rippley states, the speaking of a language and the identification with a person’s ethnic origins are two closely related subjects.

‘When assessing the topic of Americanization, it is important to understand that language is an important, if not key, factor in ethnicity, as is emphasized by the results of the xenophobia against the Germans during and following World War I. During the war and in the 1920s, the Germans were barely distinguishable from Anglo-Americans: both groups shared many northern European traditions and a common historical language. All the North European looked similar in a crowd. Thus it was not the nationality, the physical features, or the geographic origins but he language that made Germans as the target of venom during and following World War I.’145

Rippley’s description underscores that it was not their appearance that had made the Germans unwanted, but their attachment to their ethnic origins. As stated above, this was seen as extremely unpatriotic behavior by those who believed wholeheartedly in the Americanization movement. By using German in their daily lives, as well as claiming the language as their mother tongue, many German-Americans made themselves targets for discriminatory behavior. It is unsurprising therefore that many German-Americans chose to no longer speak German and be known simply as Americans after the First World War came to its conclusion.

The Americanization movement and the integration debate

The debate and the formulation of theories on how to integrate different immigrant ‘races’ started just before the First World War and gained momentum during the conflict. However, the heyday of the debate took place in the 1920’s. There were three distinct movements, the first being the exclusionists, to whom Edward Ross belonged (discussed above in prejudices and perceptions of the different ‘races’), the second movement that of ‘Americanization’ or the ‘Melting pot’ ideal, and the third and most radical idea being that of ‘trans-nationalism’. The name of the exclusionist movement speaks for itself, for this group called for the exclusion and deportation of all immigrants. They believed that the immigrants posed a threat

144 La Vern J. Rippley, ‘Ameliorated Americanization: The Effect of World War 1 on German-Americans in the 1920’s’, in: Trommler, American and the Germans, volume two, 217, 222-223. 145 La Vern J. Rippley, ‘Ameliorated Americanization: The Effect of World War 1 on German-Americans in the 1920’s’, in: Trommler, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three-hundred-year history, volume two; the relationship in the Twentieth Century, 221-222. 48

to the pureness of race within American due to ‘racial’ mixing. This idea was already prevalent during the pre-war years, as evidence by Edward Ross, who concluded his book The Old World in the New by declaring that the immigrants were bringing untold problems to America and that if they mixed the American level of intelligence would decline.146 Building upon Ross’s ideas the exclusionists published a number of books about their ideas on the effect of immigration on race. The most popular of these was The passing of the Great Race by Madison Grant published in 1916, achieving its peak popularity by 1920. Grant’s ideas are best illustrated by the following words. “Whether we like to admit it or not, the result of the mixture of two races, in the long run, gives us a race revert to the more ancient, generalized and lower type. The cross between a white man and an Indian is an Indian; the cross between a white man and a Negro is a Negro; the cross between any of the three European races and a Jew is a Jew.”147 Grants book is in essence a counter argument to the idea of the Melting Pot. The term ‘Melting Pot’ originates from a 1908 play by the same name, written by the Jewish immigrant writer Israel Zangwill. This play gave a name to an already prevalent ideal, stating that the ‘Americanization’ of immigrants could only be achieved through a ‘melting’ of the different cultures into one homogenous American nationality. As Zangwill phrased it,

“Yes, East and West, and North and South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent and the cross – how the great alchemist melts and fuses them with his purging flame! Here shall they all unite to build the Republic of Man and the Kingdom of God. A, Vera, what is the glory of Rome and Jerusalem where all nations and races come to worship and look back, compared with the glory of America, where all races and nations come to labor and look forward!”148

Newcomers were expected to dress, eat, speak and act American. The cause to help immigrants assimilate in this manner was picked up by many pillars of society. [re-word slightly] Teachers, employers, and public officials all put tremendous energy into helping immigrants assimilate. This even went so far as that the sociological department of the Ford Motor Company entered the homes of their immigrant workers to assess their clothing, furniture and food preferences. Those that did not conform to the ‘melting-pot’ ideal within a reasonable amount of time were fired.149 In addition, the Americanization movement was

146 Ross, The Old World in the New, 299-300, Reimers, Unwelcome Strangers, 16. 147 Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, 18. 148 Israel Zangwill, The Melting Pot, Drama in Four Acts, (New York; The Macmillan company, 1910) 199. 149 Foner, Give me liberty, 745. Christopher Mc Knight Nichols, “Citizenship and Transnationalism in Randolph Bourne’s America” peace review: A journal of social justice, 20 (2008) 350. 49

directed mostly at ‘hyphenated Americans’. This meant that Americans who added an ethnic marker before their American identity, like German-Americans, were accused of lacking a complete commitment to the U.S. and being insufficiently ‘Americanized’.150 Grants commented on this idea as follows: “these immigrants adopt the language of the native American, they wear his clothes, they steal his name and they are beginning to take his women, but they seldom adopt his religion or understand his ideals and while he is being elbowed out of this own home the American looks calmly abroad and urges on others the suicidal ethics which are exterminating his own race.”151 Grands words illustrate that the exclusionist were far from enamored with the idea that the immigrants were not only allowed into the country, but assimilated into American society, for in their eyes, by assimilating the immigrants, the Americans were diluting their own race.152 There were however, many American who viewed the ‘Americanization’ of immigrants as the solution to the immigration problem, for they believed that it was not their race but the environment in which these immigrants were raised and lived had made them socially undesirable. By changing that environment, and providing them with an alternative and better (American) environment, the immigrants should become productive American citizens. To improve the Americanization of immigrants throughout the country, multiple institutions were established with the task to implement and oversee Americanization policy. A National Americanization committee was established in New York, and in Washington DC, a director of Americanization was appointed to the Bureau of Education. These two bodies cooperated to form a new Americanization policy for the entire country. Each state was divided into districts, each of which appointed a regional director who was responsible for the Americanization of the immigrant population, and a board made up of representatives from the various departments engaged in Americanization work in that state. These legislative bodies formulated Five tenets that described what the immigrant population needed to achieve in order to create national unity:

‘(1) a common use of the language of the United States; (2) a common understanding and appreciation of American standards, ideals, and responsibilities of citizenship; (3) a genuine allegiance to the United States, whether the land of the citizens’ birth or of adoption; (4) active cooperation with fellow citizens

150 King, Making Americans, 90-91. 151 Grant, The Passing of the Great Race, 91. 152 Jacobsen, Whiteness of a different color, 81. 50

in furthering the common welfare through government; (5) a universal consciousness of our national and social organization and the impelling forcefulness of its evolution.’153

The National Americanization committee also appointed racial advisers with the task of bringing about understanding of the different races, aimed at a faster integration of each specific race, and distributed a monthly Americanization bulletin to the workers of the country. This bulletins content illustrated how extensive and energetic the Americanization movement was.154 The Americans who invested in the Americanization movement did this out of two reasons, fear or love. As John Higham describes: “Out of fear, the Americanization movement fostered a militant nationalism, and by this means it eventually made its widest, most fervent appeal to the native-born public. But Americanization worked most successfully upon the immigrants through love [oriented toward the welfare of the immigrant]. It was part of the paradox of the movement that the side which evoked the most ardent American responses produced the slightest positive results.”155 One of the social reformers who acted out of love for the immigrants was Jane Addams. Jane Addams, an outspoken social reformer of the early 20th century, was one of the foremost advocates on the ‘Americanization’ policy toward immigrant integration. Born to an upper-class family, she was raised with her father’s ideas on immigrants, which praised the Germans, for their family was distantly descended from German immigrants, yet viewed all others as ‘Dutchman’, American slang for ignorant and lazy foreigners.156 As a child, Addams adopted these ideas, but in later life, she developed a need to help others and change society’s policy concerning the poor and working classes. To that end she moved to a working class neighborhood in industrialized Chicago and founded the Hull House, a place where she offered education, parties and cultural events to the working classes. It was through this work that she encountered many immigrants and their families and changed her ideas on how they should integrate into society.157

153 National Committee of One Hundred, “America First” Campaign, August 1917, p. 1, enclosed with a letter from the committee to Commissioner Claxton, cited in: King, Making Americans, 91. 154 King, Making Americans, 91-92. 155 Higham, Strangers in the land, 237-238. 156 Knight, Louise W., Citizen, Jane Adams and the Struggle for Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005) 68. 157 Knight, Citizen, 3. 51

Addams wrote extensively about her observations on society and the way she believed it should change. In one of these texts, called Immigrants and their Children, Addams observed the way immigrants interacted with Americans in Hull House, and how the children of these immigrants interacted with their parents. What was most surprising is that Adams seemed to portray a duality toward the immigrant culture. On the one hand she was delighted to see immigrants come into Hull House and show the Americans their traditional crafts, like weaving and needlework, and admonishes the children of these immigrants who are not interested in their parent’s work. Yet on the other hand, she is very critical of the way in which the parents’ cultural traditions, left over from the homeland, restrain their children from fully exploring the options that America has granted them, like the freedom to choose their occupation or to earn their own wages without their parents confiscating their earnings.158 Louise Knight in her biography of Jane Addams describes this duality as follows:

“There were obvious tensions between Addams’s respect for immigrants and her condescension toward them. Her theory of human progress, however, provided an intellectual framework that resolved or at least rationalized the tensions... Human society, it was argued, developed in stages from ‘primitive’ to the civilized. Those who had read the best literature and acquired a higher, universal, selfless ethic were superior to those who had not. Thus immigrants from peasant or primitive backgrounds, because they lacked education, were inferior to people from civilized classes or societies…Addams…held this view, but with once difference. [She] was convinced that a peasant could benefit from education…’159

From both Addams’s own words and Knights analysis, it is evident that Addams fell in the category of Americanization that operated out of love, not fear. She is evidently enamored with the immigrant’s cultures, even if she still viewed them as backward and primitive, and she was a staunch supporter of immigrant education in order to improve their position and give them access to the opportunities America provided. What is less clear form Addams’s words however, is if she wished the immigrant to completely do away with their own cultures. Its seems from her comments on how the children disrespected the skills of the parents that she did not agree with the way the Americanization movement wished to create a uniform America. In this respect Addams might have agreed with radical thinker Randolph Bourne and his theory of a Trans-National America.

158 Addams, Jane, The Social Thought of Jane Adams, an anthology, Christopher Lasch eds. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, INC., 1965) 95-105. 159 Knight, Citizen, 222. 52

Randolph Bourne was born in 1886 to a wealthy New Jersey Family. Due to a birth complication and a spinal disease, he contracted at the age of four, one side of his face was deformed and his growth was severely stunted. Some of his peers therefore referred to him as ‘that frightening dwarf’. When Randolph’s uncle, his financial backer, ran out of money, Randolph was forced to join the working class in order to afford his higher education. To that end, he started writing essays for a living. Essays that held an increasingly critical view of American society and especially how it dealt with subjects like the First World War, immigration and multiculturalism. When Randolph died in 1918 of the Spanish Influenza, he was nearly destitute, since his essays were not always received favorably.160 Due to his handicaps, financial problems and forced change in social status, Randolph developed a unique view of the world that can best be described as ‘an outsider on the inside’. He never truly fit in with the multiple layers of society that he lived in during his short thirty-two years, but because he had observed and lived with the multiple layers of society, he became a keen observer of their behavior, which contributed to the development of his criticisms.161 In response to the Americanization movement, Randolph Bourne formulated the idea of ‘trans-nationalism’. Bourne intensely disagreed with the melting-pot ideal; indeed, he called it a great failure in the opening line of his most famous essay, Trans-National America. His most vocal critiques toward the melting-pot, however, can be found in his essay The Jew and Trans-National America, an essay also written in 1916, directly after completing Trans- National America. In this he stated that:

‘The idealism of the melting-pot would assimilate all Europeans, as they are received into the American social and economic scheme, to a very definite type, that of the prevailing Anglo-Saxon. For however much this desire may be obscured, what the Anglicized American prophets of the melting-pot really mean shall happen to the immigrant is that he shall acquire, along with the new common English language, the whole stock of English political and social ideals. When they attempt to judge how far any group has been Americanized it is by this standard that they judge them.’162

In Trans-National America itself, he is similarly outspoken in expressing his beliefs on what happens to the immigrants who assimilate in this fashion;

160 Carl Resek, Introduction, in: Bourne, War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919, vii - xv. 161 Phelps, “The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne”, 123-124. 162 Randolph Bourne, ‘The Jew and Trans-National America’ (1916) in: Bourne, War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919, 124. 53

‘Already we have far too much of this insipidity, masses of people who are cultural half-breeds, neither assimilated Anglo-Saxons nor nationals of another culture… Our cities are filled with these half-breeds who retain their foreign names but have lost the foreign savor. This does not mean that they have actually been changed into New Englanders or Middle Westerners. It does not mean that they have been really Americanized. It means that, letting slip from them whatever native culture they had, they have substituted for it only the most rudimentary American – the American culture of the cheap newspaper, the ‘movies’, the popular song, the ubiquitous automobile.’163

His opinion on the matter is quite clear, for he sees these ‘Americanized’ people as truly inferior, completely without any form of culture, which made them lose their humanity in his eyes. So how did he think that immigrants needed to be assimilated into the American culture, if not according to the ideals that the Americanization movement advocated? Bourne’s solution to the problem is to introduce a ‘trans-national’ culture. “America is coming to be, not a nationality but a trans-nationality, a weaving back and forth, with the other lands, of many thread of all sizes and colors. Any movement which attempts to thwart this weaving, or to dye the fabric any one color, or disentangle the threads of the strands, is false to this cosmopolitan vision.”164 Yet he nonetheless followed this vision of new society with a warning:

“It will be folly to hurry herself into a premature and sentimental nationalism, or to emulate Europe and play fast and loose with the forces that drag into war. No Americanization will fulfill this vision which does not recognize the uniqueness of this trans-nationalism of ours. The Anglo-Saxon attempt to fuse will only create enmity and distrust. The crusade against ‘hyphenates’ will only inflame the partial patriotism of trans-nationals, and cause them to assert their European traditions in strident and unwholesome ways. But the attempt to weave a wholly novel international nation out of our chaotic Americas will liberate and harmonize the creative power of all these peoples and give them the new spiritual citizenship…”165

He then warned America against the pursuit of a homogenous culture, that is, against ‘Americanization’. Instead, he advocated the need for cooperation between the different cultures that have always been a part of the United States. He was especially against the

163 Randolph Bourne, Trans-National America (1916) in: Bourne, War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919, 113. 164 Ibidem, 121. 165 Ibidem, pp. 122. 54

creation of one dominant culture, like the Anglo-Saxon, to subjugate the others, which is exactly what the Americanization movement was striving for. Bourne wanted immigrants to take the main elements of their culture, and blend them with the elements of the American culture that Bourne found admirable, like the American work ethic and democratic system. In doing so they would create a new and better America. Bourne formulated these ideas during the war, but proved unable to see if they generated any following or debate as he had died of the Spanish influenza by the end of 1918. What the debate on immigrant integration among the intellectuals proves, is that the Americans were divided in their opinions. Which entailed not only their opinion on how to integrate immigrants, but also their opinion on the immigrants themselves. The exclusionists were basically the racists of the era, they showed us the racial idea that circulated in the early twentieth century by clearly vocalizing their opinions on the different immigrant groups and they advocated the need to restrict access to immigrants. The fact that many of their demands were met by the American Government, and that their books were bestsellers at the time, proves that a significant number of Americans adhered to these ideas and believes. Their demands were offset by those of the Americanization movement, which was just as large as evidenced by their government organized and country wide institutions. However, this group was divided in their approach which made them less effective. Lastly, Randolph Bourne’s comments on the prevalent policies for immigrant integration and his theory on Trans- Nationalism, proves that a minority existed among Americans, who did not wish for either solution, but advocated the need to learn from each other’s cultures and traditions, thereby creating a better America.

55

Conclusion and Discussion

The effect of the First World War on the imagery and prejudice surrounding Russian and German immigrants in early twentieth century America was profound. In the decade before the war, Germans were praised for their rich culture, work ethic and social aptitude. By contrast, the Russian immigrants, who mainly consisted of Russian Jews, were admired for their intelligence, but scorned for their clannishness, anti-social behavior and unwillingness to adapt to American culture. This was mainly due to the fact that the anti-Semite views of the time, combined with the ideas on the Slavic races, created a very unfriendly image of the Russian-Hebrew. This distinction between the two groups could primarily be blamed on the fact that Americans at the time drew a clear boundary between “old” and “new” immigrants — that is, those immigrants who had been coming to America for generations and those who had only recently arrived on its shores. The Germans fell squarely in the first category, even those Germans who had arrived in the early 20th century, while the Russians had not emigrated to America in any great numbers until the Great Wave and were therefore firmly labeled as ‘new’. During the war decades, the view of these two groups changed, and rather dramatically in the case of the Germans. They were the antagonists of the war, the ‘Hun’, the enemy to be feared. Even before America joined the war effort on the side of the Allied forces in 1917, German-Americans had much to endure when it came to prejudice, racism and exclusion. They were believed to be spies and saboteurs out to destroy America from the inside out, and the image of the enemy on popular propaganda posters. Violence toward the German- Americans was common and only increased by 1917, when America officially joined the war. In contrast, the image of the Russian Jew seemed to improve during the first years of the war, as a result of America’s new alliance with the Russian empire. The Jews were now seen as victims of unjust racial laws and treatment and were championed by a few goodwill causes. Due to the increased attention by the public, the American government was forced to reexamine their political and economic relations with Russia. In 1917, the Russian Revolution gave an additional push to these growing amicable feelings, for the Americans were very positive and supportive of the provisional government of the new Russian Republic. However, this process ended due to the Bolshevik coup of November 1917. Even though the imagery surrounding both groups was clearly affected by the events of the First World War, the most interesting conclusion that can be draw from this analysis is

56

that during the Red Scare, the feelings toward these two monitories were entwined. Due to the association within the American social thought between communism, socialism and Germany, the anti-German feelings that had waged during the war, were now directed at the Russians, resulting in the Red Scare which adversely affected both groups. The Red Scare and its immediate consequence ran its course by 1920 but its consequences reverberated into the remaining decade. Where during the Red Scare the Germans and Russian were both seen as radical socialists/communists, after 1920 the opinions diverted. The Americanization movement, which was implemented to integrate immigrants into American society, had great effect on the German-Americans. They distanced themselves from their ethnic origins, of which they had been so proud before the war, and became the productive average American citizens envisioned by the Americanization movement. The Russians on the other hand were not granted that reprieve, for the strained American relations with the Soviet Union and the fear of communism remained, and continued to be at the forefront of American life due to the frequent coverage by the New York Times. The conclusion of this thesis is clear; the First World War had a lasting effect on both ethnicities. However, this conclusion leaves room for discussion and debate. To start with, the change in attitude toward the Germans could clearly be blamed on the First World War, as the feelings concerning this group drastically changed by 1914, yet the same cannot be said for the Russians. Neither the war nor the Russian Revolution itself were the main turning points when it came to the change in attitude. It was the coup by Lenin seven months later, and the rise of the communist system, that was the true turning point in the attitude toward the Russians. Even though the argument can be made that both of these events were not truly part of the war, they were caused by the war, for it was the unrest created by the heavy losses and food shortages that incited the unrest and the riots that provided the circumstances for Lenin’s coup to be successful. A second point of contention is that this thesis focused on the stereotypes surrounding Russians and Germans that pervaded these decades. Yet the fact that the stereotypes existed did not mean that every American, or even most of the Americans adhered to the ideas. As evidenced by the intellectual discussion on the integration of Immigrants, the opinions concerning immigrant were far from uniform at the time. Thirdly, this research is only conducted from the point of view of the Americans toward the Russians and Germans. Very few primary sources written from the point of view of the German-Americans or Russian-Americans were consulted. This was a conscious choice by the author, based on the inability to read either Russian or German. However, this does 57

present an interesting point for further analysis, for a comparison between the point of view of the Americans toward the two groups, and how the Russians and Germans viewed the American and their culture, could provide a more complete picture of the war’s effect on these two minorities. In addition, this analysis was limited by access to source materials due to limited funds and travel restrictions. A more in-depth analysis of other similar articles published by other newspapers, as well as magazines like The New Yorker or Time Magazine, could provide further insights. For example, it could expand on the discussion if the different views concerning these groups were based on class differences among the Americans and the amount contact between Americans and Immigrants.

58

59

Literature

Primary:

Addams, Jane, The Social Thought of Jane Adams, an anthology, Christopher Lasch eds. (Indianapolis: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, INC., 1965).

Bourne, Randolph S., War and the intellectuals, collected essays 1915-1919, Carl Resek eds. (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1964).

Braeman, John, Wilson, Great lives observed, (Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall INC., 1972).

Commons, John Roger, Races and Immigrants in America (New York: Macmillan & Co., 1907).

First World War Propaganda Posters, 1914-1918, comprehensive website on the First World War, http://firstworldwar.com/posters/usa.htm.

Grant, Madison, The Passing of the Great Race or the Racial Basis of European History, fourth Edition (New York; Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1923, original 1916).

Jados, Staley S., Documents on Russian-American Relations, Washington tot Eisenhower (Washington D.C., The Catholic University of America Press, 1965).

The New York Times, 1900-1930, New York Times Digital archives, http://timesmachine.nytimes.com/browser.

Ross, Edward A., The Old World in the New, the significance of past and present immigration to the American People (New York: The Century Co., 1914).

60

The Immigrant Commission, Dictionary of Races or Peoples (Washington: Government printing office, 1911).

Walz, Dr. John A., German Influence in American Education and Culture (Philadelphia; Carl Schurz Memorial Foundation, Inc., 1936.

Zangwill, Isreal, The Melting Pot, Drama in Four Acts, (New York; The Macmillan company, 1910).

Secondary:

Archdeacon, Thomas J. Becoming American, and Ethnic History (New York: The Free Press, 1983).

Cashman, Sean Dennis, America in the Twenties and Thirties (New York: New York University Press, 1989).

Davis, Donald E., Eugene P. Trani, The First Cold War, The legacy of Woodrow Wilson in U.S. – Soviet Relations (Columbia: University of Missouri Press, 2002).

Feagin, Joe R., Racist America, roots, current realities, and future reparations, 3rd ed. (New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis group, 2014).

Fitzgerald, Keith, The Face of the Nation, Immigration, The State, and the National Identity (Stanford CA: Stanford University Press, 1996).

Floyd, M. Ryan, Abandoning American Neutrality, Woodrow Wilson and the Beginning of the Great War, august 1914-december 1915 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013).

Foner, Eric, The Story of American Freedom (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1998).

Foner, Eric, Give me liberty, an American history fourth Ed. (New York: W. W. Norton & company, 2005). 61

Foner, Nancy, From Ellis Island to JFK, New York’s Two Great Waves of Immigration (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000).

Frye Jacobson, Matthew, Whiteness of a Different Color: European Immigrants and the Alchemy of Race (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1998).

Frye Jacobson, Matthew, Barbarian Virtues, the United States encounters foreign peoples at home and abroad, 1876-1917 (New York; Hill and Wang, 2000).

Grayson, Benson Lee, Russian – American Relations in World War 1 (New York: Frederick Ungar Publishing Co., 1979).

Higham, John, Strangers in the Land, patterns of American nativism 1860-1925 (New Brunswick; Rutgers University Press, 1992).

Hutchinson, E. P., Legislative History of American Immigration Policy 1798-1965 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981).

Jaggers, Jeremiah, W. Jay Gabbard, Shanna J. Jaggers, ‘the Devolution of U.S. immigration Policy: An Examination of the History and Future of Immigration Policy’ Journal of Policy Practice vol. 13 no. 3 (2014) pp. 3-15.

Keeling, Drew, The Business of Transatlantic Migration between Europe and the United States, 1900-1914 (Zurich: Chronos, 2012).

King, Desmond, Making Americans, Immigration, Race and the Origins of the Diverse Democracy (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 2000).

Koch, Koen, Een kleine geschiedenis van de Grote Oorlog 1914-1918 (Antwerpen: Manteau, 2010).

62

Knight, Louise W., Citizen, Jane Adams and the Struggle for Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005).

Libbey, James K., Russian-American Economic Relations 1763-1999 (Gull Breeze; Academic International Press, 1999).

Mc Knight Nichols, Christopher, “Citizenship and Transnationalism in Randolph Bourne’s America” peace review: A journal of social justice, 20 (2008) pp. 348-357.

McKnight Nichols, Christopher. “Rethinking Randolph Bourne's Trans-National America: How World War I Created an Isolationist Antiwar Pluralism” The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era Vol. 8, No. 2 (Apr., 2009), pp. 217-257

Moehling, Carolyn, Anne Morrison, ‘Immigration, Crime, and Incarceration in Early Twentieth-Century America’ Demography vol. 46 no. 4 (Nov. 2009) pp. 739-763.

Murray, Robert K., Red Scare, A study in National Hysteria, 1919-1920 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1955).

Pinder, Sherrow O., The Politics of Race and Ethnicity in the United States, Americanization, De-Americanization and Racial Ethnic Groups (New York, Palgrave MacMillan, 2010).

Phelps, Christopher, “The Radicalism of Randolph Bourne” Social Democracy, vol. 21, no. 1 (March 2007) pp. 123-131.

Quinley, Harold E., Charles Y. Glock, Anti-Semitism in America (New York: The Free Press, A division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1979).

Reimers, David M., Unwelcome Strangers, American Identity and the turn against immigration (New York; Columbia University Press, 1998).

Spickard, Paul, Race and Immigration in the United States (New York: Routledge Tylor & Francis Group, 2012). 63

Trommler, Frank, Elliott Shore, The German-American Encounter, Conflict and Cooperation between the Two Cultures 1800-2000 (New York; Berghahn Books, 2001).

Trommler, Frank, Josheph McVeigh, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three- hundred-year history, volume one: immigration, language, ethnicity (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985).

Trommler, Frank, Josheph McVeigh, American and the Germans, an assessment of a three- hundred-year history, volume two; the relationship in the Twentieth Century (Philadelphia; University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985).

Wertsman, Vladimir, The Russians in America, A Chronology & Fact Book (New York: Oceana Publications, 1977).

64