GLIMPSES British Visions of War and Peace with a preface by PETER STANSKY and essays by HOLLY DAYTON MEADE KLINGENSMITH CRYSTAL LEE MURPHY TEMPLE edited by CRYSTAL LEE Copyright © 2016. All rights reserved. Set in Baskerville and Athelas. Printed at American Printing, Menlo Park, California. Published in conjunction with the exhibition held at the Hoover Institution Library and Archives. June 2––July 31, 2016 CONTENTS PREFACE 7 Peter Stansky NOTE ON THE IMAGES 9 Crystal Lee THE OFFICIAL ART OF WAR 11 British National Morale, Domestic Propaganda, and the Official War Artists of the First World War Holly Dayton COMRADES IN DISTRESS 30 The Ruhleben Internment Camp, 1914-18 Murphy Temple PROPOSING FAILURE 64 The Woodhead Commission’s Maps of Palestine Meade Klingensmith WARTIME COLLABORATIONS 77 Intelligence Cooperation and Digital Computing Crystal Lee EXHIBITION CHECKLIST 94 PREFACE The Hoover Institution Library & Archives are one of the world’s great research centers, containing archives dealing with many aspects of the modern world, with a special emphasis on politics, the waging of war, and the making of peace. Many nations are represented in its holdings, including Great Britain. In the 2016 spring quarter, a Stanford history department class taught by Peter Stansky, the Frances and Charles Field Professor of History Emeritus, devoted itself to making selections from the archives that deal with twentieth-century Britain. The aim was to bring to light a sampling of riches to enhance understanding of the many facets of modern Britain and highlight the richness of the Hoover collections. The sampling examines two aspects of the First World War—the art that it produced and life in a German detention camp for British civilians—as well as how Britain helped shape the making of modern Israel; and the operation of American Office of Strategic Services personnel in Britain during the Second World War. Although only scratching the surface of what is available in the Hoover Archives, these glimpses suggest lines of inquiry that can vastly enrich our understanding of the past and inform our perception of life today. Professor Stansky would like to express his gratitude for making the class and catalog possible to Harry Elam, the Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education. Crucial to this enterprise were those at the Hoover Institution itself: Eric Wakin, the Robert H. Malott Director of the Library & Archives and deputy director of the Hoover Institution, and Jean Cannon, Samira Bozorgi, and Marissa Schleicher, who taught the members of the class and its teacher how to mount an exhibition. The most important component of the enterprise was the students––Holly Dayton, Meade Klingensmith, Crystal Lee, and Murphy Temple––who in the process educated themselves and others. PETER STANSKY 7 NOTE ON THE IMAGES The images reproduced in black and white are embedded within the body of each essay, and have been labeled with Arabic numerals. Color images, however, can be found in the inset, and have been labeled with alphabet letters (i.e. Figures A–H). CRYSTAL LEE 9 THE OFFICIAL ART OF WAR British National Morale, Domestic Propaganda, and the Official War Artists of the First World War HOLLY DAYTON 1916 was a difficult year to be British. The Great War, which was supposed to be short and glorious, was dragging on and proving exceptionally brutal. Home front morale, which had been at an ecstatic high only two years earlier, was beginning to falter. At this moment, the British government mobilized to respond to the increased need for propaganda and the civilian demand for visual images of the war. Taking advantage of the willingness of professional artists to be seen as contributors to the war effort, the British department in charge of international propaganda at Wellington House and, later, the Department of Information, hired visual artists to spearhead a new domestic propaganda effort. This was the Official War Artists project, which yielded over 3,000 pieces of art and served multiple functions. Firstly, the Official War Artists presented a patriotic, reassuring view of the war effort and nearly always reinforced Britain’s determination and courage. Though the artists were never told that they were hired to create propaganda, their work served that function. Secondly, their work served a documentary function, capturing moments of the war experience for posterity. Additionally, the art of the Official War Artists was beautiful even when 11 THE OFFICIAL ART OF WAR showing landscapes of ruins or gravestones–– and provided an aesthetic release for its viewers from the anxieties and worries of wartime. The far-reaching and diverse distribution channels for this art meant that it reached a large cross section of the British population. An examination of the Official War Artists initiative and one of the exhibitions it yielded in 1917––The Great War: Britain’s Efforts and Ideals––illustrates how the arts played a vital role in shaping public spirit at the time. It is important to set the context of life in Britain at the outset of the war to understand why, two years into the war, a domestic propaganda campaign of visual art was deemed timely and necessary. When Britain declared war on Germany in August of 1914, it only took a few days for the nation to galvanize around the national cause. The average British citizen embraced the war effort with an eagerness and patriotism that historian Caroline Playne has described as “suicidal.”1 Everyone sought to contribute to the war effort, to follow the national impulse to do something. Young men of fighting mettle enlisted, older men went to work in munitions factories, and women volunteered to help in whatever capacity they could. Patriotic concerts were held, public charities were formed, and subscription services for war relief were founded. At this, the starting point of the war, public spirit was high. Men and women were both certain the war would be over by Christmas and the boys would come marching home victorious. There was no substantial need to run a government propaganda campaign at this time because there were more than enough private patriotic initiatives to stoke the burning fire of British patriotism. At the start of the war, the British government saw both the visual and theatrical arts as slightly extravagant and inessential for social order. In 1914, no public funding was provided for the support of theaters, artists, 1 Caroline E. Playne, 1931, Society at War (Boston: Houghton Mifflin), p. 21. 12 HOLLY DAYTON or artistic schools.2 When war broke out, individuals in arts professions such as artists, museum curators, art dealers, or theater professionals, were aware that they would be seen by the general population as cowardly or frivolous. Anticipating this response, artists and art administrators worked especially hard to show their commitment to the national military cause. Museum curators and art dealers responded by hosting special charity showings of contemporary works. At the start of 1915, the Royal Academy announced that, in place of the usual winter exhibition, it would host a special exhibition of contemporary British artists. The proceeds of this show were to be split evenly between the Red Cross, the Artists’ General Benevolent Association and the contributing artists.3 The event was highly successful, with over 8,000 visitors to the galleries, 167 of the 800 works on display sold and an ultimate profit of £5,463.4 This event, known as the War Relief Exhibition, would inspire future charitable painting exhibitions and sales, many executed by the Red Cross through Christie’s auction house. These events catered to the middle and upper classes, who were less affected by war conditions of rationing and were strongly socially inclined to participate in charity.5 Over time, the middle and upper classes increasingly saw artists as active contributors to the war effort, and, as an added benefit, the artists gained personal celebrity with the increase of publicity around their works.6 Many of the artists who came to be hired as Official War Artists, like John Lavery, Augustus John, and William Orpen, gained prominence in the eyes of artistic society through these sales.7 2 Jörn Weingärtner, 2006, The Arts as a Weapon of War: Britain and the Shaping of the National Morale in the Second World War, (London: Tauris Academic Studies), p. 19. 3 James Fox, 2015, British Art and the First World War, 1914-1924 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013): p. 63. 4 Ibid. 5 Barbara Jones and Bill Howell, 1972, Popular Arts of the First World War (Littlehampton, Littlehampton Book Services Limited, 1972), p. 130. 6 Fox, British Art and the First World War, 1914-1924, p. 69. 7 Ibid, p. 64. 13 THE OFFICIAL ART OF WAR With private initiatives doing more than enough to support the public spirit at the start of the war, the British government concentrated its official propaganda internationally. The intention was to broadcast in France and particularly in America the justice of and strength behind the British war effort. This material came from Wellington House, a division within the Foreign Office.8 Wellington House was established secretly by Cabinet Minute at the end of August 1914, and was known as such because, out of a desire for secrecy, the offices were placed in one of the National Health Insurance Commission buildings in Buckingham Gate.9 The purpose of Wellington House was to generate literature by academics, journalists, and writers that was ostensibly objective in support of the war effort.10 An official schedule of material published by Wellington House includes 1,116 items that ranged from the religious– –“Christ: and the world at war, sermons preached in wartime”––to the obviously political––“Supremacy of the British Soldier, a single- page leaflet by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle to the editor of the “Daily Chronicle.”11 The intended socio-economic class of the audience for this official propaganda varied depending on the subject matter, but the international audience and consistently supportive view of the war did not.