Minerva: Quarterly Report on Women and the Military

Quarterly Report on Women and the Military: American Military Families Overseas and Early Cold War Foreign Relations

American Military Families Overseas and Early Cold War Foreign Relations

Donna Alvah

In the years after World War II, the United States sent hundreds of thousands of service personnel (mostly men) overseas, to bases around the globe, as part of a long campaign to contain communism. It is during this period that the government also began to send thousands of “dependents” along with them. (The term “dependents” included the spouses, children, and other relatives supported by military personnel.) By 1960, over 600,000 armed forces personnel and approximately half a million dependents lived overseas.(1) Sending military families abroad was an extraordinarily expensive undertaking. Why did the U.S. do it? The reasons for sending families overseas illuminate the connections between post-World War II heteronormative families and the US Cold War policy of containing communism. Model families living overseas could, the government came to believe, help to achieve the Cold War goal of containment.

The first important reason for sending families abroad was that wives were no longer willing to endure separation from their soldier husbands. After the war, wives demanded the reconstitution of their nuclear families. In so doing, wives helped to persuade the military of the centrality of heteronormative families in the campaign against the spread of communism.

Second, the US government hoped that sending military families overseas would help to solve a problem in maintaining hundreds of thousands of servicemen abroad for long tours of duty. Servicemen’s unruly behavior strained relations between the US and host countries. The men’s drunkenness, brawling, criminal activities, and sexual relationships with citizens of host countries contributed to a poor image of Americans and the United States, undermining Cold War foreign relations. The federal government hoped that the presence of wives and children would civilize and domesticate servicemen.

Following the decision to ship dependents abroad–first to Germany and Japan in 1946, then to bases in other countries–the US government began to articulate a vision of military families as messengers of American ideas and ideals to US allies. In the context of the fierce ideological combat of the Cold War, government officials hoped that American families of servicemen stationed abroad could serve as “unofficial ambassadors”(2) who would promote the United States to its allies around the world. Military families overseas would, the government believed, help to manage military men’s behavior, and enforce distinct masculine and feminine roles in strong nuclear families. Such model families could, the government hoped, also convey ideas about democracy and other emblematic aspects of American life to other nations. We shall see, however, that assigning the role of “unofficial ambassador” to military wives led to unintended consequences; wives did not always act as the military intended.

Families were implements of US foreign policy; not only metaphorically, but in their everyday activities at American bases in host countries around the world. We are by now fairly familiar with the presumed connection between the post-World War II ideology of the family and the Cold War.(3) Now let us look at it in this laboratory of military bases abroad.

After World War II, military wives pressed for the return of their husbands, but U.S. leaders believed that postwar international stability required the long-term deployment of hundreds of thousands of service personnel at strategic bases around the globe. Government officials were initially reluctant to send large numbers of military dependents abroad because of the expense and because spouses and children overseas might create new problems. But service wives declared themselves unwilling to endure further separation, financial hardship, and reliance on parents and in-laws. Women had wearied of running the household and maintaining their families single-handedly, and children wondered where their fathers were. In 1945 and 1946, military wives demanded–in letters, and in a confrontation with General Eisenhower in Washington, D.C.–the return of servicemen to their families.(4) Wives and other critics of military policy complained that keeping men abroad would destabilize families and possibly lead to divorce. Service wives thus helped to convince the military of the importance of the nuclear family, and persuaded its leaders to find a compromise that would benefit both wives and the military. The success of their appeal illustrates the significance the military would increasingly attach to the ideal nuclear family.

The undesirable behavior of servicemen thousands of miles away from home and away from American families provided another reason for sending spouses and children overseas. Servicemen damaged local and international relations–and consequently threatened the US policy of containment–with their drinking and fighting. Some host citizens were robbed, assaulted, murdered, or accidentally killed by American soldiers. Furthermore, relationships between American military men and local women (and no doubt men)(5) disrupted communities around military bases. Both the U.S. military and host citizens worded about sexual relations between American servicemen and local women. Immediately after the war, a pamphlet entitled Don’t Be a Sucker in Germany! warned servicemen that “You’ll see a lot of good-looking babes on the make there. German women have been trained to seduce you. Is it worth a knife in the back?”(6)

The American presence sparked fear in German minds about various sorts of illicit sexual relationships. Maria Hohn has shown that in the Rhineland-Palatinate, local leaders fretted over the prostitution of German women and girls as well as refugees who poured in from Eastern Europe. German women who probably were not prostitutes but who dated American servicemen endured attacks on their character from civic and religious leaders, and sometimes arrest and court trials. Rhineland-Palatinate citizens also feared that American servicemen preyed on their children, girls as well as boys. And Germans worried that American military men would draw young Germans into a “whirlpool of homosexuality.” Germans also expressed dismay over relationships between black American servicemen and white German women.(7) These German concerns coincided with Americans’ own fears about the menace of unregulated male sexuality unleashed by military men abroad.

Americans also worried about how relationships between servicemen and host citizens would affect wives and families at home. A 1950s cartoon from the American military newspaper The Pacific Stars and Stripes depicts the “double life” of a soldier who maintains a relationship with a Japanese mistress and with his wife. Although the man is not in uniform here, readers of The Stars and Stripes would have recognized him as a serviceman who appeared in other cartoons. The questions of the women to the man–“What are American girls like?/What are Japanese girls like?”–suggest awareness of the likelihood of his involvement with women in both countries. Although meant to amuse, the cartoon also conveys the peril of the man’s balancing act between his illicit overseas relationship and his role as a husband who is supposed to be faithful and devoted to his family at home.(8)

The government hoped that normative American families overseas would not only solve the problem of sexual relationships between U.S. military personnel and host citizens; it also expected that American dependents abroad would behave as “unofficial ambassadors” who would embody the model American family and, by extension, American social and political ideals. The prescriptive literature produced by the government for overseas dependents reveals that a vision of stable, well-behaved families lay at the heart of American Cold War ideology. The ideal family evoked associations with American self-sufficiency, prosperity, freedom, and democracy. The American nuclear family served as a model for the well-run democratic capitalist state, which required self-discipline and independence. Thus, the government considered American military families crucial cultural and ideological weapons in the war against communism.

The US government’s vision of using military families abroad to halt the spread of communism seems paradoxical: the military, an authoritarian institution, prescribed family behavior in order to demonstrate to US allies the superiority of American ideals such as democracy, free enterprise, and individual freedom. Yet government officials could justify policing families as a necessary defense against the encroachment of communism. An Army guide for overseas dependents informed them that the military mission took priority, and as “guests” they were allowed to join their sponsors abroad only at the Army’s pleasure, and only if they abided by the rules set by the military. If spouses and children wanted to accompany their husbands and fathers, then they too would be considered part of the military structure, and subject to its strict demands, in the name of successful international relations and foreign policy.(9) Furthermore, Soviet critiques of American decadence, hedonism, selfishness, and greed would be proved false by properly functioning heteronormative families, which would keep all of these tendencies–seen in the actions of military men alone abroad, and in poorly run families–in check.

The US military described its expectations of families in prescriptive literature produced for them in the late 1940s and 1950s. The authors of the pamphlet Information for Dependents Traveling to Oversea Areas cautioned their intended audience (primarily military wives) always to speak and act with an eye to their ideological role in Cold War containment:

As an American family overseas it is important to realize what a very

conspicuous group you are going to be. Your actions will be watched

constantly by thousands of foreign eyes…. For the daily life of an

American family, you must remember, is just about the most representative

thing about your country–what you eat, wear, say to each other; how you

govern your children and treat other people; how you manage your home,

employ your free time, speak of your country. All these add up to the real,

hard-core America in the eyes of foreigners.(10)

American wives and children were told that they wielded the power either to aid or undermine good relations between the U.S. government and host country citizens. Many enthusiastically embraced their foreign relations role; others responded with ambivalence. Some military wives (and children) composed their own prescriptive literature for military and civilian periodicals.(11) Both the official and unofficial literature admonished wives to dress properly and attractively, to exhibit exemplary behavior as guests in foreign countries, to control their children, and to use their wifely influence to improve their husbands’ appearance and conduct. By virtue of their excellent deportment, American families would, the government believed, foster smooth local relations. Furthermore, the government ultimately hoped that these model families would shape host citizens’ overall perceptions of the United States and gently persuade people around the world of the superiority of American life and institutions, in contrast to life as imagined under Soviet rule.

The writings of military wives show how these women helped to define normative American families overseas. One German war bride expressed her concern at how military families could compromise the Cold War foreign relations agenda if they failed to embody the ideal of the nuclear family. In an article she wrote for a magazine called US Lady, published by and for American military wives, Elizabeth Dallmeier LaMantia condemned the behavior of American families in her native country. She stated that “I found myself apologizing to old friends, trying to convince them that the United States is not a land where all the women dress indecently and everyone attends dusk ’til dawn cocktail parties. I tried explaining that slovenly habits and complete disregard for the appearance of a home are not the norm. And I attempted to dispel the notion that American children are baby monsters, permitted free and uninhibited reign in the family.(12) The failures enumerated here all stem from the dereliction of feminine responsibilities: control over sexuality, care for the domestic sphere, and responsibility for raising self-disciplined children. The solution to the problem was clearly for women to better regulate the nuclear family in order to save American diplomatic aims.

Just as unregulated male sexuality endangered American Cold War foreign relations goals, so did the threat of unregulated female sexuality. Rumors circulated in the Rhineland-Palatinate that American military wives were seducing young German handymen and even boys as young as eleven or twelve.(13) To counter anxieties about inappropriate sexuality of American women, the military’s prescriptive literature advised wives to dress modestly, in consideration of local custom. For instance, American women in Spain were asked to cover low-cut summer dresses with a jacket; to dress in one-piece bathing suits “with a skirt completely around the hips” when swimming; and to cover up with a beach robe when outside of the water.(14) This prescription of modest swimwear raises the question of how the military reconciled the ideal of American liberty as personal freedom with government control of family behavior. This example highlights the US government’s vision of American families as models of freedom coupled with good self-governance. The normative family structure, in the government’s view, disciplined individual family members, ultimately safeguarding democracy and freedom around the world. Offending America’s allies could result in the spread of communism, and the eventual loss of all personal liberties–thus, dressing modestly was a small sacrifice women had to make for the greater good.

The official prescriptive literature paints this picture of the ideal American family abroad: wives dressed attractively and in accordance with the culture of their host country. They were always polite and sensitive to local citizens. They did not complain about or criticize their host country’s culture and conditions; and they did not overspend, as this might offend the inhabitants of war-torn, struggling nations. Wives also managed their husbands by maintaining their uniforms and outward appearance and restraining them from drinking, bragging, arguing, or otherwise offending local citizens. And wives ensured that their children did not behave like spoiled brats. The military expected wives to cultivate in their children respect for local citizens and culture, and the ideal American traits of self-sufficiency and individual initiative. For instance, although some military families could afford to hire maids (local women who desperately needed the income), wives were admonished not to allow servants to wait on the children as if they were royalty. Doing so, the government feared, would convey a sense of American superiority that undermined attempts to persuade free nations around the world that the United States was a friend and equal, not an imperialist.

These attempts to enforce normative family roles abroad through women’s influence produced unintended consequences for Cold War femininity. During this period, social critics expressed dismay that domineering wives emasculated their husbands and weakened their families.(15) Yet even when women were not wrongfully usurping their husbands’ power, the government’s view that military wives shared responsibility for influencing foreign relations contained the seeds of a challenge to heteronormativity. The legitimacy for wives to act as “unofficial ambassadors” in a public role came out of a plea for tradition and international stability, yet women’s role in foreign relations called into question the conventional feminine role.(16) This perspective does not deny the strong influence of what Betty Friedan would soon label “the feminine mystique” on military wives. But although the military media portrayed and addressed women primarily as wives and mothers, some magazine articles written by and for wives also celebrated military wives’ less conventional accomplishments.

Women’s important contributions to the military and to foreign relations were not limited to taking care of their husbands and children inside the home. The role of a military wife entailed fostering smooth community relations between American families and local citizens, by arranging and attending dinners, parties, women’s club activities, and community events. In their interactions with host citizens, military wives stood both inside and outside dominant ideas of American women’s proper feminine role.

A US Lady article conveys the public and international significance of the domestic role of military wives. Mrs. Lucien Keller was the wife of an Army attache in Seoul, Korea. The Army required its attach6s to study a year of the language of the region they would be working in, and encouraged wives to learn the language as well. So Anita Keller studied Korean along with her husband at the Army Language School in Monterey, California. The article suggested that Mrs. Keller spoke Korean as well as, and possibly better than, her husband. She said in an interview that “she wishes she had learned more speech patterns for women and children. `I know how to run a regiment and how to interrogate Communists … but this isn’t much of an asset socially. I had to learn how to tell the ladies how lovely they look, and how to talk to orphans and hospital patients’.” The article goes on to say that “[as] a crusader for more linguists among Americans, Mrs. Keller has suggested to the language school ways to make their courses for women more useful.”

This story illustrates how the role of military wives as “unofficial ambassadors” bridged the feminine, domestic world and the masculine world of diplomacy and foreign relations. The reporter described her as a “`sparkling personality’ [that] comes over in Korean, a great asset to [her husband’s] career…. At Korean-American parties, Mrs. Keller draws the Korean wives into the festivities. The ladies cluster around her, and their husbands, pleased to see that their wives are enjoying themselves, usually join the group too, instead of the old social pattern of the Korean wives huddled together in isolation. At these parties Mrs. Keller sometimes looks enchanting in glamorous, gossamer Korean costumes, which are as becoming to her as her sleek, sophisticated ball gowns.” Anita Keller’s story contains a subtle, but significant, critique of the reigning style of American diplomacy. It is Anita Keller’s social skills at diplomatic functions, rather than her husband’s official actions, which have effected a noticeable change in American-Korean relations. Mrs. Keller’s humorous remarks about the inadequacy of her language training suggest that the Cold War might be more effectively waged through sparkling personality and glamorous costumes than through running regiments and interrogating communists. Articles such as this one articulated an alternative approach to international diplomacy, based on virtues which were considered feminine, in place of the traditional diplomacy of male power and domination.(17)

A document entitled “A US Lady’s World” conveys the assumption that military wives were “part of a bigger defense team” and that their activities were not only significant within their families and their communities, they were also integral to the success of the United States’ intemational Cold War project. The text indicates that women’s duties spanned the spectrum from the world and their nation, down to their communities and family. In this vision, women were simultaneously domestic and public figures. Their roles as wives and mothers served as the foundation for the local community, the military community, and intemational relations, and all were interconnected.

The status of military wives as “unofficial ambassadors” gave women a voice for demanding improvements for themselves and their families. In 1955, military wives created the magazine US Lady for the purposes of telling women’s stories, articulating the role of wives in the military, and also discussing wives’ and families’ problems and needs. The magazine published articles urging women to write to military and federal government officials to demand improvements in the financial and legal status of military spouses, and better housing, schools, and medical care. Women who wrote such letters asserted that US foreign policy depended on stable, heteronormative families. Yet these feminine demands could slip into feminist demands for more economic and legal parity with men. The importance of women’s role as unofficial ambassadors was derived from their place within (and their maintenance of) a strong nuclear family. Additionally, the ambassadorial role itself gave women power in the public sphere which was not completely under the control of husbands or the US government, and might be used against the government and the head of the patriarchal family.(18)

Even in this early Cold War period when gender roles held tyrannical sway, circumscribing the role of military wives proved a slippery business. Wives were to draw upon their culturally prescribed feminine influence to manage their husbands and children; yet they also received the message that their power extended beyond their homes, into the realm of international relations. Indeed, taken far enough, the logic of military officials could lead to the conclusion that their womanly influence was needed to prevent the outbreak of nuclear war, and the destruction of the world. Thus, the military’s reliance on families–particularly on wives–as “unofficial ambassadors” represents a “feminine,” domestic dimension of Cold War foreign policy–in contrast to the more conventional “masculine” approach which relied upon weapons build-up and confrontation.

Exploring the role and experiences of the thousands of military dependents who lived abroad after World War II illuminates the associations between normative Cold War families and anti-communism. The government allowed families to join soldiers overseas in order to accommodate wives who demanded to be reunited with their husbands, and to ameliorate the problems caused by American soldiers in foreign countries. Both of these reasons for sending dependents abroad presumed the significance and power of the nuclear family for maintaining order in the post-war world. Furthermore, in its prescriptive literature, the US government articulated how families abroad could, in their role as “unofficial ambassadors,” represent American ideology and advance US foreign policy goals. By sending families to strategic bases all over the world, the US government hoped to improve its ability to fight the spread of communism without resorting to full-scale warfare. There is much more to be explored about the Cold War foreign relations roles of women, men, and children. Military families overseas existed at the nexus of American gender relations and international relations, and provide a crucial vantage point for illuminating the interactions among gender roles, sexuality, and Cold War diplomacy.(19)


(1.) United States Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Census of Population: 1960, Volume 1, Characteristics of the Population, Part A, Number of Inhabitants, Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office, 1961), 1-3, Table 1. According to this table, in 1960 there were 609,720 armed forces personnel living abroad, and 506,393 dependents of federal employees (most of whom would have been military dependents, because only 38,010 civilian federal employees lived abroad). This table also gives the following figures: in 1950, 301,595 armed forces personnel lived abroad, as did 107,350 dependents of federal employees (and 26,910 civilian federal employees). In 1940, the United States population abroad numbered 118,933–a figure that included federal employees (armed forces and civilian), dependents of federal employees, crews of merchant vessels, and other citizens. The Bureau of the Census did not begin to break down the numbers of Americans abroad by the categories of federal employees, armed forces, dependents of federal employees, etc. until the 1950 census.

(2.) US Department of the Army, Headquarters, Information for Dependents Traveling to Oversea Areas (Washington, DC.: US Government Printing Office, January 1959), 35; US Department of the Air Force, Dependents Information on Okinawa (Washington, D.C.: US Government Printing Office, January 1956), 2.

(3.) See Elaine Tyler May, Homeward Bound: American Families in the Cold War Era (BasicBooks, 1988)

(4.) Martha Gravois, “Military Families in Germany, 1946-1986: Why They Came and Why They Stay,” Parameters: Journal of the US Army War College (Winter 1986): 58-60 Gravois states that Congressional representatives received 40,000 letters per week on the issue of bringing men home once the war had ended.

(5.) I have not found official references to homosexual relationships between military personnel and host citizens It is likely that the military hoped that the influence of American families overseas would reduce the likelihood of homosexual relationships between servicemen, a concern that emerged among military and government leaders during World War II. See Allan Berube, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War II (New York: The Free Press, 1990), 2. Berube also states that after WWII, “the terms child molester, homosexual, sex offender, sex psychopath, sex degenerate, sex deviate, and sometimes communist became interchangeable in the minds of the [American] public, legislators, and local police” (p. 258); also see pp. 267-268 regarding post-WWII fears of homosexuals in the military as security risks.

(6.) 12th Army Group, Don’t Be A Sucker in Germany! (Imprimerie Nationale, 1945), 2 Yet American servicemen and Germans persisted in forging relationships which gradually undermined anti-fraternization laws. See Petra Goedde, “GIs and Germans: Culture, Gender, and Foreign Relations, 1945-1949,” (Ph.D. diss., Northwestern University, 1995), 339.

(7.) Maria Hohn, “GI’s, Veronikas, and Lucky Strikes: German Reactions to the American Military Presence in the Rhineland- Palatinate during the 1950s,” (PhD. diss., University of Pennsylvania, 1995), 116-123; 206-207.

(8.) Tom Holloway and Hank Brenowitz, Fighting Men Wanted (Japan: Pacific Stars and Stripes, 1959) It is likely that this cartoon appeared in the newspaper Pacific Stars and Stripes prior to 1959. This cartoon strikes me as a military men’s “in- joke” that probably would not have been as amusing to wives; yet wives as well as servicemen read the newspaper in which this cartoon appeared.

(9.) The American patriarchal family (in which the father is the head, but everyone has a function and wives perform a crucial feminine dimension, organizing the private sphere and curbing male aggression) served as a foil to communism, in which the totalitarian state obliterates the family and its morality, individual freedom, and gender difference Fears of communism’s homogenizing influence were strong: the heteronormative family, resting on gender difference, would give way under communism to manly women, effeminate men, and perhaps even homosexuality. Self-discipline and independence, necessary for the success of democracy and capitalism, made America great; yet these would be lost under the godless and ruthlessly instrumental state discipline of communism, which also stifled creativity and dynamism. For discussions of the associations among gender, sexuality, family, and communism, also see Michael Rogin, “Kiss Me Deadly: Communism, Motherhood, and Cold War Movies,” Representations v. 6 (Spring 1984): 13-22, 31-33; and May, Homeward Bound, 96-99, 102-105.

(10.) “It is important for you to remember also that while you are overseas as a visitor on a foreign land, you are actually going to be, in a sense, a guest of the Army … The Army, of course, realizes that men in the service are more satisfied and generally do their jobs more energetically when they can have their families with them That’s why the Army has gone to such great lengths to bring as many dependents overseas as possible … But housing, feeding, and caring for Army families is still a definite and serious drain on Army and local civilian resources … It is important for you to remember, therefore, that being able to join husbands, fathers, and sons overseas is still very much a privilege. You are simply fortunate that the mission of the station to which you are going permits it to accept dependents.” Information for Dependents, 36-37.

(11.) Information for Dependents, 35

(12.) See articles in Army Information Digest and US Lady Also see various etiquette books for military wives co-written by Nancy Shea (who also wrote for US Lady), including The Navy Wife (1949 and 1955 editions), The Air Force Wife (1951 and 1956 editions), The Army Wife (3d rev. ed., 1954), and The Marine Corps Wife (1955).

(13.) Elizabeth Dallmeier LaMantia, “My Country ‘Tis of Thee,” US Lady, v 4 n. 10 (March 1960): 14.

(14.) Hohn, 119. According to Hohn, these rumors were based more on speculation than on evidence.

(15.) US Department of the Air Force, Dependents Information on Spain (Washington, DC.: June 1955), 7-8.

(16.) For discussion of Philip Wylie’s theories about the alleged problem of overbearing mothers and insubordinate wives during and after World War II, see May, Homeward Bound, 74-75, 96-97 For discussion of the plight of middle-class organization men, see May, Homeward Bound, 20, 22. It is worthwhile to consider in more depth the experiences of military men as organization men, in light of David Riesman’s The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character (1950) and William Whyte’s The Organization Man (1956).

(17.) Donna Alvah, “Redefining Diplomatic and Military History: American Military Wives and Families Overseas, 1945-1960,” Presentation for Cross-Cultural Women’s History, University of California Davis, 2 June 1998; May, Homeward Bound, 102

(18.) Florence S Richards, “The Korean Speaking Kellers,” US Lady, v. 5 n. 7 (Dec. 1960): 14-15. Anita Keller’s public sphere extended beyond her husband’s diplomatic world. She worked as a teacher for American and Korean girls. The article also noted that Mrs. Keller, previously known as 2nd Lt. Anita Gouge of the Army Nurse Corps, received a commendation ribbon for her heroic efforts aboard a ship during World War II.

(19.) Jean D Andrew, “A US Lady’s World,” US Lady, v. 1 n. 6 (May 1956). Joanne Meyerowitz points out that “Historians sometimes contend that the Cold War mentality encouraged domesticity, that it envisioned family life and especially mothers as buffers against the alleged communist threat. But Cold War rhetoric had other possible meanings for women. In the Ladies Home Journal, authors often used the Cold War to promote women’s political participation … Senator Margaret Chase Smith made the case most strongly: `The way to reverse this socialist, dictatorial trend and put more home in the Government is for you women, the traditional homemakers, to become more active in your Government.’ In this line of argument, the Cold War made women’s political participation an international obligation.” “Beyond the Feminine Mystique: A Reassessment of Postwar Mass Culture, 1946-1958,” in Not June Cleaver: Women and Gender in Postwar America, 1945-1960, ed. Joanne Meyerowitz (Philadelphia: The University Press, 1994), 241.

(20.) The book If You Marry a Soldier, by Elizabeth Happan (New York: Vantage Press, 1955), catalogs the author’s criticisms of the US Army, who she says paid little heed to her complaints that her soldier husband squandered his income and abandoned responsibility for his family. Happan’s main message (expressed in an angry and bitter tone through the entire book) is that the Army did not stand by its claims that military families were important and deserved the government’s protection; indeed, she asserts that military representatives consistently sided with her husband, and showed little respect or concern for the family he neglected.

(21.) See Cynthia Enloe, Bananas Beaches & Bases: Making Feminist Sense of International Politics (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989); Enloe, “Keeping the Homefires Burning: Military Wives” in Does Khaki Become You?: The Militarisation of Women’s Lives (Boston: South End Press, 1983), 46-91; “Culture, Gender, and Foreign Policy: A Symposium,” essays by Jeffords, Kaplan, May, McEnaney, Rosenberg, and Smith, Diplomatic History (Fall 1994): 47-105

Donna Alvah is a Ph.D. candidate in history at the University of California, Davis.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Minerva Center, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group