The Great War: Modernity & Memory

Over the course of this curriculum, we have discussed a wide variety of topics. We have discussed the influence of women during World War I. We have also discussed the impact and influence African Americans had on the war effort. Though we may have touched lightly about this subject, the topic about hospitals was rarely discussed. Interested, I looked through the archive of pamphlets, and this specific pamphlet immediately caught my eye. The pamphlet is titled The American Ambulance, and it was written by Mr. Robert Bacon, President of the Board of Governors of the American Hospital in Paris.

This pamphlet discusses the activities and history of the American Ambulance Hospital of Paris. What originally was a letter to Mr. Henry W. Anderson, President of the War Relief Association of Virginia, is now archived as a pamphlet here in the University of Richmond’s library. This letter describes that two years before Mr. Bacon wrote this letter, on September 6th the American Ambulance Hospital of Paris took in their first wounded soldier. This hospital consisted of devoted American surgeons, doctors, nurses, and helpers, who all volunteered their services in order to help France during their time of need.

This hospital was erected as a sign of gratitude towards France because the nation of France was there to help the American nation when they were struggling for national independence. Therefore, America’s offer to establish a hospital in Paris was gladly received by the French government. What originally was a large unfinished school-building in Neuilly, was transformed into a hospital in less than three weeks. This hospital would be able to care for 575 wounded. Also, for about 900 patients who had been treated but require additional surgical and medical attention are placed in an auxiliary, near the hospital, that is regularly visited by the staff. Along with this hospital, through the generosity of Mrs. Harry Payne Whitney, Hospital “B” was erected, where 200 additional patients are cared for.

The medical staff is composed of approximately eighty trained nurses and seventy auxiliaries. However, what makes this medical staff so amazing is the fact that they do their job while receiving a payment of $35.00 a month, which is about a quarter of the salary they would normally receive in the United States. Therefore, these individuals gave up the monetary gain, in order to assist those in need in Paris. The hospital itself receives an annual budget of $400,000, which is money entirely raised by contributions from America. With this money, they pay the staff and pay for the supplies. Also, they use this money to ensure that the patients were not being overcharged. When the hospital was first opened, the daily cost for a patient was $1.60. During the second year, the price rose to $2.00, due to the increased price of food.

The erection of this hospital is greatly appreciated by the French. The French believed that the personal service of American volunteers truly connected the feeling of friendship between the two countries. The gratitude of the American Ambulance had been recognized by all, and leading military authorities praised the American Ambulance as the highest type of military hospital in Europe. As a result of this gratitude, General Joffre said this, “The United States of America have not forgotten that the first page of the history of their independence was written with a little of the blood of France.” He said this recognizing the bravery young American men went showed by giving up their comfortable lives back home, in order to risk their lives and serve the French people.

In the months leading up to the United States’ entry into the Great War, public concern grew over the high costs and debts that a major war would create. John R. Commons, a professor of political economy at the University of Wisconsin, responded to these concerns with his pamphlet Who is Paying for this War? Commons divided his pamphlet into four sections: what the United States is paying for in terms of soldier benefits, the hardships of taxation in the United States, the elimination of excess profits, and the effects of the mobilization and war on the economy and labor.

The first section of the pamphlet was very supportive of the government benefits and programs that were being offered to soldiers. Commons argued that, “the greatest hardship is on the boys who go to the front” and that it is the home fronts’ responsibility to care for the soldier, his family, and his future. American soldiers at this time were paid four times as much as British soldiers, eighteen times as much as French soldiers, and nine times as much as German soldiers. Commons proudly states this statistic as proof that the American people are taking care of their soldiers. Disability payments, life insurance, and trade-school opportunities for veterans were also mentioned in the section as ways in which the American people were looking out for their war fighters.

The second section of the pamphlet shed light on the hardships the United States faced with taxation. First, two thirds of the tax-payers in the United States paid very little to directly finance the war. The average workingman with a family almost never paid the income tax. The government had used estate taxes and taxes on goods in the past to provide funding for the Civil War, however the United States government hoped to use taxes on luxury items and excess profits received by businesses to fund its participation in the Great War.

The third section of the pamphlet focused on ways in which the government could tax the profits of businesses that were deemed excessive or limit the amount of profits businesses could acquire. Whether it was arms, equipment, or food, the government negotiated with businesses to get them to lower their prices for the good of the country. The American Federation of Labor was a decisive ally for the government in working the prices down of wartime goods and equipment. This meant that there was less excess wealth being pooled by the elite and more money for the government to spend.

The final section of the pamphlet attempted to persuade readers that the wartime economy was actually good for the American people. Many citizens pointed to the facts that war created higher costs of living, in some areas by thirty to forty percent, and that food prices were marked up by fifty percent. Commons argued that the demand for labor practically eliminated the unemployment problem and raised the wages of workers by up to sixty percent.

Commons pamphlet allows readers in today’s society to understand the issues and arguments that surrounded the American entry into the Great War. The support that Commons felt for the soldiers, government spending, and war funding programs was popular but certainly not uniform across the country.

In German Subjects Within Our Gates by the National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor, this piece attempts to explain the potential precautions taken by the U.S. Government to protect the war machine from German Americans. However, the most interesting part of this pamphlet is the passive, vague and almost subtle direction of necessary internment of enemy aliens.

For example, the government constantly reminds the reader that it “believes that there will be little need for an internment program.” (6) It appears that this pamphlet served as an overtly simple but necessary reminder to German Americans during wartime. The National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor writes with such apathy that the pamphlet seems only to be a formality of the nation during wartime. Fear, anger, and angst about the “savage German Hun” that characterized so many WWI enlistment and propaganda posters is nowhere to be seen. Furthermore, this pamphlet does not really attempt to scare potential saboteurs from damaging the American  war effort. While it does warn that there are laws in place for repercussions, the government admits that it “will probably follow the Canadian system.” (6) Although it claims that systems and regulations are being developed, a sense of doubt and uncertainty over the future of the internment program questions the American ability to enforce these policies. Likewise, a large portion of the pamphlet is dedicated to describing the conditions and terms of different internment programs world-wide. The section ends in illustrating the potential freedoms granted to intern prisoners in Canada. Enemies held in these camps could earn wages, visit their families and even be released on parole under supervision. Thus, one can argue that this pamphlet doesn’t even try to intimidate German Americans and create anxiety over enemies in the homeland.

So if the government didn’t intend German Subjects Within Our Gates to manifest fear around enemy spies, what is its goal? This can be confusing because the societal conception and general truth about the United States during World War 1 is one of racial uneasiness and patriotic embodiment. 100% Americanism, vigilantism, and democratic spirit captivated the country and motivated it towards war. To many, any potential threat or citizen who wasn’t doing their part needed to be correctly punished and dealt with, often through illegal and immoral methods. Why wouldn’t they want a pamphlet that struck fear into German Americans and kept them at bay? For one, the government probably understood the wide audience of this piece. Friendly nations such as Canada could read this piece. Thus, the United States wanted to maintain their image of the world’s “Champions of Democracy.” By treating their enemy with respect, this would augment this image and enable Wilson to earn and actually oversee the treaty upon the conclusion of the war. As the most moral and ethical nation, the United States would be viewed as the obvious choice to mediate any discussion between the European powers. Moreover, the government may have been trying to convince German Americans to resist sabotage against the country. In the first paragraph, the pamphlet constantly refers to them as “friends” and doesn’t want “to harm them, to interfere with their normal activities, or cause them any unpleasantness.” (2) They simply want them to act as Americans, not Germans. Therefore, this pamphlet seems to take a stronger stance on persuasion opposed to intimidation.

In total, the pamphlet German Subjects Within Our Gates provides an interesting examination into the attempts of the American government to strongly influence people both within and outside of the county. They were willing to use a variety of methods to fulfill their mission and win the war. For this reason, pamphlets and pieces of propaganda alike need to be viewed with open and careful consideration of the political, social, and economic environment of the time. 

When I came upon “Fifteen Little War Stories” by the National Security League, I was shocked that the fifteen stories could fit in the one page folded pamphlet.  When I opened the pamphlet, I understood immediately why they were called “little” war stories, since they were only about two to three sentences each. However, while these stories may be little in length, they are absolutely not small in gesture.

When I saw the phrase “war stories,” I immediately assumed they would be stories of and from men in combat.  Therefore, I was surprised to find that they were often stories of things people were doing back home. Often, they are stories of immense sacrifice.  For example, the sixth story tells of “a poor woman [who] went out washing to earn money with which to buy yarn to knit soldiers’ socks.” This story struck me from the utter lack of self-interest the woman demonstrated when she finally got some extra money but immediately gave it away to help the soldiers.  It is her total sacrifice of everything she can possibly give (even though she perhaps shouldn’t) which makes this story so remarkable even in only a single sentence.

Another similar story tells of a boy who shoveled snow from the sidewalk to earn money, and when one woman asked the boy what he would do with the money he earned, he cheerfully replied: “Buy another thrift stamp and help win the war!”  These stories of people who have very little money giving their extra earnings away for the sake of the war well demonstrates the notion that mobilization is far from the only way for someone to participate in the war effort.

The pamphlet includes other stories of the sacrifices people make during wartime, from “meatless, wheatless, candyless, tobaccoless, liquorless days” on American turf to “the flower of youth” risking their lives in battle in Europe.

A key feature of this pamphlet is the closing line of each story, which is always “That’s patriotism!” or some variation of the phrase.  The fourteenth story tells of how “The United States has no selfish purpose in the victory that must be won – no hope of aggrandizement” (whether that is really true or not).  It further claims that the U.S. fights for “righteousness among nations, brotherhood between humans,” following with “That’s patriotism which transcends nationalism!” This was an important theme of the war narrative.  While some pro-war propaganda implies that if the U.S. doesn’t enter the war, the war will enter it, arriving on the Atlantic shore as a threat to our nation, our women, and our children, this almost certainly would not have happened.  Therefore, many critics could argue that the U.S. had no place in the European war since it did not concern them. However, here is presented the counterargument that it doesn’t matter whether the U.S. is really being threatened, someone is being threatened and so they must help.  In this sense, the duty to come to aid and arms still uses the vehicle of patriotism to carry itself – men sign up for the AEF specifically and the aid in extra goods from home comes from its perceived connection to OUR boys (no longer just THEIR boys). However, these acts of sacrifice are not solely (or sometimes even mostly) for the sake of the United States or American people since the sacrifices fuel the American participation in the war, which fights for others over itself.

And THAT is patriotism!

This pamphlet is entitled “Universal Obligatory Military Training and Service,” and appeared to be a straightforward guide for the argument for Universal Obligatory Military Training and Service. The language was not complex, but could be understood easily by the common citizen. However, underneath the title, it is described as “A Catechism in Twelve Lessons,” which caught my eye. I learned the word “catechism” as a word for religious truth, something unquestionable. The idea of a pamphlet on military training presenting “lessons” that were religiously unquestionable immediately drew my attention.

The pamphlet was set up in a question and answer format, which I found greatly limited the reader’s critical thinking and ability to doubt its contents. Each question that followed appeared the most logical question, with a very logical response. However, as a result, I felt that my creativity in synthesizing questions to engage with and challenge the text was decreased. The question presented to me superseded any attempt to formulate my own question, which made me feel at the end that all of the questions had been answered thoroughly and that the position was well-defended, although obviously the author would not have asked himself questions he was unable to respond to convincingly. Each question is carefully tailored to appear the most logical response, although they never attempt to seriously challenge the author’s argument.

After a very thorough and critical reading of the pamphlet, I was able to come up with certain questions that were unaddressed by the author. However, the average reader skimming through this pamphlet would not have found the time or concentration for this argument, and would be immediately convinced. It was really a brilliant rhetorical method.

Another result of this question and answer set-up was to create a deliberately one-sided argument for universal military training. When addressing the view of opposers, the author assumes a patronizing tone that ridicules their position as a result of the propaganda of weak, but professional, pacifists.

Although the pamphlet argued that this idea is simply the most logical development of national defense and unrelated to any “new ideas,” the date of publishment (1917) indicates that this line of thought is very much tied to the debates of preparedness revolving around the Great War.

The author made the argument to adopt the Swiss style of Universal Obligatory Military Training and Service, which was very interesting, since Switzerland was not a prominent world power. I also found it interesting that Switzerland, currently considered the symbol for neutrality, established this prepared military system in 1848. Typically a larger military force is seen as a precursor to aggression, with the idea that those who are capable of seizing more power will attempt to do so. However, the pamphlet makes the argument that Switzerland’s peace is the result of their large military force, rather than in spite of it. The nuance is that militarism is derived from a large standing army, which Universal Obligatory Military Training makes unnecessary. Therefore, according to the author, this form of a military system would prepare a nation to defend itself, but would not encourage aggression.

On first glance, “Our Boys in Khaki” is a helpful little book. It has sections titled “Engineers Corps” and “Medical Corps,” dissecting positions for those civilians who don’t know the difference. One page maps officer ranks.

When I first found this pamphlet as I leafed through the rare books box in the Boatwright library, I stopped because it was in color. Of course, the print and ink can’t meet modern-day standards, but for the 1900s the red letters and slight tint of the illustrations was enough to set the pamphlet apart.

“Our Boys in Khaki” was also set apart once I opened it, skimmed a few pages, and realized that the text that began on page 3 (“How the Army is Divided”) did not continue on page 4, but rather page 5. It took a reread or two to realize this – the font and writing style were the same, but the sentences just didn’t match up.

No, page 4, it turned out, titled “Are You in Fighting Trim?” was an advertisement.

So was page 6. And 8. And 10…one gets the picture.

In all, it turned out that “Our Boys in Khaki” was more than 50% advertisement (judging on page count). The first half of the advertisements were for S.S.S., a “purely vegetable” medicine released by the Swift Specific Co. that two pages of testimonials guaranteed cured rheumatism, skin disease, catarrh, blotches on the face, and boils (to name a few of the mentioned ailments). The second half of the advertisements were dedicated to “Bradfield’s Female Regulator,” which guaranteed “new strength” to women.

“Woman has been made with peculiar physical functions,” the advertisement read under a subsection ‘Are You a Housewife?’ “To overtax her strength means a derangement that weakens her, and the headaches, pains in the back, fits of nervousness, etc., are warnings that nature needs help in keeping your vitality fit for the demands made upon it.”

Regardless of the modern validity of these tonics, there were two other things that struck me as most curious about this pamphlet.

1. It was over 50% advertisements, and, upon further investigation, had no obvious publisher. Other pamphlets were published by the National Security League or the Committee for Public Information – major governmental/societal organizations at the time. But this pamphlet claimed no owner, which led me to wonder: was it just a cleverly geared advertisement that saw the wisdom in peddling it as an informational booklet?

2. Whether or not the above is true, the language in the advertisements themselves was written for wartime. “Today the question of war is uppermost in the minds of all the people,” read a section titled ‘The Eternal Warfare,’ “because the world is engaged In a heroic conflict. Since time began, however, there has been a continued and never ceasing state of warfare against the health of mankind. This is a struggle that every man, woman and child is subject to, and only the fit survive.”

(How do they survive? By using S.S.S., of course!)

This language reeked of the senses of duty and Americanism that echoed through all parts of life in WW1-era America. Not only did the outright sketch of the military and its divisions do the trick of attracting a patriotic audience, but the syntax of the advertisements themselves echoes that of the propaganda posters used at the time – which makes sense, as those posters were themselves advertisements for the war.

Oh, and what did Bradfield’s Female Regulator contain?

15% alcohol.

In America and the Great War Artur E. Bestor seeks to persuade Americans to support U.S. involvement in WWI by echoing the Wilsonian vision of America fighting to make the world safe for democracy, and by hypothesizing about how the war could transform America into a ‘true’ democracy.

Like many American intellects of his era it is clear that Bestor believed that American democracy was unique. It was not enough for the rest of the world to simply adopt democratic forms of government, they needed to adopt ‘American’ democracy. This is evidenced in his observation that for a nation to become democratic, “any people should take the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States and proceed to a republican form of government and a democratic organization of society” (6). He, like President Wilson, argued that America’s entry into the war was justified because it was an opportunity to spread ‘American’ democracy which he notably equated to the very essence of civilization itself (5-6).

However, Bestor is also quick to point out that American democracy itself was still evolving. He viewed the war as a tool which could be manipulated to force the nation to establish itself on a middle ground between individualism and socialism. He embraces the social gospel in his argument that the war was beneficial in its capacity to help the Americans recognize the importance of the relationship between the individual and the society. He believed that this recognition would lead to “real democratization of industry and social life as well as of political institutions” (11).  His belief in the importance of the interconnections between the individual and the society can be seen in his assertion that the “new democracy” would require a new definition of property rights according to the common good and the abandonment of strict laissez-faire government (9).

Bestor was aware that the relationship between the citizen and the society had already begun to shift in America by the start of the war. He argues that the war would not be the cause of social reformation, but rather would be a means of amplifying the reformation that was already taking place.   He asserts that the “growth of factory legislation, the various workingmen’s insurance and compensation acts, [and] the limitation upon the employment of women and children” are indications that the government has already recognized that it is unwise to leave private individuals “unrestricted liberty in the pursuit of wealth” (9).  Similarly, he notes that feminism already had deep historical roots by the start of the war, that the “recent demand for political participation is only the last step in the feminist movement which began a hundred years ago” (10). He hoped that because the war would force the government to enforce discipline upon people “steeped in the doctrine of individual freedom”, the war would encourage Americans to continue down this path of abandoning the notion of pure individualism. He argues that the war would be beneficial because it would force Americans to elect a more moderate stance between the “individualism of the Anglo-Saxon,” and the “State-sense of the German” (10).

At first glance, a National Security League pamphlet on “Universal Obligatory Military Training and Service” seemed too ‘on brand’ to be interesting. Without even opening the cover I was sure of the words I would inevitably find inside: “patriotic duty,” “citizenship,” and “defense of democracy.”  What ideas and phrases could it contain that would alter my conception of the NSL beyond its two paragraph wikipedia introduction? Regardless, I opened the cover. Instead, I found a fascinatingly written pamphlet that is formatted unlike any other I looked at.

Written by George R. Conroy in 1917, this pamphlet sought to “make as clear as possible the meaning of universal obligatory military training and service” and advocate for its implementation as a formal United States policy. As I mentioned previously, it is not the subject manner that makes this pamphlet notable, but the manner in which its argument is presented. From what I gathered, these pamphlets were typically written similarly to essays: the author provides a thesis and then substantiates their claim in subsequent paragraphs. Not this one. Conroy & Co. at the National Security League opted to write the entirety of this pamphlet in a question and answer format. Unlike a typical Q&A where perhaps an interviewer asks a series of questions to someone, or an FAQ that compiles questions commonly asked with their appropriate answers, this pamphlet was written entirely by Conroy. That is to say, one man wrote both the questions and answers. Insignificant though this may seem, it is in fact a proven rhetorical trick that allowed the National Security League to craft leading questions such as:

“Q. Would it have any other result in this country than to build up a great citizen soldiery and guarantee our security against foreign aggression?

A. Yes.”

And:

“Q. It is not actual service, then, but the training he receives before he reaches his twentieth year that makes the Swiss the soldier par excellence that he is?

A. Exactly.”

And my personal favorite:

“Q. Why do the professional pacifists try to mislead the public on this question?”

By structuring his pamphlet in this manner, George R. Conroy constructs a faux-discussion between the National Security League and the readership. In doing so, he effectively ‘changes the rules’ of debate. Rather than presenting an argument and support, Conroy presents a series of questions and optimal, prepared responses. Additionally, the brevity of the format makes it inherently more easily digestible. Rather than having to trace an author’s argument through a essay, one is plainly presented with ‘what you should be wondering’ and ‘what is actually true.’ Resultantly, the reader subconsciously identifies with the Question-er, uneducated on this subject and seeking information that is most easily provided by the immediate answers. Even I found myself susceptible to this trick; at one point I realized I was literally shaking my head while reading the seemingly naive questions and then nodding my head as I read the ‘absolute’ answers. Both the questions and answers, mind you, were written by Conroy.

Conroy and the National Security League used this Q&A format to great effect for the entirety of the pamphlet, pointing the Australia and Switzerland as prime historical implementers of universal obligatory military training. This pamphlet provides valuable insight into the argumentative forms through which the National Security League advanced their nationalistic agenda.

While looking through the box of pamphlets organized by the topic of the United States, I was in search for a pamphlet focused on the U.S. decision to declare war. What I found instead was a pamphlet about the decision and declaration by President Woodrow Wilson aimed towards German immigrants and people of German descent living in the United States. The pamphlet called “German Subjects Within Our Gates” was written as a collaborative efforts by the Columbia War Papers in conjunction with The National Committee on Prisons and Prison Labor and Columbia University and approved by the U.S. Department of Justice at the time.

What is interesting about the pamphlet is that although the purpose was to make sure that Germans living in the United States were comfortable and did not feel threatened by the United States’ decision to go to war, the use of “Subjects” to refer to the people makes it sound as if they are of lesser importance or under some control by a higher power. The first half of the pamphlet and President Wilson’s speech focuses on making sure that the U.S. government does not portray itself as a dominant, overbearing force upon the Germans in the United States. What stood out to me as I read the pamphlet was that Wilson and the U.S. government wanted to make sure that the Germans did not see the U.S. government  as a threat. There are multiple times throughout the speech and the pamphlet where Wilson refers to the German people as “friends” or “sincere allies”  to create an inclusive environment.

The pamphlet also includes advice such as the one from Attorney General Gregory who states “Obey the Law and Keep Your Mouth Shut.” Along with this advice, there are notices to the people in various sections of the pamphlet that highlight the fact that the government expects them to obey the laws as “the Government is prepared and equipped to deal with any emergency which may force it to intern enemy aliens.” This changes the tone of the U.S. government towards the German people as now it seems as if the government is telling people to make sure they stay on the good side of the government as the government is ready to take action against those who do not stay within the boundaries. The pamphlet also compares the situation with different countries and their approach to the problem with “aliens,” again creating a virtual divide within its constituents.

This pamphlet is part of a series of pamphlets that deal with the different aspects of mobilizing a country for war. This particular pamphlet is the 2nd part of the series and the series is aimed to discuss the problems and necessity of American citizen to meet the national need. The rest of the pamphlet discusses the different systems present in countries such as Canada and Great Britain and their approach to deal with prisoners of war, “aliens”, policy management and the exploration of already existing systems that the U.S. could adopt. While the discussion about the various systems that the U.S. could have implemented serves as a reflection of where the current system came from, the pamphlet also serves as a reminder that the message by the U.S., although seemed friendly, acted as a reminder for people to not undermine the government or face harsh consequences.

“The purpose of this pamphlet is not to make an argument for war or to give an extended account of the reasons for our entrance, but to answer briefly and sharply the question as to what our direct charges against Germany are.”

While I was shuffling through the pamphlet box I was not on the lookout for anything in particular, however I was intrigued when I saw “The University of Chicago War Papers” and proceeded to flip through some of the pages.  I was interested to see what such a prestigious university had to say about the war, and I was not let down.  The author of the pamphlet was Professor and Head of the Department of History at the University of Chicago Andrew C. McLaughlin.  I found it very interesting to see that the Department of History at the University of Chicago supported the claims in the pamphlet made against Germany as it was a very one-sided opinion on the war.  The pamphlet was published in 1918 almost a year after the U.S. joined the war.  The topic of the pamphlet was the “Sixteen Causes of War,” pin pointing exactly sixteen reasons why the war began.  Dr. McLaughlin was able to narrow down the many influences of the start of WWI into precisely sixteen causes.  According to Professor McLaughlin, the only country that began the war was Germany.  This was a very strong claim to make considering there were numerous countries involved.  I found it shocking that this professor had exactly sixteen reasons as to why the war began, each argument structured around Germany’s involvement.  Not only does Professor McLaughlin say that Germany started the war, but it is “perfectly evident from the examination of the public documents” and is made “doubly certain by other evidences” that Germany began the war.

Although I do not necessarily agree with placing the blame solely on Germany for starting the war, McLaughlin gives numerous convincing arguments.  The second cause of the war was on account of ambition.  Germany had “deep-laid plans of world-domination,” a claim rather extreme to have been published by the University of Chicago.  Despite such an outrageous argument, although not completely false, McLaughlin did include footnotes supporting his evidence.  He mentions the idea of Weltpolitik which is the principle that world politics is based on the strongest power, explaining why Germany may have felt the need to start the war.  Germany invading Belgium did not help their case as being accused of starting the war.  The invasion of Belgium by Germany showed that they had no intention of respecting the rights of others in their path, treating treaties like “scraps of paper.”

Professor McLaughlin blatantly ignores events such as Archduke Franz Ferdinand being assassinated and only factors in Germany’s wrongdoings, which were mostly in response to what other countries had also been doing that was causing tensions.  The other causes of the war charged Germany with openly defying the world, filling our lands with spies, espionage, as well as blatantly ignoring international law.  Quickly opening up the pamphlet, one would not assume that these wildly accusatory claims would be present in a pamphlet published by such a well-renowned university, it interests me to see what the other pamphlets published by the university discuss.