"Radio Listeners in Panic, Taking War Drama as Fact." New York Times 31 Oct. 1938. ProQuest. 9 Apr. 2008.

This is an original article in the New York Times from 1938 that describes the widespread panic that follows Orson Welles radio show version of H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds on Halloween 1938. In the radio show, Orson Welles had done an entire show pretending that aliens had landed in New Jersey and were causing mass destruction throughout New Jersey and New York. Even though the radio station made several announcements to the effect that the show was just a performance, thousands upon thousands of people in the Northeast called their local authorities genuinely terrified and wondering what they could do to protect themselves and their families. Upon being reassured that the show was just a performance, many citizens did not know who to believe – Welles or the police. The telephone companies reported that they had never been so overrun with calls and streets all over New York and New Jersey were flooded with people running aimlessly with wet towels over their mouths trying to protect themselves from the alleged toxic gas.

This article is relevant to Citizen Kane because, aside from Citizen Kane, this stunt was perhaps Welles’ most renowned creative work and is a sort of tribute to his ability as an actor and his talents at emotionally affecting people. Even though the radio show ended up causing mass panic throughout much of New York and New Jersey, and even resulted in a number of people needing treatment for hysteria, Welles had never anticipated the effect his show would have, saying they almost didn’t do the stunt because they thought people would be too bored with something so unbelievable.

Perez, Louis. "The Meaning of the Maine: Causation and the Historiography of the Spanish-American War." The Pacific Historical Review 58 (1989): 293-322. JStor. 8 Apr. 2008.

This article examines the causes of the Spanish-American War and the role that the sinking of the Maine battleship off the coast of Havana played in motivating the United States to enter into the war. The article cites many historians and military experts who seem to concur that the United States started the Spanish-American war largely because of the sinking of the battleship, which was attributed by many to foul play on the part of the Spanish. This opinion that Spain was to blame for deliberately sinking our ship near Havana was largely adopted by the public as a result of so-called “yellow journalism” on the part of William Randolph Hearst and his paper, New York Journal, along with competing newspaper New York World. In what many consider to have been sensationalist attempts to increase newspaper distribution, both of these papers and others across the United States motivated public outcry that left the government no choice but to declare war on Spain.

This is relevant to Citizen Kane because the film’s namesake, Charles Foster Kane, was based largely in part on the real-life newspaper tycoon William Randolph Hearst, and Hearst went to great lengths to limit the release of Citizen Kane because of the unflattering way in which he was portrayed in the film. Perhaps the most memorable example of how Citizen Kane made Hearst look bad was the way in which Kane seemed to take great pleasure in instigating the war with Spain in the film. He famously dictated: “Dear Wheeler: you provide the prose poems. I'll provide the war,” and this article gives more insight into the real story behind Hearst and the Spanish-American war.

This book is a product of an exceptionally patient study of Caucasus region mainly Armenia and Azerbaijan and their neighboring countries, such as Russia. It gives deep and compelling account for Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict (1988-1994) which still persist and the suffering of the people from the convoluted aftermath and exacerbation. This book gives you an idea of how complex and intertwined the problem has become through the process of independence at the End of Soviet era that still awaits resolution.

 In this book the author De Waal refers to legendary Armenian Poet Sayat Nova as benign patron for this book for his generous sympathy for other culture and religions, and ethnicity. His poetry as well as Sayat Nova as a historical figure appears in this book many times as symbol of peace and understanding. Sayat Nova, born into a moderate Armenia family in Georgia, served as court troubadour in Georgia, wrote songs in Azeri, Armenian, Georgian, and Persian, was praised for the very diversity of his talent. He is truly the reflection of the sprit of the region today. And same could be said for the director for the film “Syat Nova (Color of Pomegranate) 1968”, Sergei Paradjanov who shares almost the same ethnic and cultural background.

Article in Harpers from 2004 describing the lack of reconstruction in Baghdad and describing Baghdad year Zero.

    Peter Gatrell's novel, Russia's First World War, provides a detailed account of how Russia became inolved in World War I, its alliances during the conflict, and the psychological ramifications of such a historical atrocity. However, what separates Gatrell's novel from the others is that he approaches this topic from the perspective of the economic situation in Russia. He explains the ways in which the war had a profound economic impact on the country, and how this lead to inevitable revolution. Gatrell begins his novel by describing Russia's entrance into the war. Although many contibuting factors initiated the first world war, he claims that there was one in particular that lit the fire; the assassination of the Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian throne, on June 28th, 1914. The assassin was later discovered to have been a member of the Serbian terrorist regime, the Black Hand. In response to this, Austro-Hungary immediately declared war on Serbia. Russia reluctantly mobilized the nation due to a long-standing alliance with Serbia. This process took roughly six weeks, and by the middle of September, 1914, Russia was fully engaged in warfare on the side of Serbia, and against the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The rest of the countries joined the war in a similar fashion, by fulfilling alliances or treaties with nations already involved in the conflict. But Peter Gatrell focuses on the war in the context of the economic hardships that ravaged Russia during this period. He writes, "The buden of overseas debt that Russia had accumulated by 1917 would inevitably saddle any post-war regime with enormous balance of paymetns difficulties."(Russia's First World War, pg. 254). To exacerbate the problem, no country was willing to write a blank check for the Russians in order to pull them out of debt. In other words, Russia's extraordinary expenditures during World War I forced them to lay a heavy tax burden on the citizens, which in turn stimulated the call for a revolution. Civil War broke out, and the new rulers of Russia promised a more conscious economic policy in the future, and the empowerment of the Russian masses. Russians unquestioningly placed their faith in the Communistis. Gatrell's economic explanation for the first world war and revolution helps to illuminate much of the social commentary in Doctor Zhivago. Throughout the film, David Lean subtly hints at the poverty that plagued Russia during this time of strife. As Lara walks to the Christmas party, she is surrounded by street beggars, peasants, and drunkards. Similarly, when Zhivago travels across the Urals by train, he does so in a carriage fillled with homeless vagabonds. Furthermore, when Zhivago returns to his home after directing the veteran hospital for a few years, he finds several impoverished families living in it. Without doubt, Lean does attempt to portray an accurate respresentation of the socio-economic crisis that plagued Russia during and after the war. But its presence in the film is subtle. If the viewer is uninformed of this historical context, David Lean's social commentary is lost upon him.

Polan, Dana. "Stylistic Regularities (and Peculiarities) of the Hollywood World War II Propoganda Film." WARNERS’ WAR: POLITICS, POP CULTURE & PROPAGANDA IN WARTIME HOLLYWOOD. pp. 38-47

World War II significantly changed American cinema. Not only were new propagandist messages infused into most films, the actual narratives changed to reflect the new wartimes. Propaganda did not come easy to Hollywood films that had built up a tradition of creating apolitical escapist films. Some films were awkward in their addition of political messages. Many used direct addresses to the audience through the use of voice over or radio newscasts. The heart of the change, however, was in the way romance was treated.

With the clear separation of men and women during wartime, there was an increased feeling that romantic relationships were frivolous and hurt the war movement. This led to a change in the dynamic of on screen couples. Many films were made about woman going to join the men on the battlefront, or the opposite: having the men come home to the woman in America.

One way to view Casablanca is as a romance movie built on separation. The separation of Ilsa from Lazlo in Paris and the night that she asks Rick for the letters of transit, and the separation of Rick and Ilsa when she leaves on the train in Paris. The ambiguous ending of the film in which we are uncertain of what the characters will do when they part, and how the war will end. This reflects the feelings of many Americans throughout the time. The complicatedness of Rick’s feelings towards the war and Ilsa make his character much more identifiable with most Americans compared to the straight forward Lazlo. The movie is a reflection of the time.

America’s passing of the Neutrality Act causes a declared foreign policy of not becoming involved in any way in either the impending war in Europe or the resistance of China against Japanese aggressors. This policy has been the historical one for the United States, which has tried to stay out of most foreign conflicts. This policy however does not speak to the hearts and minds of the American people. While the majority of the American public may be against war, they have still taken sides in their hearts against the dictatorship aggressors, and support the European democracies of Britain and France, and China in the East.

While Casablanca takes place after 1938, Rick Blaine represents the same America that is shown in this editorial. In order for him to personally survive in Casablanca, he must remain neutral and isolated. However in his heart, he has strong ties to pre-Vichy France as represented in Ilsa. The movie shows Rick’s transformation as a parallel to America’s, but this article shows how Rick represents America at the beginning of the movie.

America, like Rick, does not want to risk being involved in a war, but their outward policies do not reflect there beliefs and ties. Americans want to support the democracies but at the same time have a strong self-preserving desire to stay uninvolved. This form of isolationism is represented in Casablanca as an allegorical film about America.

Matthews, Chris. "There's a Little Rick in All of Us" Newsweek, 00289604, 10/28/2002, Vol. 140, Issue 18

In his Newsweek article published shortly before the United States declared war on Iraq, Chris Matthews presents the case that Americans today are as much like Rick Blaine in Casablanca as they have ever been. It is hard to make the choice between protecting America’s interests by staying out of harms way and fighting for just causes to protect the world. Historically America has been the “reluctant warrior,” joining the fight in causes that Americans think are right. Matthews worries that the Bush administration is acting against American history by joining in “entangling alliances.” He fears that Bush is transforming America from “reluctant warriors” into aggressors waiting for a fight.

Casablanca has as much relevance today as ever. The film teaches that it is important to know when the time is right to fight for good and when it is time not to get involved. The danger arises when America decides to fight, but it is not to stick up for dying ethics and morality in the world. The Iraq war is America fighting for the wrong reasons, against the general consensus of what is right. America is not sticking to the model presented by Rick.

The article was published before problems arose and provides a forward thinking view about the dangers of getting involved in Iraq. The contrast between the reasons America got involved in World War II as shown in Casablanca and the reasons that America is going into Iraq, highlight the changes being made by the bush administration.

Jacobs, Lewis. "World War II and the American Film." Cinema Journal, Vol. 7. (Winter, 1967-1968), pp. 1-21.

World War II was extremely influential in what movies were produced and vice versa. The type of movies that dealt with the war (which was approximately one third of all Hollywood pictures produced) progressed along with the war. Starting with attacks against Fascism in Confessions of a Nazi Spy, Hollywood started to attack the enemy in its films. Charlie Chaplin’s film The Great Dictator used satire and humor to both mock Hitler and Mussolini and to deride them. Chaplin did not receive a lot of initial support for the film because people were nervous about enraging Hitler. In 1941 films started to become more militant as the Nazis invaded Russia and started sinking American ships. Movies started a call to war movement that was solidified with the surprise attack on Pearl Harbor. The government suggested themes to Hollywood to make films successfully support the war. These included: The issues of War, The Nature of the Enemy, The United Nations, The Production Front, The Home Front, and The Fighting Forces.

Casablanca doesn’t neatly fit into the chronology of the war because it was made after the attack on Pearl Harbor, but is about getting Americans into the war. It is film, however, that helped bolster support for the war effort, and it gave people a reason and explanation for being involved in the war. The movie established that it was the duty of America and in fact all Americans to do there part to help with the war effort. The support was crucial because without support on the Home Front by American citizens, the nation may not have been able to endure the limitations on life at home, and the loss of life in the battlefield.