Archive for July 24, 2011

“All History is Personal:” August 1961

July 24, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy
US Tank at Ckpt Charlie

The year 1961 was eventful for several reasons.  It marked the centennial of the Civil War, the first manned space flights, the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba, and the inauguration of John F. Kennedy, among other events.

In August, 1961, my father, then a captain in the United States Army, was sent on temporary duty from his post in Karlsruhe, Germany, to Berlin. The purpose of his travel remains unknown to me and likely was secret at the time (he was, among other things, a trusted agent who took classified information between NATO capitals). To comprehend the personal and global significance of being in Berlin in August, 1961, one must understand the events between the end of World War II and the spring and summer of 1961.

The so-called Cold War commenced almost immediately upon the end of World War II in Europe in April, 1945.  The army of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) had captured Berlin, then the capital of Germany.  The Western allies, led by the United States of America, soon completed their sweep through western Germany and met up with Soviet forces at the Elbe river.

The Allied Powers (the United States, the United Kingdom, France, and the USSR) each took control of separate sectors of Germany; the largest sector being the Soviet-controlled sector.  Berlin, the once and future capital of Germany, was deep in the Soviet sector.  Nonetheless, all four Allies controlled Berlin, which was also divided into sectors.  The US, UK and French sectors comprised West Berlin and the Soviet sector was East Berlin.

In the spring of 1948, the Soviets imposed a blockade on land transportation routes into West Berlin.  The Soviets later cut off land-based utilities and communications to West Berlin. The Western powers responded with a ’round-the-clock airlift of supplies to the city via Tempelhof Airport which was located in the US sector.  The successful eleven-month airlift, known as “Operation Vittles,” became one of the most historic events in military aviation.

In 1949, the Western powers created the Federal Republic of Germany (Bundesrepublik Deutschland) from the three western sectors of the country, but not including the sectors of Berlin.  The Soviets likewise proclaimed the Democratic Republic of Germany (Deutschen Demokratischen Republik or DDR) in East Germany.  East Berlin was made the capital of the DDR; a rather small city, Bonn, in the British sector near Cologne (Koln) was made the “provisional” capital of the Bundesrepublik.

Not surprisingly, relations between East and West were tense in Berlin. From 1949 to 1961, millions of people living in the DDR escaped to the West via Berlin.  The Soviets and their puppet governors in East Germany made dire threats to the Western powers about supporting and encouraging such “unlawful” emigration.

My father had arrived in Berlin on Sunday, August 13, 1961. On Monday morning, August 14, 1961, my mother and I woke up to the following on page 1 of the Stars & Stripes, the US military newspaper in Europe from which we got most of our news:

Reds Block East Germans from Entering West Berlin

Allies, West Germans Can Cross

BERLIN (AP)–The Communist regime Sunday barred East Germans from entering West Berlin in a bid to dam the flow of refugees to the West.

Hundreds of armed police and steel-helmeted troops closed the border between East and West Berlin completely for about two hours.

About 4 a.m. (Berlin time) traffic was resumed again, except that no East Berliner or East German was allowed to enter the West sectors.

. . .  . . .  . . .

The measure was directed against the flow of refugees. They have been fleeing Red rule at record speed.

We were able to ascertain that Dad was safe. But he was concerned for us, and rightly so. The whole family, Dad included, was supposed to leave Germany in a couple of weeks for his new assignment at Sandia Base, the semi-secret nuclear weapons base near Albuquerque, New Mexico. This matter in Berlin soon took on all the features of a major political and military crisis that had the potential to keep Dad in Germany, if not in Berlin, for another year.

By Wednesday, August 16, 1961, the Navy had announced that personnel scheduled to leave the service in the remainder of 1961 would be indefinitely “frozen.” President Kennedy had announced that the Air Force would increase its strength by 28,000 airmen.  This would be accomplished in part by calling to active duty some 18 Air National Guard squadrons.

On Sunday, August 20, 1961, the President ordered 1500 Army troops to augment the 11,000 man garrison in Berlin. The troops arrived on Monday, August 21, 1961, met by Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson, just a few yards away from the Soviet sector.

What would we do if Dad had to stay in Germany for another year? Many of our belongings were already packed. And school was about to start in Albuquerque. School, of course, was one of the main reasons that Dad had worked hard to get the assignment to Sandia Base.

Where would we go if the Soviet and American tanks facing off with each other in Berlin began shooting? (The U.S. Seventh Army, which was U.S. Army Europe (USAREUR)  had a plan called  “NEO,” to be executed in the event of a shooting crisis. The acronym stood for “noncombatant evacuation operations,” i.e., “Get the women and children out of here!”).

On August 25, 1961, the Stars & Stripes reported:

U.S. ARMOR LINES UP ALONG BERLIN BORDER
Patton Tanks Put on Alert

BERLIN (AP)–American Patton tanks drew up and faced Communist forces across the border with East Berlin Wednesday.

U.S. military authorities refused to say how many vehicles were lined up along the line that divides the American sector from the Soviet sector.  At least 25 tanks of Company F, 40th Armor, have been seen here on parade.

. . .     . . .    . . .

Meanwhile, the British sent a company of about 120 infantrymen  with mortars and anti-tank guns to the Barndenburg Gate. The French deployed light units in patrols along their border.

The East Germans trundled up several squadrons of armored cars with light artillery pieces. They were at the Bradenburg Gate and behind some buildings on the east side of Friedrichstrasse.

“]US Tank at Ckpt CharlieI pause to consider how different life would have been for the world and for me individually if we had had to leave Germany in a hurry because of a deepening of the crisis. Playing out the possibilities for the world is just about unbearable to contemplate. But if the crisis had gotten much more serious, then our family most likely would have gone to Kansas City, Missouri, where my mother grew up and where her mother and several siblings still lived.  And my life would have  been completely different. (Of course, every life on Earth would have been different, too, if the crisis went to its ultimate conclusion).

By that last week in August, the U.S. military was giving serious thought to implementing NEO immediately. But one woman had another idea, according to the Stars & Stripes:

Leghorn, Italy (UPI) — An American woman, wife of an Army engineer and mother of five, proposed that U.S. families in Europe “volunteer to be hostages for peace” during the Berlin crisis.

Mrs. Mary C. Wolz, wife of an Army civilian engineer stationed here, said U.S. and NATO families in Europe should stick it out rather  than be sent home or flee home.

“We should stay here to convince Europe that we will risk everything it does,” she said in an open letter to the English language Daily American in Rome.

“If the situation becomes so serious that we must be sent home–and it would be bad timing to order evacuation while pressing for a solution to the crisis–then home is no haven,” she said.

To be continued

One comment , , , , , ,

The Reliability of Oral Histories–The Forensic Approach to Evaluation

July 13, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Part 2 of a three-part series.  Part 1 is here.

When last we met, we explored the issues associated with the reliability of “eyewitness testimony” in court and applied similar concepts to first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events. We discovered several issues that might make “eyewitness testimony” unreliable. Now we explore the 21st century approach to eyewitness testimony and apply a forensic approach to first-party reporting of genealogical events.

California juries are now told by judges to apply certain factors in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. These factors focus on the ability of the witness to perceive the event; circumstances which might interfere with the witness’s ability to remember and recollect; and the empirical corroboration of the witness’s evidence. See California Criminal Jury Instruction No. 315. This jury instruction points the way to a forensic approach to evaluating the reliability of oral histories.

Taking the forensic approach to oral history, the genealogist will want to consider the following:

  • How familiar was the reporter with any of the background circumstances or parties before the event?
  • How well could the reporter see, hear, and comprehend the event?
  • What were the circumstances affecting the reporter’s ability to observe, such as lighting, weather conditions, obstructions, distance, duration of observation, and any other relevant circumstances?
  • How well could the reporter see, hear, or otherwise perceive the event?
  • Was the reporter under any type of stress when he or she made the observation?
  • What was the interval of time between the reporter’s perception of the event and his or her report thereof?
  • What was the mode of interrogation of the reporter? (open-ended questions, suggestive questions, follow-up)
  • What was the demeanor of the interrogator? (hostile, aggressive, judgmental, or not?)
  • Is the reporter’s version substantially corroborated by credible independent evidence?
  • What is the level of the reporter’s cognitive development, that is, considering the person’s age, how well is he or she able to perceive, understand, remember, and communicate?
  • Did the reporter have a relationship with someone who, inadvertently or deliberately, could have influenced the reporter’s version of events?

Not every oral history will reveal all of these factors.  But as the evaluator, one is not expecting to find “proof  beyond a reasonable doubt” as would be the case in a courtroom.

As we have said here before, nothing can be “proven.” The evaluator must judge the credibility or believability of the oral history reporter. In deciding whether the oral evidence is true and accurate, evaluators should use common sense and experience.


Coming: Part III – Second or Third Party Reporting (“Hearsay”) in Oral Histories

No comments , , , , ,

The Reliability of Oral Histories Considered

July 11, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

[Music; loud with fast, heavy beat]

[Baritone voice with emergency pace and tone]:“Eyewitness News! The [Valley's][Metroplex's][Tri-State Area's][Ark-La-Tex's][Bay Area's][Central Coast's][Middle Tennessee's] Most Reliable Newscast! With the entire Eyewitness News Team! This is Eyewitness News at Six [o'clock]!”

That voicer (or words and music to that effect) has been heard on television stations all over America at one time or another in the last fifty years. See here, here, and here, for example. Indeed, if broadcast journalism is the cinema verite B-roll of history [sorry, inside gag and obscure esoteric reference], what could be better than “Eyewitness News”?

Likely, the lead story on Eyewitness News At Six, wherever in the country it may be broadcast, is a crime story. The reporter doing the standup at the court house or police station will report eagerly (but enthusiastically) that “Channel 7 has learned that there are two eyewitnesses to the crime,” or will lament in grave tones that “Police tell Channel 4 that there were no eyewitnesses.”

The genealogical equivalent of “Eyewitness News” is the oral history. And since genealogy is history, what could be better than the oral rendition of an eyewitness?

But both broadcast journalists and genealogists should take heed of what sophomore psych majors and first-year law students learn about eyewitnesses: they are notoriously unreliable.

A demonstration that has become an hoary chestnut among law professors and their counterparts in the psych department involves a surprise intrusion into the classroom by an individual who “assaults” the prof or steals her purse and runs out in a matter of a minute, if not seconds. Students are then asked to identify the “perp” by physical description or clothing worn; or to relate the sequence of the event.

Of course, both of you who had the misfortune to see Wink Martindale’s game show Instant Recall more than once, and all of you smarter than a fifth grader (mutually exclusive categories), have guessed already that the students have wildly divergent and largely inaccurate accounts of the event.

Millions of trees have given their lives to printing of scientific studies that show eyewitness testimony to be unreliable. Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D, a pyschologist who is a professor in three research departments and the Law School at University of California, Irvine, has written extensively in this area. In her ground-breaking book, Eyewitness Testimony, first published in 1979, Loftus asserts that evidence from eyewitnesses has resulted in wrongful convictions and even wrongful executions in the criminal justice system. Her work and that of others had such a profound effect that, for a time, juries in many states were instructed to view eyewitness testimony “with caution.”  This was said to be necessary because of an odd paradox about eyewitness testimony: it was the most unreliable evidence in the abstract, yet at the same time, the most compelling for jurors.  Loftus demonstrated that factors such as the time between the event and the rendition by the witness, the mode of interrogation, reinforcement by other witnesses, and assimilation of another’s account, bear heavily on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Given this scientific and legal skepticism, what implications are raised by first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events?

First of all, let’s agree that there are differences between an eyewitness who attempts to identify a criminal suspect, and a first-person reporter of an historical event. The crime witness is often questioned under unfavorable circumstances by hostile interrogators who may have their own theories of the case. There are deadlines to be met. The witness may be under the emotional stress of the event. The stakes are high and the pressure to “get it right” may lead some eyewitnesses to get it wrong. There may be a dozen times a hundred other unique factors at play concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case or even a civil lawsuit.

But now let’s examine the similarities between the crime witness and the first-person historical reporter. The evidence given by both frequently relies on previously unrecorded and non-contemporaneous human memory. Some of the same factors which may affect “eyewitness” crime reporting may also affect oral history. These include the demeanor and behavior of the interrogator and the states of mind of the witness both at the time of the event and the time of reporting. The interval between event and report, stress, and overly suggestive questions may also affect both types of rendition.

Every experienced genealogist knows, and every beginning genealogist will soon know, of first-person renditions that are simply wrong. This doesn’t happen maliciously, usually; often it is the result of fading memories or time-embellished memories or of the mind supplying its own details to make sense of a complicated situation.

I’ve heard stories from people who would swear they are telling it like it was, only later to discover that the person was not even alive at the time of the reported event. I myself for years gave a first hand version of having observed a tornado that touched down in Missouri in 1955 or 1956, while my mother was hanging laundry on the clotheslines in our backyard. Oh, I was there alright and have a vivid “memory” of the event–the sky turning black and green, the winds suddenly swirling about, the frightening sounds as the funnel cloud approached. But I eventually came to question whether I had a “true” memory of that storm. Under more dispassionate analysis, I have concluded that my “recollection” of the event has been substantially influenced by my mother’s account of it, which, at some point in my childhood, I adopted as my own. [Among the factors which led me to question my own memory of this occurrence were that I cannot, of independent memory, account for the whereabouts of my younger brother; I do not recall at all how we got out of harm's way; beyond remembering--if that's what you want to call it--that I was sitting on a step at the back door, I cannot describe the house, important because we lived in two different counties in Missouri during 1955-56; and I have had a difficult time finding contemporaneous reports of the event during the time frame that I "recall" that it occurred].

How does the genealogist or historian evaluate oral history then? We can avoid the traps of the path the law first took: i.e., subjecting all eyewitness evidence to scrutiny so strict that it was more often fatal in fact. 

Next in Part II: The Forensic Approach to Evaluating Oral History

 

 

 

 

No comments , , , , , , ,