Search Results

This chapter returns to Congress to scrutinize another legislative discretionary power, that of investigations. While the investigatory power is normally conceived as a retrospective power of judgment, it construes investigations as both a war power and as a forward-looking tool for developing legislative war authority. The chapter compares the Munitions Investigation of 1934–36 with the Iran-Contra Investigation of 1989, arguing that the former developed far more constitutional authority for the legislature and war-making system than did the latter. The reasons may be surprising: counterintuitively, it is argued that Congress' insufficiently developed partisanship undermined the authority of its Iran-Contra Investigation as a challenge to presidential power.

During his early years Fidel Castro had no ties with Cuba's Communist Party, however, the communists had encountered Castro's challenge to Batista. However, the CIA, FBI, and other U.S. agencies continued to search for traces of communism during the insurrection. Officials focused on possible law violations, such as The Munitions Control Act, The Voorhis Act, and the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Fulgencio Batista led the Sergeants' Revolt that helped bring the reformist Ramon Grau San Martin government to power. Fidel Castro, with young companeros, attacked the Moncada Army Barracks in Santiago de Cuba. Castro got a folk-hero status among Cubans for this but was branded as “a ruthless opportunist” by Americans.

This chapter focuses on Iris Barry's life after war broke out in 1914. Iris first took a job as a typist at ten shillings a week in a dismal pen factory, from which she was summarily fired. She then worked at the General Post Office, working in a tiresome clerical job having to do with telephone poles. She transferred to the Ministry of Munitions where she spent her time “typing endless huge sheets of figures” that “went up every night to Winston Churchill personally.” In her spare time Iris continued to write poetry. She also became aware of the domestic effects of World War I, including the use of new paper bills instead of gold as currency and the deaths of the sons of many farmers who fought in the war.

This chapter aims to detail the gathering crescendo for some form of action to be taken on the drink issue. As the war progressed, its pressures had increasing repercussions on the home front. The expenditure of shells and arms on an unprecedented scale increased pressure on Britain’s industrial infrastructure. Adjusting to this demand for military hardware was a difficult task and the type of war being fought accentuated the problem. Britain’s factories, whilst simultaneously having to deal with a large amount of its experienced workforce joining the army, could not cope with demand. Blame had to be placed somewhere, so it is unsurprising that the industrial working class bore the brunt of accusations regarding degenerate behaviour. During this period Lloyd George and King George V spoke about how important the drink issue was to the war effort. In an important speech Lloyd George criticised workers’ drinking habits and his actions suggest that he wanted a ‘national conversation’ to occur on the issue. This was the period during which the ‘severity’ of the drink problem was finally realised by society.

This chapter considers the Carlisle Experiment undertaken by the CCB. The Board bought out the drink trade in Carlisle and managed to implement many of its radical ideas in the city. This scheme was a test case for many controversial temperance policies and its popularity and success was important as the Board later sought to introduce nationwide state purchase. The experiment is unique in the history of Britain and informs us just how seriously the drink issue was to the British government during the war. This chapter intends to broaden our understanding of the experiment, taking into consideration how the scheme was run, by whom and their relation to the CCB. How both the temperance and trade bodies viewed the experiment will be considered too, together with an assessment of its success. The scheme was so radical it was considered as an alternative to prohibition in the USA and Canada. The drink trade within Carlisle remained in public ownership until 1973. This chapter details why it was brought under the control of the state in the first place.

This final chapter returns to the study’s original motivation: understanding whether, and when, multilateral treaties can serve as an effective means of generating international change under conditions of great power ambivalence. It places the core case studies in their wider context by applying the hypothesized factors developed in Chapter 8 to examples of (a) other non-great power treaties; (b) concessions to great powers in order to secure their participation; and (c) the abandonment of binding agreements in the face of opposition in favour of informal arrangements or none at all. The preceding study has validated the initial interest in non-great power multilateralism, and has offered impetus for further detailed research to help scholars and policymakers alike better understand the promise and perils of this strategy. The chapter—and book—therefore concludes by proposing an agenda for academic research on non-great power institutions more generally.