William Henry Wittrick, 29 October 1922 - 2 July 1986

1987 ◽  
Vol 33 ◽  
pp. 709-728

William Henry Wittrick was born in Huddersfield on 29 October 1922. His father, Frank Wittrick (1894-1960) was the eldest of three sons of an iron and steel merchant in Huddersfield who died in 1913. After leaving school Frank Wittrick completed an engineering apprenticeship with a view to joining his father in the firm of steel merchants, but his father’s death and World War I prevented this plan from being realized. Frank Wittrick enlisted in 1914 and served in France through most of the war; he was wounded and emerged with impaired health. In 1919 he set up a business as a haulage contractor but this failed in the depression some years later. In 1921 he married Jessie, eldest child of Walter Jury, a builder in Huddersfield. He then had a variety of jobs, including working for an insurance company and as a bus driver, but on the outbreak of World War II he went to work for an engineering firm in Huddersfield, which specialized in valve manufacture, and stayed with them until he retired through ill-health in the mid-1950s. William’s mother, Jessie, was a proficient pianist and also had a fine contralto voice. She sang in the well-known Huddersfield Choral Society but, regrettably, she left it after her marriage. Nevertheless, as a boy William spent many enjoyable musical evenings around the piano with his family and other relatives or friends, and his mother playing the piano and leading the singing.

Author(s):  
Jon B. Mikolashek

George S. Patton, one of the United States’ greatest field commanders, played a vital role in American involvement in World War I and the creation of the United States Tank Corps. While most literature focuses solely on Patton’s life and performance in World War II, the Great War was a pivotal event in his life and military career. Patton gained his first command in World War I with the United States Tank Corps. As the first “tanker” in United States Army history, Patton set up the first American light tank school and later commanded the 1st Tank Brigade in two campaigns, St. Mihiel and the Meuse-Argonne offensive. The study focuses on Patton’s personal life, his decision to push for an assignment with John J. Pershing, and his roles as a staff officer for the American Expeditionary Force and ultimately as a small unit commander pioneering a new weapons system..


2003 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 16-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
G.A.J. Pitt

The first Chair and department of biochemistry in the U.K. were founded at the University of Liverpool in 1902, thanks to a generous donation by William Johnston, a Liverpool shipowner. The first holder of the Johnston Chair, Benjamin Moore, was a dynamic man, who set up an active research centre. In 1906, he and Edward Whitley founded The Bio-Chemical Journal as a private venture, and in 1912, they sold it to the Biochemical Society. Moore also initiated the first Honours School of Biochemistry in the country before moving to London in 1914 and being succeeded by Walter Ramsden. The development of the department was stopped by World War I, and there was little expansion in the 1920s. After Ramsden's retirement in 1931, the third Johnston Professor, Harold Channon, increased staff numbers, ran a successful research school and re-established the Honours course. World War II brought that to an end, and Channon moved into industry. After the war, biochemistry expanded from a niche subject in a small number of British universities into one that was strongly represented in most universities, but the penetration of biochemistry into wide areas of functional biology has blurred conventional subject boundaries, so in many universities (including the University of Liverpool), departments of biochemistry have been incorporated into large more general schools.


Cinema’s Military Industrial Complex examines how the American military has used cinema and related visual, sonic, and mobile technologies to further its varied aims. The essays in this book address the way cinema was put to work for purposes of training, orientation, record keeping, internal and external communication, propaganda, research and development, tactical analysis, surveillance, physical and mental health, recreation, and morale. The contributors examine the technologies and types of films that were produced and used in collaboration among the military, film industry, and technology manufacturers. The essays also explore the goals of the American state, which deployed the military and its unique modes of filmmaking, film exhibition, and film viewing to various ends. Together, the essays reveal the military’s deep investment in cinema, which began around World War I, expanded during World War II, continued during the Cold War (including wars in Korea and Vietnam), and still continues in the ongoing War on Terror.


Author(s):  
Mark Franko

This book is an examination of neoclassical ballet initially in the French context before and after World War I (circa 1905–1944) with close attention to dancer and choreographer Serge Lifar. Since the critical discourses analyzed indulged in flights of poetic fancy a distinction is made between the Lifar-image (the dancer on stage and object of discussion by critics), the Lifar-discourse (the writings on Lifar as well as his own discourse), and the Lifar-person (the historical actor). This topic is further developed in the final chapter into a discussion of the so-called baroque dance both as a historical object and as a motif of contemporary experimentation as it emerged in the aftermath of World War II (circa 1947–1991) in France. Using Lifar as a through-line, the book explores the development of critical ideas of neoclassicism in relation to his work and his drift toward a fascist position that can be traced to the influence of Nietzsche on his critical reception. Lifar’s collaborationism during the Occupation confirms this analysis. The discussion of neoclassicism begins in the final years of the nineteenth-century and carries us through the Occupation; then track the baroque in its gradual development from the early 1950s through the end of the 1980s and early 1990s.


2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 35-41
Author(s):  
Sunyarn Niempoog ◽  
Kiat Witoonchart ◽  
Woraphon Jaroenporn

AbstractModern hand surgery in Thailand started after the end of World War II. It is divided into 4 phases. In the initial phase (1950-1965), the surgery of the hand was mainly performed by general surgeons. In 1965-1975, which was the second phase, many plastic surgeons and orthopaedic surgeons graduated from foreign countries and came back to Thailand. They played a vital role in the treatment of the surgery of the hand and set up hand units in many centers. They also contributed to the establishment of the “Thai Society for Surgery of the Hand,” which still continues to operate. In the third phase (1975-2000), there was a dramatic development of microsurgery because of the rapid economic expansion. There were many replantation, free tissue transfers, and brachial plexus surgeries in traffic and factory-related accidents. The first hand-fellow training program began in 1993. In the fourth phase (since 2000), the number of hand injuries from factory-related accidents began declining. But the injury from traffic accidents had been increasing both in severity and number. Moreover, the diseases of hand that relate to aging and degeneration had been on the rise. Thai hand surgeons have been using several state-of-the-art technologies such as arthroscopic and endoscopic surgery. They are continuing to invent innovations, generating international publications, and frequently being invited as speakers in foreign countries.


2019 ◽  
pp. 096777201987609
Author(s):  
Liam McLoughlin

Dr Joseph Dudley ‘Benjy’ Benjafield qualified from University College Hospital Medical School, London in 1912. He joined the Royal Army Medical Corps during World War I and was in charge of the 37th Mobile Bacteriological Laboratory serving with the British Egyptian Expeditionary Force when the Spanish flu struck in late 1918. He observed the features and clinical course of the pandemic and published his findings in the British Medical Journal in 1919. On return to civilian life, he was appointed as Consultant physician to St George’s Hospital, Hyde Park Corner, London where he remained in practice for the rest of his career. He was a respected amateur gentleman racing driver frequently racing at the Brooklands circuit from 1924 after buying a Bentley 3-litre and entering the Le Mans 24 h race seven times between 1925 and 1935, winning in 1927. He was one of an elite club of young men known as The Bentley Boys and went on to become a founding member of the British Racing Drivers Club (BRDC) in 1927. He rejoined the Royal Army Medical Corps during World War II, serving briefly again in Egypt. He died in 1957.


2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
David P. Setran

AbstractIn the years between World War I and World War II in the United States, public and religious educators engaged in an extended struggle to define the appropriate nature of character education for American youth. Within a post-war culture agonizing over the sanctions of moral living in the wake of mass violence and vanishing certitudes, a group of conservative educators sought to shore up traditional values through the construction of morality codes defining the characteristics of the “good American.” At the same time, a group of liberal progressive educators set forth a vigorous critique of these popular character education programs. This article analyzes the nature of this liberal critique by looking at one leading liberal spokesperson, George Albert Coe. Coe taught at Union Theological Seminary and Teachers College, Columbia University, and used his platform in these institutions to forge a model of character education derived from the combined influences of liberal Protestantism and Deweyan progressive education. Coe posited a two-pronged vision for American moral education rooted in the need for both procedural democracy (collaborative moral decision making) and a democratic social order. Utilizing this vision of the “democracy of God,” Coe demonstrated the inadequacies of code-based models, pointing in particular to the anachronism of traditional virtues in a world of social interdependence, the misguided individualism of the virtues, and the indoctrinatory nature of conservative programs. He proposed that youth be allowed to participate in moral experimentation, adopting ideals through scientific testing rather than unthinking allegiance to authoritative commands. Expanding the meaning of morality to include social as well as personal righteousness, he also made character education a vehicle of social justice. In the end, I contend that Coe's democratic model of character education, because of its scientific epistemological hegemony and devaluing of tradition, actually failed to promote a truly democratic character.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 371-376
Author(s):  
Andrew Ludanyi

The fate of Hungarian minorities in East Central Europe has been one of the most neglected subjects in the Western scholarly world. For the past fifty years the subject—at least prior to the late 1980s—was taboo in the successor states (except Yugoslavia), while in Hungary itself relatively few scholars dared to publish anything about this issue till the early 1980s. In the West, it was just not faddish, since most East European and Russian Area studies centers at American, French and English universities tended to think of the territorial status quo as “politically correct.” The Hungarian minorities, on the other hand, were a frustrating reminder that indeed the Entente after World War I, and the Allies after World War II, made major mistakes and significantly contributed to the pain and anguish of the peoples living in this region of the “shatter zone.”


2016 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 79-85
Author(s):  
Andrzej Wrobel ◽  
Malgorzata Korzeniowska ◽  
Agnieszka Polak ◽  
Marcin Szczygiel ◽  
Rafal Wrobel

AbstractThis is one of a series of articles about pharmacists in Lublin district, in the 19th and 20th c. The first recorded owner of the pharmacy in Adamów was Aleksander Biernacki (1851-1897), who passed it onto his son-in-law, Aleksander Rogoziński (1873-1941), and who, in turn, passed it onto his son, Stanisław Rogoziński (1913-1998), married to Tatiana (1918-1998). This family's history is an example of the history of Polish intelligentsia in the second half of 19th c., in the times of the Russian partition, World War I, 1918-1939, World War II and until contemporary times.


Author(s):  
Julie Hubbert

Much has been said about the Nazi appropriation of Wagner’s music in the 1930s and 1940s. As early as 1933, Hitler transformed the Bayreuth Festival into a celebration of National Socialist ideology and propagated miniature Wagner festivals to celebrate his own birthday. Wagner’s music also resounded throughout the culture and media at large. What has been less understood and examined, however, is how this same music was also used in nonnarrative films, newsreels, government documentaries, and industrial and advertising films of the period. Here the appropriation of Wagner is more complex and problematic. Master Hands (1936), the critically acclaimed, feature-length industrial film sponsored by the American car company Chevrolet, is an excellent example. As several film scholars have observed, the film is an artistic advertisement for the American automobile industry that borrows heavily from Riefenstahl’s Triumph of the Will. But the film’s score, a compilation full of Wagner excerpts, arranged by composer Samuel Benavie and performed by the Detroit Symphony Orchestra, about which almost nothing has been said, is equally propagandistic. By examining the music for this industrial advertisement for Chevrolet, this chapter not only re-examines the reception of Wagner in the United States between the World War I and World War II but also examines the integral role his music played in the creation of American films of persuasion. It explores the use U.S. industrial filmmakers made of Wagner’s music as an audible signifier not for German fascism but to advertise for American democracy, industry, and capitalism.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document