Homosexuality During World War II and the Cold War

Homosexuality has generally played a small role in our nation's history. Most know little of the trials that homosexuals have endured in America, and most know little of the accomplishments of homosexuals. However, many historians have taken upon themselves to make the history of homosexuals known. During the World War II and Cold War Era, homosexuals especially suffered in their aspirations for helping their country. As the U.S military and government tried to exclude the men and women from serving in the armed forces and government jobs, homosexuals were able to forge a new identity for themselves. The following essay will be an examination of several author's works on homosexuality during this time, assessing the goals of their works, and their methods in achieving their goals.

One of the first books published on the topic was Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two was first published 1990 by Allan Berube, an American historian and independent scholar. Berube details the obstacles that homosexuals had to endure in trying to get into the military during World War II. Using biased psychiatric and scientific logic, the military chose to exclude homosexuals from the military because it was considered a mental illness, and it was believed that they would hurt the productivity of the armed forces.[1] The military used an unreliable screening process through military psychiatrists in determining if an individual was homosexual or not. Some psychiatrists did not enforce their screening, which let homosexuals into the military. Also, homosexuals simply lied to psychiatrists about their sexual orientation and were able to get into the armed forces.[2] Simply, the U.S. military screening process did not work, and thousands of homosexuals were able to enter the military to serve the country.

The struggles of homosexuals to fit in the military are also detailed in Berube's book. Despite the military's strict code against homosexuals, it could not deny that thousands of homosexuals were still able to enter the service and were essential to the service. Regardless the obstacles of homosexuals in trying to fit in, many were still able to find other homosexuals and even find sexual encounters with other men and women.[3] The military then set new guidelines to curb homosexual relationships. In addition, the book details the importance of GI drag, which was used as a gay refuge for homosexual men to express their identity and show their gay culture without fear of repercussions.[4] These shows which were performed for soldiers, regularly had GIs play female roles and were very valuable in the morale of soldiers during the war but also provided opportunities for homosexuals to meet others of their same orientation. In addition, gay GIs were able to find more freedom in the military, often staying in the war-boom cities during the war. The rich nightlife and gay subculture in cities like San Francisco offered gay GIs more options to find others like them.[5] For these reasons, the military used vice control to curb homosexual activity, along with other popular activities among GIs, like prostitution.[6]

Berube's book details the constant need for reform anti-homosexual policies because homosexuals were very much part of the military. Homosexuality was a crime according to the military and punishable by prison. But because military prisons already held more than capacity, a new discharge system was used instead essentially kicking out homosexuals from the armed service. Using mental illness again as an excuse, the military was able to justify discharging homosexual GIs from the military. The new system also brought more questions about homosexuality, especially in identifying it, because there was still no set standard for determining if someone was homosexual.[7] Psychiatrists were once again called upon to find new ways of discovering the homosexual. But this also brought sympathy towards homosexuals, as many began to question the discharge system. These psychiatrists became the pioneer experts on homosexuality, in either to help keep homosexuals out of the military or helping them stay in.[8]

Despite the discharge system and other controls set by the military, gay soldiers were still able to serve in combat because of the failure to screen them out. The need for manpower was also an issue, as some were reluctant to discharge much needed soldiers. In combat, these gay soldiers were able to prove themselves in battle, and provided them the masculine legitimacy they sought to reverse the stereotype of the "sissy" gay soldier.[9] Some homosexual soldiers were even awarded commendations for combat valor.

In addition, Coming Out Under Fire also examines the battles that homosexuals fought against their own country in their fight for fair treatment and rights. Many lost their lives or feared for their lives because of their homosexuality, and many had to endure the humiliation of being caught, and them being subjected to intense questioning by military psychiatrists. As a result, Berube explains the new beginning of the homosexual identity, which came from gay men and women's experiences in the military. After returning home from the war, former GI's formed a new political minority, eventually putting gays and lesbians in the mainstream.[10] As a result, the Army and Navy showed some signs of change, when Congress corrected some of the dischargers sent out to gays and lesbians, who were given honorable discharges instead.[11]

Berube's book studies the struggles of homosexuals in the U.S. military against their own country, and the war itself. Many endured the stigma of not being considered adequate to serve for their country and were found to be mentally ill. It also looks into the new minority that gays and lesbians formed, making themselves an important part of America's workforce, especially in the military.

David Johnson's book The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government continues where Berube's leaves off, focusing on homosexuality in the Cold War Era. Instead of homosexuality in the military,

The Lavender Scare details the homosexuals in the federal government, especially in the nation's capital, Washington D.C. The book focuses on the Cold War paranoia that grew after World War II, in a time when thousands were accused of Communism in some way or another. The government believed that to be a Communist, some sort of mental illness had to be present in the individual. This belief was extended to homosexuals, who were considered as sexual psychopaths. Spearheaded by Joseph McCarthy, the government claimed that homosexuality was a psychological maladjustment that put them towards communism. This was called the Lavender Scare.

Johnson also details the migration of gays and lesbians in to the capital, among others to work in the new government agencies.[12] Before the Lavender Scare, gay subculture which had already been growing since World War II thrived. Lafayette Park was the center of Washington's gay subculture as a site for cruising and socialization. The park, which was located only one block away from the White House, featured amenities of gay culture: neighborhoods, restaurants, and cultural institutions.[13] Washington had a relatively open toleration towards homosexuals before the increase of migration of people to the capital.[14] But the New Deal also increased the gay population, which caused an "infiltration" of homosexuals in government agencies. Politicians grew concerned, and launched a campaign to battle homosexual activity, especially homosexuals in the federal workforce.[15] First, park police had arrested 200 men under the campaign.[16] The Hoey investigations began in the spring of 1950, which concluded at hearings that all homosexuals should be barred from all government jobs. The government also believed that Washington held about 5,000 homosexuals, and that 3,750 of them worked for the federal government, which led to stronger policies against homosexuals in the workplace.[17] Homosexuals lived in fear of being found out about their sexual orientation. No evidence was needed to start an investigation, as with the case of Miss Blevins, who had a "funny feeling" about a co-worker. These accusations became very common in attacks homosexuals; especially after the Eisenhower administration took office, and took the slogan of "Let's clean house," which gave Americans the idea that it was their duty to help the government in keeping homosexuals out of the state department.[18]

The accusations did not only stay in the workforce, but also entered the political spectrum. Johnson describes the use of homosexuality as a political strategy, using accusations to attack political enemies. One example used is Sumner Wells, the secretary under Franklin Roosevelt who was accused of homosexual activity and was forced to resign in 1943.[19] The strategy was also used by Eisenhower, who during the presidential election of 1952 attacked the democratic candidate, Adlai Stevenson of homosexuality, severely damaging his reputation.[20]

The book concludes by focuses on the organizing of homosexual citizens against the government purges. Led by Frank Kameny, a scientist who was dismissed for being homosexual, formed the Mattachine Society of Washington with the help of other pro-gay organizations.[21] These organizations helped to defend homosexuals against anti-gay discrimination. Thus, homosexuals began to be more active politically, led by protests and victories in court cases. One court case featured in the book was the Norton v. Macy case in 1969, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that federal civil servants could no longer be fired for the sole reason of being homosexual.[22]

Another work, that focuses solely on homosexual women during World War II is by Leisa Meyer, and entitled "Creating G.I. Jane: The Regulation of Sexuality and Sexual Behavior in the Women's Army Corps during World War II." Her short article examines the regulation of the sexuality of women in the armed forces among other issues homosexual women faced when joining the military. Women in the military had to endure the long standing stereotypes of being "mannish women," lesbians, and were more often associated by the military as prostitutes and cross-dressers.[23] These stereotypes led the military to promote the women soldiers in different categories. Oveta Hobby, the Women's Army Corps Director, sought instead to categorize women soldiers as chaste and asexual, which would still fit in with the norms of World War II society.[24] For these reasons, debates flared between male and female leaders over the methods of regulating female sexuality in the military. Because of the war, women were already holding civilian jobs held previously by men, so the rise of independent women feared the public in the direction of American society, especially at time when more women were joining the military, which was supposed to be the ultimate test of masculinity and thus threatened the male role in society.[25] Women in the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps (WAAC) and Women's Army Corps WAC) lives changed greatly because of the military's concern by regulating women's sexual expression. The American public feared that an all female environment in a mostly masculine male dominated institution would cause a breakdown of heterosexual norms and sexual mortality.[26] The mass media picked up on these fears, and thousands of letters were written to the State Department expressing concerns over sexual promiscuity, lesbianism, and the lack of protection of women in the military. Others also accused the military forming of the WAC and WAAC in order to create prostitutes for male GIs.[27]

In response, the female GI femininity was stressed, and military propaganda touted the women of the WAC and WAAC as having only the highest of moral backgrounds and education. The military also attempted to limit the visibility of lesbians in the military, and instead stressed the sexual attractiveness of the women of the WAC/WAAC to men, but did not imply their availability.[28] These changes also caused conflict among leaders, who could not agree on the regulations of women in the WAC/WAAC and whether or not GI women would be allowed to socialize with men, fearing that the asexual vision of the women would be tarnished. The military instead regulated when women and men could see each other, stressing that they meet during the day time.[29] These regulations also created clashes among lesbian and heterosexual women, as some heterosexual women accused their officers of lesbianism after the regulations on the relationship between men and women were enforced.[30] Lesbians also felt the need to create their own space among the WAC, which actually had very lenient policies toward lesbianism, as women were instructed to expect to meet some form of lesbians during their military service.[31] Women were also rarely discharged for being homosexual, but other subtle methods were used instead, like changing room assignments or a transfer to a different post.[32] In addition, other regulations were also imposed to further keep lesbians less visible, such as discouraging "mannish" hairstyles.[33]

Meyer also examines how lesbians were able to find themselves in the environment of the WAC/WACC. Women used coded language and mannerisms to locate each other: some subtle, and some more obvious. "Butch" women were more obvious and were more likely to be targeted in discharge cases, because they threatened the femininity that was stressed by the military.[34] Other methods were used instead for lesbian women to form relationships, usually through secret letters to each other. As the need for women in the military decreased, more purges began to be more prevalent, and women used other methods to hide their homosexuality. Some formed heterosexual relationships in order to hide their lovers, in some cases, with lesbian women even getting pregnant or marrying male GIs.[35] Lastly, Meyer also discusses that these same issues still surround women in the military today, as service women continue to battle images of themselves as dykes.[36]

The next article, "The Military, Psychiatry, and "Unfit" Soldiers, 1939-1942," written by Naoko Wake in 2007, also examines homosexuality during World War II, but focuses on the science behind the military's screening process, the conflicts between military leaders, and the psychiatrists put in charge of establishing it. Harry Stack Sullivan, who had established a reputation in the psychiatric field on his theories on mental illness, was put in charge of using psychiatric screening. As a homosexual, Sullivan was sympathetic towards gays, but even so, the article highlights Sullivan's failure along with that of other psychiatrists to protect homosexuals from the screening process.[37] Sullivan was adamant in using psychiatric screening for the military, seeing it as an opportunity for psychiatrists to gain more recognition, along with his strong support for intervention.[38] He believed that it was psychiatrist duty to help the mentally ill, especially as the military discovered from World War I that many soldiers had or become mentally ill.[39]

Sullivan's plans for screening was very complex, using five different categories in determining mental illness, and suggesting different signs for each one.[40] The problem lay in the psychiatrists examining patients, who all had differing methods and opinions on what was considered a mentally ill person. Also, the military had already classified homosexuality as a mental illness, and Sullivan was very careful not make his opinions on homosexuality too public, because of the public views on the subject. Sullivan also had contradicting views on homosexuality, according to Naoko, as he discovered that some mentally ill patients he had examined in the 1920's and 1930's were homosexual. He also believed that the strain on military life would be a heavy burden on homosexuals, who were prone to certain illnesses.[41] Thus, Sullivan believed that the screening process actually helped some homosexuals, by protecting them. Because of these conflicts, Sullivan contradicted himself throughout his career on homosexuality and military screening, failing to see homosexuals as individuals who could serve in the military. Also because of the differing opinions of the public and what psychiatrists thought, it was showed by the tentativeness of liberal minded psychiatrists shot down any possibility of a non-homophobic policy.

The next two articles focus on homosexuality during the Cold War. The first one, "The Military and Lesbians during the McCarthy Years," written by Allan Berube and John D'Emilio, was published in 1984. The article discusses the exclusion of homosexuals and lesbians from all federal jobs in the early 1950's and how it impacted the policies of private employers, who also began banning homosexuals from jobs[42]. The military's policies were especially severe, as about 1,000 homosexuals were discharged a year starting in the 1950's.[43] Women were especially affected by these policies. The rate at which lesbians were discovered was much higher when compared to their male counterparts, because lesbians were especially visible in an environment that was male dominated.[44] Many women were grouped in the lesbian stereotype, especially after the war, where women's roles were expected to revert to more traditional roles.

In 1943, a series of lectures were prepared by the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps concerning lesbianism. These lectures actually suggested that some form of lesbian activity would be bound to happen in the environment of the military, and stressed that the harassment of women was not a good idea, and more subtle approaches should be used instead, like transferring the individuals to different rooms, stations. Even though the policies were not always followed, they showed evidence of some form of tolerance.[45] But the article suggests a complete change in policy during the 1950's, as more strict guidelines were used against homosexuality.

In 1952, an indoctrination program included three lectures regarding homosexuality for WAVE recruits. These lectures were the opposite of what the Women's Army Auxiliary Corps suggested, and instead instituted a type of surveillance, encouraging recruits to inform each other of any sexual activity, with no mention of a penalty of false accusations. The lectures also stated that all recruits were to maintain their femininity and thus reinforced their traditional gender roles. Lesbians were also attacked in the lectures, described as sexual vampires who through manipulation were capable of leading women to destructive behavior, including murder and suicide.[46] These policies put women in stressful positions, always in fear of being found out, accused, or being punished for not accusing. Women who were discharged also suffered, and found their lives even harder in civilian life, since they had to carry the stigma as lesbians for the rest of their lives[47]. ACLU was able to help their cause, and by the 1950's several pro-lesbian organizations had formed. These organizations heightened concern for the injustices against lesbians and in the years to follow, along with male organizations, were able to attack anti-homosexual policies by the military.[48]

The last article, written by K.A. Cuordileone, entitled "Politics in an Age of Anxiety: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity," published in 2000, does not necessarily focus on homosexuality, but on masculinity during the Cold War. Cuordileone focuses on the America's obsession with masculinity in Cold War politics. A premium was put on masculinity, and anything less was a threat to the nation. And in some way, the emphasis on masculinity became tied to the battle against Communism. These ideas put politics in an odd position, which began to rely on sexually charged dualisms and controlled political life throughout the Cold War era.[49] The idea that masculinity was on the decline concerned the American public, and politicians followed suit, as many tried to stay away from certain issues, especially liberals, who some thought were on the "soft" side.

Cuordileone argues that the fear of homosexuality is also another reason in which in which masculinity was emphasized. More than ever the issue was out in the national spotlight and it became evident that there were more homosexuals than previously thought. Even though homosexuality was highly suppressed, in the 1940s and 1950's, World War II brought thousands of men and women together in segregated environments, which gave gays and lesbians an avenue for same sex relationships. This period was a "coming out" experience for the homosexual community, and the rest of the public took notice and many became uneasy about the new found visibility of the gay community.[50] The 1950's were an age of conformity when homosexuality was clearly not perceived as an ideal role for men and women. Films attacked homosexuality and guilt by association haunted political lines, as differing political candidates and groups used it as an avenue to attack the other party.[51] Homosexuality became a prime target among politicians and the public as personal attacks became rampant in the political spectrum. Homosexuals were also assumed to be Communists, and politicians capitalized on it. An example from the article is the case of Alger Hiss, a New Deal liberal and former official in Franklin Roosevelt's State Department, was who accused of being a communist by Whittaker Chambers. Chambers, a former Communist Operative, admitted to being a former homosexual who had now changed his ways but suggested that Hiss was a homosexual.[52] Even though his homosexuality was not the focus of the accusation, Hiss was an example of the prototypical soft, weak-minded liberal that left him others open for political attacks. "Cookie pushers," the soft minded diplomats also became subject to attacks and purges, homosexuals who worked for the State Department. These issues contributed to the "Age of Anxiety," which highly affected political and public culture.

Berube, Wake, and Meyer all examine homosexuality during World War II in different ways, and seek to accomplish different things. Berube's book, which is lengthier than other two works, obviously takes a broader approach to the subject. Even though Coming Out Under Fire may takes on a general history of gays in the military World War II, it also covers many of the different facets of the subject. Each chapter covers an important part of gay experiences in the military, from the process of getting in to life after the military. Also, Berube takes more of a first person approach to the subject. Gay GI's personal experiences seem to be the main focus of the book, highlighted by documented quotes. Berube also makes a point to show that the main focus of the book is not how gays were victimized, but "How a dynamic power relationship developed between gay citizens and their government and how it transformed them both."[53] For this reason, Berube uses many primary sources in his research.

Berube's research began from letters he discovered from a neighbor's friend, which contained letters written by gay GIs who served during World War II.[54] From there, his research branched out more and he was able to also use interviews as another primary source, interviewing seventy-one gay veterans from World War II. In addition, Berube also uses military records and correspondents as another source of military policy towards homosexuals. Among these primary sources, Berube cites dozens of scholars, books, articles, and also makes a point to acknowledge various organizations that assisted him in his research.

Berube claims that the war actually brought homosexuals together, in a coming out process, allowing them to be more aware of each other.[55] Thus, despite the military's anti-homosexual agenda during the war, it also had positive effects on the gay community. The war brought thousands of homosexuals together, who were able to discover each other and form a sense of community. They fought two wars, one for America, and another for themselves against the anti-homosexual policies of the military.[56] Berube also argues that the war also gave homosexuals a new political identity, allowing gay veterans to recognize the concepts rights, injustice, and discrimination. In addition, they began to take a public spotlight for the gay community, as some mainstream media began identifying the gay community as a persecuted minority.[57]

Leisa Meyer's article "Creating G.I. Jane," in contrast, focuses solely on women's side during World War II. This helps the reader in finding out more about women's experiences during World War II, which isn't highlighted as much in Berube's or in other of the articles and books in, which can be probably credited to the fact that evidence for women's history in general is not as abundant as for their male counterparts. Meyer's article also focuses more on the regulation of women's sexuality by the military, and the discussions between male and female leaders. Although the article is does not focus on the personal experience of lesbian GIs, it still provide some personal experiences of individuals. The main goal of the article instead is on the military, its conflict within the War Department, how GI women were to be portrayed.[58]

She uses a great number of primary sources, from letters, phone conversations, articles, and military documents from the World War II era. The official military documents in particular offer the most evidence for her argument, which details the military's logic for their policies against homosexual women. Meyer also uses many secondary sources as evidence, often citing several well known scholars in the study of gay history, including Allan Berube and John D'Emilio.

With her evidence, Meyer is able to make a clear argument that the "female soldier" became defined through the Women's Army Corps, the military leadership, and public opinion. Even today, the same issues are still being discussed within the military and by the public.[59] Meyer is able to make a clear connection between the GI women of World War II and of those of today, who still battle stereotypical images.[60]

The last article concerning World War II is by Naoko Wake, which takes a different approach, instead focusing on the science that formed the basis of the military's policies towards homosexuals. In addition, the article highlights the military psychiatrists, especially Harry Sullivan, and their decisions regarding the screen process of homosexuals. By using mostly writings from Harry Sullivan, Wake is able to criticize Sullivan logically.

Wake's sources reflect the large focus on Harry Sullivan. Her primary sources include the published writings of Harry Sullivan, in addition to interviews, military records, and psychiatric records. By using so many of Sullivan's works, Wake is able to point out his hypocrisies, and especially his failure to protect homosexuals from the screening process. In addition, Wake also cites more modern research, including Berube's Coming Out Under Fire.

Wake concludes that Harry Sullivan, among other psychiatrists, failed to protect homosexuals from the military's screening process, despite being more liberal, and instead took conservative approach because of public opinion and the homophobic nature of the military. Wake also points out that Sullivan was a homosexual himself, but still failed because some of his research suggested that homosexuals were susceptible to mental illnesses.[61] Wake is able to point out Sullivan's hypocrisies easily, highlighting his advocacy against anti-homosexual prejudice, but still failed to help homosexuals in the military screening process.[62]

The following will examine the Cold War authors, starting with The Lavender Scare. Johnson puts the homosexual purges of the Cold War on center stage. He vast amount of primary sources, including interviews, books, articles, and unclassified military documents. Like Berube, Johnson also credits various gay and lesbian organizations, scholars, and educational institutions who have contributed to his research. With his research, is able to provide sufficient evidence for all his arguments.

One of the more interesting arguments Johnson makes is the claim of the thriving gay culture of Washington, and that homosexuals actually received fair treatment before the Lavender Scare. At first glance the argument may not seem plausible, but Johnson makes use of his evidence, highlighting Lafayette Park as the center of gay culture.[63] Also, like Berube, Johnson is able to show the continuity of the new gay movement with what Berube showed had sprung up during World War II. The new movements that erupted from the anti-homosexual purges are interesting in the fact that they had very positive effects for homosexuals, as Johnson is able to show through several court victories.[64]

D'Emilio's and Berube's "The Military and Lesbians during the McCarthy Years," like Meyer's focuses on solely on lesbians during the McCarthy years. The authors are both well known authors in gay history. Berube and D'Emilio analyze several documents, including indoctrination lectures on homosexuality for the navy, and communication between the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and lesbians who were purged from the Air Force. These communications and letters are used as evidence by the authors of the homosexual scare of the 1950's, which was directly related to the Cold War, and which left many Americans in fear about the nation's security[65]. With their evidence, the authors bring to light the military's anti-lesbian policies, but in addition add the personal experience of women in the military, lesbian and not. Included at the end of their essay are the fully published anti-lesbian lectures and documents that were presented to new recruits. In addition, the personal letters are also shown in full form, from which the reader is able to understand the feelings of gay women during the anti-homosexual wave of policies by the military. The most interesting of the sources are the presentations by military personnel. One of them, given by a chaplain, attacks lesbians as a danger to society, and emphasizes the traditional roles of women that were encouraged during the Cold War.[66] The evidence clearly shows the anti-homosexual bias against women, especially the need for women to revert to their pre-war roles.

Berube and D'Emilio conclude their essay by stating the damaging effects that the policies had on women, from the humiliation of being discharged to committing suicide.[67] But they also present the positive effects that resulted from it, from the letters that gay GI women sent to various organizations, and that helped their cause for equal rights.[68]

The last article, Cuordileone's "Politics in an Age of Anxiety," clearly differs from the other works in that the main focus of the article is not homosexuality. The overemphasis of masculinity that began during the Cold War and which endured until the 1960's is the main subject. But it is still important in that the emphasis on masculinity affected homosexuals greatly, because anything less was considered feminine or weak.[69] Cuordileone brings up the other issues of the Cold War, especially the negative effect the on politics, as well on those who felt the need to conform. Not until half way through the article is homosexuality mentioned, but Cuordileone does well in noting that all the effects of the Cold War were also felt by homosexuals. Cuordileone uses different methods in the discussion of homosexuals in the essay. He especially discusses its effects on the government and politics, including the several political cases in which homosexuality were used as an avenue to attack others. Films, especially anti-conformity films are also discussed in which homosexuality was tied to Communism. In addition, Cuordileone also discusses several of the issues the other authors also examined, discussing the effects of psychiatry, and how World War II allowed homosexuals to discover each other, as did Berube and Wake.[70]

As with the other authors, Cuordileone uses primary sources well, citing articles, newspapers, films and statements made by several different politicians, including Joseph McCarthy. Cuordileone also uses sources that many of the other authors left out, using illustrations from the Cold War Era. Comics, photographs are all used as evidence to show the emphasis on masculinity that American culture exhibited because of the Cold war. In addition, several scholarly articles are cited, including authors like John D'Emilio.

Cuordileone is able to logically argue the effects that homosexuals felt from the Cold War, and discuss the other issues that engulfed Cold War culture and politics. Sources are used well in the discussion and are able to show the ties from masculinity to anti-communism and anti-homosexuality. In addition, Cuordileone analyzes the effect masculinity had on the oncoming election and policies of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations.[71]

The discussions of homosexuality during World War II and the Cold War are very interesting since the topic is largely invisible part of American history and hardly ever discussed. These six authors are able to bring the issues homosexuality in several different ways, using several different methods, from the discussion of the personal experiences of homosexuals, the role of psychiatrists, and especially the role of the U.S government and military. The effects on lesbians are very also important, and shown by the sole focus on women by two of the articles, as women aren't as fully discussed in the other books and articles. Sources are one of major issues of the discussion of homosexuality, as many may be hard to find, but these authors are able to use their sources well in explaining their evidence. It is interesting to learn from these authors that despite the anti-homosexual bias from World War II and the Cold War, there was a positive lining from it, as homosexuals were able to make themselves known in the national media, and able make their presence known in the fight for equal rights. The role of psychiatrists is also important to understand, to find that homosexuals did have a chance to be defended by others, but unfortunately were not successful. The most important issue of all is the importance that some of the authors gave to the same issues that homosexuals still deal with today as some of the same World War II and Cold War issues still remain today.

[1] Allan Berube, Coming Out Under Fire: The History of Gay Men and Women in World War Two. NY: Free Press 2000. 33.

[2] Berube, Coming Out, 33.

[3] Berube, Coming Out, 39.

[4] Berube, Coming Out, 97.

[5] Berube, Coming Out, 99.

[6] Berube, Coming Out, 126.

[7] Berube, Coming Out, 33.

[8] Berube, Coming Out, 173.

[9] Berube, Coming Out, 200.

[10] Berube, Coming Out, 273.

[11] Berube, Coming Out, 277.

[12] David Johnson The Lavender Scare: The Cold War Persecution of Gays and Lesbians in the Federal Government. Chicago: University of Chicago Press 2006. 43.

[13] Johnson, Lavender, 49.

[14] Johnson, Lavender, 63.

[15] Johnson, Lavender, 56.

[16] Johnson, Lavender, 60.

[17] Johnson, Lavender, 86.

[18] Johnson, Lavender, 119.

[19] Johnson,

Lavender, 67.

[20] Johnson,

Lavender, 122.

[21] Johnson,

Lavender, 214.

[22] Johnson,

Lavender, 207.

[23] Leisa Meyer, "Creating G.I. Jane: Regulation of Sexuality and Sexual Behavior in the Women's Army Corps during World War II,"

Feminist Studies 18, no. 3 (1992): 581.

[24] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 581.

[25] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 582.

[26] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 582.

[27] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 584.

[28] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 585.

[29] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 590.

[30] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 591.

[31] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 592.

[32] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 592.

[33] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 593.

[34] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 594.

[35] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 595.

[36] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 596.

[37] Wake, "Unfit," 465.

[38] Naoko Wake, "The Military, Psychiatry, and 'Unfit' Soldiers, 1939-1942,"

Journal of History of Medicine and Allied Sciences 62, no. 4 (2007): 468.

[39] Wake, "Unfit," 468.

[40] Wake, "Unfit," 470.

[41] Wake, "Unfit," 480.

[42] Berube, A. & D'Emilio, J. "The Military and Lesbians during the McCarthy Years,"

The Lesbian Issue 9, no. 4 (1984): 760.

[43] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 760.

[44] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 760.

[45] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 761.

[46] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 764-770.

[47] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 763.

[48] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 764.

[49] K.A. Cuordileone, "Politics in an Age of Anxiety: Cold War Political Culture and the Crisis in American Masculinity, 1949-1960,"

Journal of American History 87, no. 2 (2000): 516.

[50] Cuordileone, "Politics," 529.

[51] Cuordileone, "Politics," 528.

[52] Cuordileone, "Politics," 517.

[53] Berube,

Coming Out,

6.

[54] Berube,

Coming Out, ix.

[55] Berube,

Coming Out,

6.

[56] Berube,

Coming Out,

7.

[57] Berube,

Coming Out,

254.

[58] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 582.

[59] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 596.

[60] Meyer, "G.I. Jane," 596.

[61] Wake, "Unfit," 464.

[62] Wake, "Unfit," 463.

[63] Johnson,

Lavender, 41.

[64] Johnson,

Lavender, 176.

[65] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 759.

[66] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 770.

[67] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 764.

[68] Berube, & D'Emilio, "The Military," 764.

[69] Cuordileone, "Politics," 516.

[70] Cuordileone, "Politics," 529.

[71] Cuordileone, "Politics," 545.