Women's roles and transformations during World War II

The Important Roles Played by Women During World War II

The scope of World War II was unprecedented in its time and thus far has yet to be succeeded by anything which remotely resembles it in such capacities as its number of participants, the geographical range of its impact or the sheer extremity of its horror and carnage. Likewise, there has rarely been a catastrophic, man-made event on such a scale as to fully re-calibrate the entire globe through its aftermath as occurred in the postscript to this international conflict. This is the impetus which drives this discussion on the oft-overlooked impact of war on women. Throughout history, where war has been fought, the emphasis on combat roles and administrative leadership responsibilities-both facilities significantly and exclusively occupied by men-has far overshadowed the supporting roles to which women have been relegated. The outcome is a recollection of wars and heroics which quite often excludes, minimizes or disrespects the contributions made by women. There is yet an even greater injustice due for consideration which is the opportunity provided by wartime conditions for a marked increase in the abuses also shown to women. The basest instincts of inequality, sexual objectification and power imposition would manifest in several examples of wartime roles for women that were devastating and even deadly. Perhaps what emerges most clearly form the discussion hereafter, which synthesizes a recollection of both the opportunities and abuses facing women during the war, is the notion that a conflict on such a scale inevitably impact everybody. While man sought to actively limit the roles which woman could occupy in society, the totality of war would make these limitations impractical and impossible. And as pioneers, so many of the women who experienced, survived or sacrificed in World War II endured great difficulty and suffering so that women today could be entitled to equal service not just in the military, but in positions of public office, in positions of corporate leadership and in all manner of occupation responsibility that, prior to the workforce shifts and labor reorientation demanded by World War II, would have been considered unthinkable. Economic factors in the years immediately preceding the war, Weinberg (1995) reveals, would play a significant part in the mounting tensions that ultimately produced the conflict. However, it is evident that these economic factors would quickly unearth so a vast array of cultural tensions as to push these issues largely to the forefront of events.[1] In Germany, for instance, severe depression enabled Hitler to wrestle power from legitimate governmental structures and to levy the support of his people. His emphasis on imperial expansion and his scape-goating of the minority populations which would soon occupy his death-camps throughout Europe provided Germans with a means to escaping the confines of economic stagnation while simultaneously realizing long-standing bigotry and prejudice. Though the designs were quite different, the research conduced here demonstrates that similar objectives made the undertaking of the war effort beneficial to the United States. Though the attack at Pearl Harbor and Germany's declaration of war on the U.S. both provoked the first direct military intervention of the U.S., it may be assessed that the flagging impact of Roosevelt's New Deal on the Great Depression ultimately demanded a new means to transcending economic woes. Wartime industries and the instantaneous job-creation of a military draft became the immediate boon to American industries that was required to shake the nation from its productivity slumber. These parallels are important in helping us to understand the strange dynamic between economy and culture which conspired to instigate the broadness and severity of conflict in World War II. And as an underlying premise to the discussion held here, it should be understood that where oppression and abuse of a selected people exists, the women among them are certain to suffer the firmest brunt of it. The sexual power dynamics between the genders dictate that where men are victimized by oppression, both they and their oppressors tend to victimize their women with greater intensity. And by contrast, the observation in justice-oriented societies of the extremity of bigotry in the world will tend to incline internal reflection and reconciliation. Though on the surface, the increased accessibility of public institutions to women in some contexts during World War II would be a product of strategic necessity, it would bear with it a change in core assumptions about women which must be seen as comparably progressive. Essentially, the discussion here will reveal that women played crucial and varied roles in the global conflict. And more to the point, both the advances in opportunities and the terrible horrors which were experienced by women during the war would help to establish the global identity of the woman today as one deserving of equality and entitled to protection against the worst abuses of which man is capable. Research on the roles of women during World War II demonstrates a clear pattern in which the records of Allied nations tends to be modestly progressive if not reluctantly yielding to the demand for the elevation in the status of women. In nations such as the United States and the United Kingdom, the war would be an inflection point in gender relations, with women truly gaining access for the first time to military, civilian, labor and professional responsibilities all culturally and psychologically associated to male social and economic roles. In the Soviet Union and Poland, where Marxist principle had taken firm philosophical root, there is an indication that women were perceived in many capacities as being equally capable as men in certain military capacities. Here, the record for progressive equality was even more rapidly accelerated by World War II than in the West. By sharp contrast, the impulses guided the Axis powers, distinguished by aggressively dictatorial governmental structures and premises of strict social control, would reflect an intensification of historical mistreatment of women. Even as the German military, for instance, allowed women to be elevated in civilian duties in the military and required a strong corps of women to serve as SS guards in female barracks of the Concentration and Death Camps, there is a clear history of sexual objectification and lurid deviant abuse of female prisoners as will be discussed hereafter. So too would this be the case with the Japanese, who would use aggressive and terrible tactics of sexual dominion over occupied nations' women, both as a show of power and a determination to inseminate foreign lands with its ethnic seed. Though the research here makes clear distinctions between the behaviors of the Allied and Axis nations with regard to women, there is a consistency across the boards in this discourse. This is based on the fact that in all of the contexts to be here discussed, World War II would mark a point of separation in which the experiences of women would enter into transition. For many, this would mean a significant but measured improvement of conditions and for others, it would be a historical low point due for reflection and consideration in the interests of future prevention. The discussion is largely founded on a synthesis of primary sources emerging from newspapers and publications concurrent with the war as well as interviews with many individuals who experienced, participated with or served in the war effort. Some support is given by a number of secondary sources which provide basic documentation on the details, events and notable individuals who served in the conflict. The Library of Congress provides us with access to some fascinating primary documents concerning the history of our nation and the fighting men and women who have defended it throughout. Military service, especially prior to more recent moves to diversify the ranks by gender, has been typically thought of as a male social or professional role. And indeed, during World War II for example, our troops would be constituted largely of men who had been drafted for armed combat. However, their efforts could not have been possible without the support of the countless women who volunteered their services to the war. The jobs available to women both on the front and back at home would not only be numerous, but they would be a lynchpin of America's success in repelling advances by the Germans and Japanese on two separate fronts. Transcripts providing interview content from female servicewomen are revealing of this key role by identifying the gamut of opportunities existent for women to help. Certainly, the most salient and important of roles would be those played by women in the medical capacity. On the battlefield as well as in hospital treatment and long-term care facilities in differing war theatres and upon the return of soldiers to America, an expansive civilian staff of war-time nurses would be constituted of active female military personnel. There were a great many additional roles available to women, as reported in the interviews considered, as members of the support structure for the war effort. The entertainment troops that worked with the USO deployed women from all walks of life to foreign theatres to sing, dance, act and otherwise preoccupy the forces in relief of their heavy burdens. Women were also a significant part of the civilian staff, committing their abilities as typists, phone switchboard operators and facility administrators. Likewise, on the home front, women would commit their services in place of their husbands, fighting abroad. In fact, the term home front should be well understood as one coined with the psychological intention of conveying that those who were enlisted in one manner or another for civilian duty were themselves a crucial force in the war effort. The terminology of 'home front' implies that such domestic locales as the continental United States were to be seen as war theatre's demanding of unified and concerted participation in shared goals of conservation, labor and administrative support. For women in all walks of American life, the end of the Depression would coincide with the start of World War II, making the association between job creation and the war effort fully inextricable. Quite in fact, the period prior to the war had been one of desperation. Though President Roosevelt's New Deal would begin to put many back to work, this would be a slow climb back to a tolerable employment threshold. By contrast, with the start of war and the shipping of young and able-bodied men overseas by the tens of thousands, a job surplus and a need for workers was for the first time demanding that employers turn their attention to women. Thus, military civilian duties such as secretarial responsibilities, typing, switchboarding, radio operating and nursing would create countless jobs which by virtue of their availability would court women specifically. In an interview maintained by the U.S. Library of Congress, Ann Caracristi would discuss one such responsibility. She would report to being recruited by the military for participation in a project designed to compile and break Japanese radio codes. As her stories indicates, she and two of her fellow classmates out of high school were among the many women which were specifically targeted for this type of responsibility. As Caracristi would tell of her surprise recruitment to the military civilian sector, "it was all very mysterious. When I was assigned they said, 'Well, you're going to work on the Japanese problem.' And I said, "Oh, heavens, I don't know anything about Japanese!' 'Don't worry,' they said, 'You'll learn.' Well what I learned to do was sort endless amounts of paper that was indeed the messages that had been intercepted and forwarded back for analysis. And the first thing you had to do was sort them. Edit them. And editing meant that we were preparing them to be typed up and put into the databanks of the day, which were the IBM cards. And that's the way we all started."[2] Caracristi's story is just one of countless narratives in which the United States military and government openly sought out candidates for service from all girls schools as a way to create personnel for key support roles in the military without drawing from the pool of male combat personnel and officers. Though almost exclusively in auxiliary roles to combat and officer roles, there are yet examples where the need for numbers would cause concerted recruitment of women to function as officers within their own demographic contexts. Captain Violet Gordon was an anomaly even within the challenging context, as an African American woman with professional experience and the qualifications to be made into an officer. She describes her own entrance into the military under these conditions. In a 2002 interview on the subject, Gordon states of her decision to respond to the military's call for African American women that "this was such a bold step in a way. One has to remember that at that time the Army was segregated and number two there were nurses but there were no enlisted or women officers as an official part of the Army. Of course, this would not be officially a part of the Army; it would be an Auxiliary branch of the Army. There were pros and cons"[3] The cons would be the bigotry and segregation under which she would be forced to operate even in interaction with her own allies. However, the pros are the reverberation of her daring move and that of her contemporaries, who occupy a position as one of the most pointedly oppressed demographics in American history but who would serve with dignity and honor when the United States called upon them. In Gordon, we are given an example of the ways in which female officer recruits were intended to be used as a means to relating to and instructing corps of female auxiliary personnel. Of course, one of the most highly visible, thoroughly publicized and affectionately remembered of roles for women during World War II would be through the USO. This organization would be responsible for providing entertainment and morale improvement to the troops both training in domestic military camps and serving on the front lines overseas. Dancing performances, comedy acts and other forms of distraction would be staged before audiences of soldiers. Thus, performances would often be geared toward the interests of men, with singers, dancers, actresses and celebrities helping the men to channel strength from feelings for a sweetheart back home. Perhaps the most famous example of a women in service to the morale of male soldiers would be the USO sponsored radio star Martha Wilkerson, who used American music recordings and cute, lighthearted banter to conjure sentimental feelings for America while on the front. Known by her radio moniker, G.I. Jill, Wilkerson was a something of a phenomenon to American servicemen, who depended on her broadcasts for comfort way from home. From an article published in Time Magazine in 1945, this role as a morale booster and a bastion for cultural resonance to soldiers battling unknown enemies in strange lands is explicated. "As a War Department employee, Martha Wilkerson acts as a sort of counterirritant to 'Tokyo Rose.' Servicemen who listen regularly to both programs assure Jill that hers is superior. For one thing, Rose's records are mostly old and scratchy. But the explanation may be more basic. The fair flower of Tokyo exerts herself mightily to make U.S. servicemen homesick; G.I. Jill's trick is to make them feel at home."[4] Tokyo Rose, a Japanese radio personality of renown, would bear a symbolic importance to soldiers of varying origins throughout the war in the Pacific. So too would G.I. Jill, with the two demonstrating the capacity of the feminine charm to help sustain men in dire circumstances. Though it may be argued that such roles as those created by the USO tended only to emphasize assumptions about the importance of women only in a supplementary way to the contributions made by men, they would nonetheless be considered a crucial ingredient to creating and sustaining the psychological fortitude needed to emerge from this conflict victorious. Of course, beyond the symbolic roles of women and their military responsibilities, there would also be a clear sense in the United States and Great Britain that the shipping off of men by the thousands had left the home line defenses entirely up to the female population. While so many women sought out and found opportunities in the administrative ranks of the military, that many more simply stepped into the vacant roles left by their husbands. An example comes to us in an interview with Arthella Anderson, a civilian service participant in WWI. Anderson tells of her responsibilities in place of her husband, away in training, as her town's air raid supervisor. Though it had been his job prior to the start of the war, she filled in as the primary enforcement figure for the paramilitary duty. Anderson recalls, "my husband was an air raid warden and he worked shift work at American Viscose, and it seemed to me like every time we had a blackout it was my -- I had to take his place. So you had to go with a flashlight and you had to see that every house was dark."[5] Anderson's interview is also useful for its exposition of the feelings experienced by many women in civilian and wartime service at that time. From the attack on Pearl Harbor to the time at which the Japanese had surrendered, Anderson underlines a certain sense of dread felt by all over the implications of war. She specifically notes the experience shared by women in service on the homefront, who remained behind to work under the pressure of a terrible fear concerning who would be next to surrender his life overseas. With word returning to small towns regularly about the deaths of husbands, fathers, brothers and sons, Anderson's interview is underscored by the shared female experience of unsettling disconcert. As part of a homefront force with a strong sense of responsibility in this war, its relative distance from contiguous American soil was not sufficient to insulate the civilian women's workforce from the realities of the conflict in its various theatres. For those on the allied side, however, this degree of support would be crucial to success of the war effort and the morale experienced by soldiers. Certainly, in this and all other interviews considered, there is a real sense of pride concerning both an individual role and a collective effort seen as necessary to protect the world from forces of malevolence and destruction. Indeed, though the face of the military would be the young man with the semiautomatic weapon, its foundation would be something a great deal more diverse. Many women, in fact, would recognize World War II as a turning point not just in American and world history but also in the advancement of women in both professional and social regards. This would be the largest and most varied mobilization of women to the work place up until that time, and as Anderson's experience demonstrates, it would also become increasingly apparent that professional and social roles typically viewed as 'male' were being filled quite ably by the wives of their traditional occupants. Such service would pave the way for the eventual admission of women into general military combat opportunities as well as into many sectors of civilian life previously seen as pointedly male-oriented. And of course, once women had been accepted into so many new social and professional contexts, it would become increasingly and inescapably clear that previous assumptions about the female limitations with regard to occupation and professional ability were wholly unfounded. This would be among the permanent changes realized by the events of World War II, with the professional potential of women far more clearly illustrated. Quite as a matter of necessity, women would now come to be understood as deserving of workplace opportunities previously denied them and as being entitled to some of the educational opportunities likewise previously obstructed. Returning to the case of Captain Gordon, for example, we can see that the increased accessibility to women of the military would inherently begin to open other doors. Reflecting on the advice of her friends to continue along her inexorable upward trajectory within the military, she notes that "they saw that there would be more value in remaining than in leaving at that juncture. They were so right because on discharge I finished my college and graduate school on my G.I. Bill."[6] The policy awarding military service and honorable discharge with educational scholarship met now that those women who previously had been denied access to military and educational opportunities would now be welcomed to the later because of an opening of the former. The United States would not be the only nation whose history of patriarchy would be challenged by its new strategic demands. An article from Britain shows this to have been a somewhat universal condition, with so many nations shifting their workforce orientation according to the manpower needs created by troop demands. In many ways, World War II would be a catalyzing global event with regard to women in the workplace, making the patriarchic exclusions of the era that much more impractical. An article from 1940, originally published in the Irvine Herald, described the scenario as reflecting an official recognition by government personnel that the homefront labor makeup would necessarily be altered. The article reports, "it was stated recently by a member of the Government that this year there would be a job for everybody, man and woman, willing to work, and this should prove to be true seeing the fast number of men in Britain who have been, and are being taken, from industry and civil life to serve in the fighting forces. The gaps caused by the mobilization of man-power will have to be filled by newcomers, many of whom have not hitherto been employed in industry or commerce. It is calculated that fully a million women workers will be wanted for the metal and engineering industries, and the armament factories."[7] The article goes on to cite precedent, reflecting on the call to the workplace of women during the first World War. Here, it makes explicit acknowledgement of the invaluable contribution made by women to the allied interest of winning the war. We find that in this regard, there was a cultural commonality in the nature of the transition in both the United States and the United Kingdom, where necessity caused the gender diversification of theretofore exclusive workforces. Indeed, the institutional perception of women as serving largely more in the domestic capacity than in the public or professional contexts would, as with the United States, now be subverted by an active and aggressive campaign for recruitment of female workers. In one primary source from 1940, this recruitment campaign is demonstrated. An ad taken out in several newspapers in the U.K. region of North Ayrshire highlights this need for women to fulfill some of roles typically reserved for men. The workforce demands in the agricultural context prompted this ad to invite women "to plough to sow to reap and mow and grow the nation's food."[8] Referring to the drive for recruitment as the Women's Land Army, this would be a movement thematically textured by the war effort. Indeed, it was seen that the contributions of women were absolutely vital to achieving victory. The so-called Land Girls would be part of a British strategy of resource orientation in the face of global conflict. With trade movements limited by naval blockades and newly hostile waters, and with those available seafaring vessels desperately needed to serve in naval campaigns and military transport responsibilities, the Women's Land Army would be conceived as a way to reduce Britain's dependency on foreign trade and import for its food supplies. Its success may be denoted in its effective recruitment, with the exponentially rapid incline in its membership illustrating the clear desire of women to do their part to help win the war. From its inception in 1939, where it immediately attracted roughly 1000 volunteers, the organization peaked with a remarkable rate of growth by 1943, at over 80,000 members.[9] This would be succeeded by recruitment efforts which brought women into roles on mechanical assembly lines, munitions manufacturing plants and in textiles. Though conditions in many of these contexts were comparably poorer than those reserved for men, and the pay considerably lower, this would nonetheless mark an early round in the gradual battle for women to enter the workplace in a permanent and more equal sense. It is in this regard that the war would prove an opportunity for so many women. Of course, the fact of war is rarely without a measure of degradation and abuse that balances, if not overshadows, stories of heroism. For women falling under the purview of Axis power occupation, for instance, the reality of life during the war could be terrible and bleak. For instance, in consideration of the sexual subjugation of women which was a repercussion of an intercession between the cultures of war and patriarchy, World War II would help to stimulate some of the worst institutionalized mistreatment on modern record. An examination of the role held for women for both the Japanese and the Germans is indicative of the way that women were used as fodder for a destructive war initiative. For instance, Japan's official commission of wartime atrocities during World War II is well-documented, with a limited but revealing focus having been paid to the systemic implementation of sex-crimes against its own women and against the women of nations which it occupied during that period. Evidence of the widespread and governmentally contracted installment of brothels at Japanese military bases throughout Asia includes documentation of an estimated 80,000 to 200,000 cases of forced-sex work. Indeed, there is considerable documented indication that one of the primary wartime roles prescribed to women at this time was sex-slavery and forced prostitution as perpetrated by the Japanese during World War II. The euphemism, 'comfort women' was coined by Japanese military propagandists to describe the subjects of a prostitution network which was by intent designed to function as a wartime apparatus to the benefit of soldiers and the armed forces at large. It referred to individuals who both by volunteer, and far more often, by forced incarceration, were made to work as sex slaves in these networked brothels under extremely atrocious conditions. At the start of the war, contracted on a volunteer basis and typically of Japanese descent, 'comfort women' were initially considered a priority due to their provision of an important social service close to the front of war. In this regard, it must be acknowledged that the Japanese were not altogether different from their American counterparts in the war, who are widely recognized to have taken pleasure in the company of hired ladies as well. This imperative though, would eventually take on a far more insidious proportion as Japan expanded its imperial aspirations during the late 1930's and early 1940's. As its occupation extended to encompass parts of China, Taiwan, Korea, Vietnam and the Philippines, so too did the institutionalization of Japanese sex-labor. With the growth of the war effort, the capacity of volunteer sex-workers to satiate the military had diminished considerably, causing a graduation to the forced subjugation of women from captured foreign territories.[10] The pattern here described is echoed in a regard by the behavior of the Nazis but is in this regard subject to some degree of internal contradiction. The supposed moral hygiene and personal control doctrines that may be associated with the Nazi philosophy would seem to respond quite prohibitively to the idea of prostitution, accounting for the somewhat smaller-or at least less conspicuous-nature of the Nazi sex slave operation. According to recent findings, "between 300 and 400 women were forced to become sex workers in brothels in ten concentration camps, including Auschwitz, Dachau, Buchenwald and Sachsenhausen. A visit to a brothel, known as a "special barrack," was part of a system of incentives intended to boost the productivity of concentration camp slave laborers. These bonuses were not, however, extended to every group of inmates -- Jews in particular were excluded."[11] Here, we can see that sex was used as an instrument and as a weapon, designed to exploit and emphasize certain power dynamics. Insa Eschebach, the director of the Ravensbr?ck Memorial Museum which was founded in 2007 in order to tell the oft-overlooked story of the so- called Joy Division where Nazis forced women to provide sexual services for prisoners and officers, highlights in her comments a clear demonstration of the ways in which wars tend inherently to subject women to cruel and inhumane treatment. A psychosexual complex of war and aggression is demonstrated in both the Germans and the Japanese, whose fascist and totalitarian regimes showed just such a proclivity in affairs of gender relation and sexual power dynamics. Indeed, World War II would not be different from so many of history's conflicts both prior and since with regard to the implications of patriarchy. In contexts where either disorder ruled by way of governmental destabilization or where a particularly iron-fisted regime will have come to rule, the instincts of patriarchy are equally apparent, with the aggression of male groups both frustrated over a sense of powerlessness with regard to the larger war and inspired by anger, hatred and ambition against an unknown enemy tending such men toward a compensatory abuse of the most vulnerable of groups. Insofar as sex slaves were even provided to selected male prisoners of the Nazis, there is a demonstration of this idea that even where man finds himself faced with degrading treatment, imprisonment and a deep, powerless oppression, this misfortune is visited tenfold upon his female counterpart. In the innumerable imbalances of power and abuse which persisted through the course and geographical reach of the War, the worst of that which was allotted would be magnified where women were concerned. And with inequality a rampant and familiar disposition, the institutional response to atrocities experienced by women were quite often scant to nonexistent when compared to those experienced by men or by all. To this extent, "hardly any of the women, who suffered severe physical and mental damage as a result of their experiences, applied after 1945 for compensation for their suffering because they felt talking about their experiences was too degrading, Eschebach said. 'Sex slavery was not identified as such in the judicial cases dealing with the SS crimes,' she added."[12] This is to indicate that even as heavy probing into wartime acts of criminal had gotten underway, there was a general culture of silence perpetrated on both sides of the conflict with regard to this forced role of women. A shame was foisted upon the victims of wartime sexual atrocities that inclined them toward an unwillingness to speak out, demonstrating the extent to which certain inherent social biases were only exacerbated by wartime conditions. So had this been long demonstrated by the Japanese as well. For decades following the war, it had been official Japanese policy to deny any relationship with the establishment of brothels. Though survivors of such enslavement continued for years to voice the horrors which they had endured in captivity of the Japanese military, the government itself maintained until only recently that these had been privately run facilities. While morally condemning the military frequenting of the so-called 'comfort stations,' the Japanese government had long held a stance of legal absolution from the claims of its victims. At the onset of 1992, however, this situation was forced into transition by the research of a World War II historian, who "had discovered several official documents at the National Institute for Defense Studies Library in Tokyo. Contrary to Japan's previous official position, these documents revealed that the imperial army was involved in both establishing and operating " comfort stations'"[13] Here, the Japanese government had been illustrated to be, beyond a reasonable doubt, directly responsible for the endorsement of the sexual enslavement of women and girls from throughout Asia before and during World War II. The practice of sex- slavery involved all manner of hardship, including the far displacement of captured subjects, daily and repeated rape, sexual and physical brutality, disease and psychological devastation. These were all, it was proved by the 1992 findings, the byproducts of a militarily fostered trafficking of girls from other countries into a system of human trading. Without pay and left to the mercy of a frequently violent military clientele, 'comfort women' are seen to be justified in the recently surfaced documentation by a conception of their benefit to the war effort. "The leaders believed that a regulated system, such as the comfort stations, would enable them to take effective preventive health measures."[14] By providing itself with this inbuilt and clearly official position on the justification for its institutionalized abuse of human rights, Japan has rendered itself complicit in spite of generations of denial or evasion of guilt. Adopting the principle that the commission of female sex workers, as a policy which expanded in execution throughout the course of the war, the Japanese military characterized its administration of front-line brothels as a method of stifling the transmission of venereal disease. Consistently maintaining to date that its participation in the forcible enslavement and prostitution of women during the war had been concurrent with local wartime customs in the countries where it levied occupation, the Japanese military continues to abstain from any official compensation of the victims or their offspring. While it has become impossible for it to deny allegations of its sexual perversity, the Japanese government has nonetheless removed itself from obligation by alluding to the legality of such policy. This helps to drive home the perspective the sexual objectification was a specific-and to many a central function of women during the war. Indeed there is evidence that many of the nations which are currently united in their demand of reparations for the victimization of their women are, by allegation of the Japanese government, themselves responsible for the sale of their citizens into slavery. Women would often be used or claimed as the spoils of occupation. However, this in no way absolves the Japanese military of its essentially dictatorial role in the collection, containment, harsh mistreatment and systematic rape of women throughout Asia. In fact, its proprietary role in the administration of such facilities is evident in detailed first-hand accounts of the experience, which betray the explicit racism that overarched its justification. Upon their capture, "authorities typically shipped the women from home; although the woman saw little or no money, 'comfort stations' were set up as brothels with ethnically graduated fees, from Japanese women at the top to Chinese women at the bottom."[15] This is demonstrable of the cultural emphasis of the sex subjugation, which ties into an inherent consequence of territorial imperialism. Beyond the explicitly acknowledged benefits to its wartime functionality of the military's investment in comfort stations, Japanese armed personnel exercised a formidable control over those occupied. This extended in part from the horrible lordship which was levied upon their daughters, sisters and wives. In addition to serving an officially determined war-time function, the enslavement of women doubled as a demonstration of a pervasive and fear-inspiring imperial power. Such comfort women would come to serve roles even beyond their duties as sex slaves, with the dire circumstances of war tying their fates to the fates of the soldiers with whom they were encamped. The common installment of brothels at the front lines of the war, with enslaved women being transported to the far reaches of a spreading Japanese empire, made these women particularly vulnerable to the consequences of war. Aerial bombings by the Allied Forces, even when precisely targeting military installations, would often claim the lives of other appendages of the military system. Such accounts for numerous casualties amongst comfort women during the war. Naturally, such women were denied the honorable burial and military remembrance that would be reserved for men killed in the line of duty. Their mutual susceptibility to offensive actions taken by the opposition made sex-slaves a functional part of military operations in desperate times. An account taken from the experience of a comfort station of Korean women recalls the turning of the tide during the war, when Japan began its retreat. During a five month period in 1945, "until mid-August when the Japanese surrendered, these young women lived in a cave with the Japanese soldiers. In the day time they prepared meals, washed the soldiers' clothes, gathered edible plants, carried ammunition and nursed injured soldiers. At night they worked as comfort women."[16] This is not to suggest any degree of camaraderie between 'comfort women' and military personnel so much as to illustrate the difficult and dangerous lives which afflicted those enslaved thusly. In spite of the appealing label for the forced prostitutions, "of some 200,000 so-called comfort women only a quarter survived their ordeal; many of those died soon after of injuries, disease, madness, suicide."[17] Nonetheless, and in defiance of a bevy of lawsuits emanating from formerly occupied nations and directly affected independent citizens, Japan continues to balk on taking official responsibility for these atrocities. As the population of those directly victimized by the institutionalized practice dwindles with old age, the likelihood that Japan will ever be forced to pay any legitimate reparations seems unlikely. There was a marked degree of inequality to which women were subjected in the United States as well, though institutionally speaking there would be no crimes to report that might compare with those of the Nazis or the Japanese. And in the case of the U.S., many instances in which gender bias was made apparent were those in which such tension occurred due to the relative newness of women in certain contexts. In addition to the workplace roles which women fulfilled on the homefront, there was a strong corps of female civilian members of the military and armed services. To this end, there is a well-documented history of service in perilous wartime context by female pilots. Perhaps the first amongst America's women to appear in something of a combat capacity, a group of women enlisted during World War II to pilot combat vehicles to war-zones would both make an important contribution to the war effort and would help to undermine assumptions of their limitations. Simultaneously though, this service would subject women to evidence of the deep gender-based prejudices in American culture, with institutional policy towards these women demonstrating more contempt than gratitude. Such is to say that for the Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASPs), the opportunity, responsibility and duty were great but so were the dangers and the difficulties. In a log of interviews and personal accounts from some among the roughly one thousand women who served as WASPs, Richman (2006) reports that while the U.S. Airforce actively courted and benefited from the service of these women with one hand, it systematically denied them recognition and pushed them outside the benefits of the military structure with the other hand. As a pilot named Kaddy Steele reported of her service from 1942 to 1944, "women weren't doctors, lawyers, engineers. I could be a nurse, a librarian or a teacher. Those were my choices. And if it wasn't for the war and the fact that they were so short of pilots that they condescended to let us enter the sanctum sanctorum. And they let us know that. They let us in because they needed us. They needed pilots."[18] Quite so, as in so many other regards during the course of the war, there would be an inherent contradiction of supply and demand. The heightened wartime resource requirements would collide with a newfound shortfall of men. Thus, not only were existing positions typically filled by men warming up to the manpower solution of employing women, but new positions directly implicated by the war effort were emerging with a certainty of vacancy. The shortfall of male applicants for such responsibilities as ferrying newly manufacturing military airplanes to military bases was actually damaging military efficiency and effectiveness. As a consequence, the military would find itself with a dilemma that could be met only through a deconstruction of one of the culture's more persistent gender barriers. As a result, the Airforce would establish the WASPs auxiliary corps as a way to keep up with the ferrying demands of the necessarily rigorous airplane manufacturing pace. Those trained would be dispatched to military bases throughout the entangled world, bringing crucial resources to the front lines and playing a key part in the readiness and singularity of the America's air warfare capabilities. WASPs were employed in a number of other capacities which did not place them directly in the face of combat. Also serving as flying instructors for male combat pilots and as test plane pilots, the women of this special division occupied a crucial role in the effort which was rarely seen by the public or promoted by the military. This, despite the fact that women served in such dangerous capacities as towing targets for anti-aircraft practice drills.[19] This would require the pilot to fly with a target affixed behind her vessel while cadets in training fired upon it. Without question, this was a practice which subject such women to challenging and dangerous conditions. According to the resources compiled by the Richman collection, 27 of these pilots lost their lives in the line of duty. In spite of this, the U.S. military balked at recognizing their contributions to the extent that it would provide no moneys or resources to transport the deceased to their homes for burial. It is with little surprise that research tells us of women who served on unconverted male facilities and who wore male uniforms cinched with belts, but it is more surprising to read the anecdote of pilot Louise Bowden Brown who, "remembers having to ride with her roommate's casket in a train from Texas to New York. Once there, she had to tell the young woman's parents that she was killed. They received no military honors, no flag, nothing to commemorate their contribution to the country. In fact, the women took up collections for trips like Bowden's. The military didn't even give Bowden money to get her roommate's body home for burial."[20] This is among the more clear indicators of the contradiction facing those women who responded with valor to the call to duty. There was a clear persistence in the military of a culture of exclusion, with women who served suffering the sleights of a male-oriented organization. In this instance, the degree to which women would be used and abandoned is remarkable. Indeed, as soon as it had become apparent to the military that the WASPs had served their purpose, they were grounded. The implications of this are reported by Steele, who noted "I knew in my lifetime that I would never ever get another opportunity like that. I was old enough to know that. And of course I never did. It was the only chance we had to fly anything more than a Cub or a Cesna or a little sports airplane. We would never get back in the military."[21] Steele's presumption would prove correct within the context of her service life, with 1944 bringing about the disbandment of the WASPs that would persist until women finally re-emerged as candidates for piloting in the U.S. Airforce in the 1970s. In spite of these contributions, there are clear cultural issues which faced women at the time and which were not easily overcome. The United States and Great Britain, in particular, would struggle with the issue of cultural identity in the face of changing expectations regarding that which women could and could not do. Such is to say that for the women who service in auxiliary military roles or who provided civilian support to the war effort, there was still a clear understanding both in the military and within the public that these allowances were being made only because of the extremity of pressure applied by the war situation. The unique demands which it levied upon society and economy would be manifested in a marked heightening of the woman's profile in public spaces and there is a clear backlash to this. One of the more compelling of sources encountered in the research here is a Time Magazine article from 1942. Concise and condescending, it reflects the public's perspective on the matter of women in the military and simultaneously highlights a clear cultural distinction which reflects rather positively on the Soviets. Indeed, where women were enlisted in remarkable numbers to help support the war structure in the U.S. and Great Britain, the Soviet Union stands as the most progressive example of military-based gender equality on record during the war. Something close to one million women volunteered and served in a direct military capacity during this war, playing a key strategic role in supplying the necessary troop counts and strategic responsibilities that made Russia so crucial an ally in defeating the Nazis. The Time Magazine article takes a pointedly disparaging and culturally revealing look at a Soviet military hero, sniper specialist Liudmila Pavlichenko. In spite of her remarkable record of 309 confirmed German kills and her appearance on a postage stamp in Russia, she is referred to in the article as a "Russian Army girl sniper."[22] The article's purpose upon its publication is due for scrutiny, as it takes a set of what might be construed as inflammatory remarks made by Pavlichenko and displays them in limited context. Here, the Ukranian-born and highly decorated Soviet officer is quoted as remarking "I am amazed at the kind of questions put to me by the women press correspondents in Washington. Don't they know there is a war? They asked me silly questions such as do I use powder and rouge and nail polish and do I curl my hair? One reporter even criticized the length of the skirt of my uniform, saying that in America women wear shorter skirts and besides my uniform made me look fat. This made me angry. I wear my uniform with honor. It has the Order of Lenin on it. It has been covered with blood in battle. It is plain to see that with American women what is important is whether they wear silk underwear under their uniforms. what the uniform stands for, they have yet to learn."[23] These comments are useful for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the distinction between her use of the term 'women' and the author's used of the term 'girl.' This linguistic distinction is important, marking a difference in cultural perspectives that underscores not just the contributions of women during the war but the way such contributions were perceived by the broad and observing public. Moreover, Pavlichenko's complaint about the priorities of America's military women is founded in America's much clearer dedication to paternalism and inequality. The more rigidly defined understanding even of this expanded role of women would show the United States to be committed to certain ideals regarding gender roles. With a few exceptions that would be subjected to a pointed degree of secrecy on the part of the United States, the roles for which female recruitment would be steadfast would be those relating to nursing, education and secretarial duties. This would suggest that even as women gained greater access to the working and military worlds, in the United States they would still be perceived as best suited to those job descriptions which closely mirrored assumptions about gendered capabilities. Still, we make these concessions with the point of understanding that the roles of women during World War II would be set in direct contrast to those available prior. Quite certainly, the global community would undergo a vast array of changes during the years of conflict whose implications would spill out across the following decades. Among them, the progressive force of change for women would be crucial. The misdeeds visited upon women in Eastern Europe and the Pacific Rim may never be fully accounted for and certainly will never be emotionally resolved for the victims and their offspring. However, there is cause on the basis of this discussion to argue that the comparably progressive ideologies which utilized World War II as an opportunity to elevate rather than further subjugate women would ultimately prevail. Thus, the changes which had initially been induced by strategic demand and economic need are today recognizable as some of the first steps in delivering us to the current global consensus that women are to be recognized as equally capable of performing in the responsibilities and capacities that are performed ably by men and that women are to be entitled to access to such opportunities. Additionally, this research yields the resolution that women are among the most vulnerable of subjects to war due to the sexual power dynamics that are culturally ingrained in some many societies. Within such a framework, the context of war may bear an especially high level of danger for women, who even today in many developing parts of the world tend to suffer most egregiously in conditions of war and conflict. Thus, another crucial point of inflection which occurred during World War II was an understanding of the demand upon societies and cultures as a whole to preserve women against regressive behavior, sexual abuse and gender subjugation. In sum, World War II would be demonstrative of the worst of that which man is capable. And as a result, it would bring out in an effort of counterbalance, the best of that which woman is capable. For the Allied forces in particular, the elevation of women to theretofore unattained heights would be a vital contributor to victory. For the women there elevated, this would be a pioneering moment in a history rife with obstacle and opportunity.