Cliches about Alaska are legion: to mention the name is to conjure up images of the Frozen North, mushing huskies, and grizzled sourdoughs panning for gold. In this book, author William R. Hunt shows how misleading such images are. Alaska, writes William R. Hunt, is not the "last wilderness," and it has not been built solely by the self-reliant efforts of hardy pioneers. Instead, it has struggled from its earliest days as an American possession until today for government aid to support commercial and economic development. The real story of Alaska is the story inherent in the disparity between government policies urged by Alaskans and government policies actually dictated from Washington, DC. The issue of conservation versus development makes Alaska of special interest to all Americans today. Our northernmost state is not what most Americans on the "Outside" think it is; but as author Hunt shows, all Americans have a stake in the future of Alaska and therefore can benefit from understanding the reality of its colorful history.

Alaska, with its Indian, Eskimo, and Aleut heritage, its century of Russian colonization, its peoples’ formidable struggles to wrest a living (or a fortune) from the North’s isolated and harsh environment, and its relatively recent achievement of statehood, has long captured the popular imagination. In An Alaska Anthology, twenty-five contemporary scholars explore the region’s pivotal events, significant themes, and major players, Native, Russian, Canadian, and American. The essays chosen for this anthology represent the very best writing on Alaska, giving great depth to our understanding and appreciation of its history from the days of Russian-American Company domination to the more recent threat of nuclear testing by the Atomic Energy Commission and the influence of oil money on inexperienced politicians. Readers may be familiar with an earlier anthology, Interpreting Alaska’s History, from which the present volume evolved to accommodate an explosion of research in the past decade. While a number of the original pieces were found to be irreplaceable, more than half of the essays are new. The result is a fresh perspective on the subject and an invaluable resource for students, teachers, and scholars.

For the last 137 years, The Statesman's Yearbook has been relied upon to provide accurate and comprehensive information on the current political, economic and social status of every country in the world. The appointment of the new editor - only the seventh in 137 years - brought enhancements to the 1998-99 edition and these have been continued since then. Internet usage figures are included. Specially commissioned essays from major political and academic figures supplement country entries in areas of major upheaval and change. A fold out colour section provides a political world map and flags for the 191 countries of the world. The task of monitoring the pattern or flow of world change is never-ending. However, the annual publication of The Statesman's Yearbook gives all the information needed in one easily digestible single volume. It will save hours of research and cross-referencing between different sources. A prestigious and popular book, The Statesman's Yearbook is updated every 12 months. In a world of continual change The Statesman's Yearbook is a necessary annual purchase.

The most significant military development to touch Alaska during the interwar years was the advent of air power, an innovation that completely altered Alaska's strategic position. Suddenly the world became smaller as areas once thought safely distant from potential enemies became vulnerable. Nowhere was this more evident than in the Pacific, whose countless islands became potential advanced air bases. As air technology improved, the ability of long-range bombers and, by the 1930s, of carrier aircraft, to penetrate American airspace was a development of far reaching significance. While such warnings were largely limited to a handful of air-power advocates their vocal advocacy constituted nothing less than an “insurrection”, a revolution in military thinking fought against entrenched military conservatism, cultural aversion to change, fears of budget cuts, and War Department lethargy. Indeed it was the air power crusader General Billy Mitchell who aggressively fought to convince the War and Navy Departments to embrace the new doctrine of offensive air power. Mitchell came to understand Alaska's strategic importance early on. Consequently, he saw the Aleutians as a vulnerability: if left unguarded Japan could “creep up” and, by establishing air dominance, take Alaska and Canada’s West Coast. But he also saw Alaska as a strategic base from which American planes could “reduce Tokyo to powder.” Prophetically, in 1923 Mitchell forecast precisely the military threat and strategic arguments that would shape military thinking almost twenty years later: “I am thinking of Alaska. In an air war, if we were unprepared Japan could take it away from us, first by dominating the sky and creeping up the Aleutians." By the mid-to late 1930s military and civilian advocates of air power and more visionary strategists were beginning to make their voices heard in Congress and elsewhere, decrying Alaska’s military vulnerability. Between 1933 and 1944 no one was more adamant than Alaska’s Delegate in Congress, Anthony Joseph “Tony” Dimond, who challenged the nation to defend itself by defending Alaska. To Dimond, it seemed poor strategy to fortify one pacific base, Hawaii, while ignoring another, Alaska. Dimond’s campaign was strengthened by passage of the Wilcox Bill, sponsored by Representative J. Mark Wilcox (D-Florida), officially known as the National Air Defense Act. This truly significant legislation authorized the location and construction of military airfields throughout the United States as a general defense preparedness measure. Alaska was recognized as one of the nation’s six strategic regions, and two bases, one at Anchorage, the other at Fairbanks, were recommended in part, “because Alaska was closer to Japan than it is to the center of [the] continental United States.” Fortuitously for Alaska defense advocates, General Douglas MacArthur stepped down as Chief of Staff of the Army and was replaced by Major General Malin Craig in October 1935. Craig and Brigadier General Stanley D. Embick advocated a substantial reconfiguration of Plan Orange arguing that the Philippines presented an invitation to attack and should be “neutralized” in favor defending the “Alaska-Hawaii-Panama Triangle.” Both the Army and Navy were charged with defending Alaska as far west as Dutch Harbor, and the army pledged to mobilize 6,600 troops in Alaska within a month of attack by Japan. In contemplating the defense of Alaska the Army General Staff formulated five priority objectives: first, increase the Alaska garrison; second, establish a major base for Army operations near Anchorage; third, develop a network of air bases within Alaska; fourth, garrison these bases with combat troops; and fifth, protect the naval installations at Sitka, Kodiak, and Dutch Harbor. Alaska was about to go to war.

As a unique, distant geographical region of the United States, Alaska has evolved from military insignificance to high strategic priority in the 142 years since its purchase from Russia in 1867. The reasons for this dramatic shift derive from a correlation of geography, foreign policy, domestic politics, and military technology. Historically the role of the armed forces in Alaska has been large and diverse. Alaska was one of the two principal territorial purchases made by the United States between 1803 and 1867 adding nearly 1.5 million square miles to America’s national domain. Smaller by the size of Texas than Jefferson’s Louisiana Purchase, Alaska, unlike all of the territories and states carved out of the former, languished in obscurity and isolation, and was administered as a colonial dependency by the military and other branches of the federal government, its official ‘territorial status’ and government notwithstanding. While sharing many common aspects of frontier settlement and Western history with territories such as Montana, the Dakotas, Wyoming, and Colorado, Alaska presented special challenges peculiar to a non-contiguous arctic and sub-Arctic environment, separated from the United States by a foreign power. Indeed, only the defeated South under Reconstruction experienced the same degree of military occupation and martial law. Alaska also has the unique distinction in the American experience of belonging to Imperial Russia before it became of interest to American expansionists. Still others found Alaska tempting and pursued their own designs North of '53. The Spanish, British, Canadians, and even the French plied Alaska’s waters and made their claims to Alyeska- the Great Land. And it is with these clashing imperial ambitions that this three-volume history begins.

No detailed description available for "1987-1988".