Weapons that failed. Bat Bombs – The alternative to the Atomic Bomb?

Following our look at Body Armor in World War I, this month Adrian Burrows looks at a second bizarre warfare invention – the bat bomb. This was a weapon that was both odd and powerful.

There have been many defining weapons in man’s military history, devices that for better or worse forever changed our view on the world and our place within it. However, this series of articles won’t be looking at any of these historically important moments; instead I choose to highlight the weird, peculiar and just plain daft inventions of war that are just so odd… that they had to have been real.

So, what do I have for you this month? I give you… the Bat Bomb.

First things first. I believe some clarification is in order. By Bat Bomb I do not mean the high tech compact explosive you would find on the utility belt of the caped crusader (Batman), no, I actually mean an incendiary device attached to a bat.

The 1967 Batman Annual. Available here.

This idea came to fruition in the midst of the Second World War and was the brainchild of a Pennsylvanian Dentist named Dr. Lytle S. Adams (yes, that Lytle S. Adams, none other than the inventor of the fried chicken dispensing machine). Recoiling from the shock and horror of the recent attack on Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, Adams came to consider ways in which America could strike back at its faraway foe.

Dr. Adams knew that the vast majority of buildings at this time in Japan were constructed from paper, bamboo and other very flammable materials. He had also witnessed the behavior of bats during a recent holiday in New Mexico, particularly the manner in which the winged wonders found small crevices to shelter in during the day.

THE BATS

Taking into account these two factors Dr. Adams had an epiphany; the results of this epiphany can be easily seen through a number of steps written as bullet points for easy digestion. I like to think this is how Dr. Adams planned out his idea but there is no historical evidence to prove this to be the case…

1. Get some bats.
2. Attach a bomb to the bats.
3. Drop bats over Japanese cities.
4. Bats spread out far and wide before finally hiding themselves in the dark recesses of buildings.
5. After a period of time the bombs explode causing fires to spread rapidly across Japan creating chaos, panic, and destruction.
6. Back to work… 10.45am. Patient. Root canal.

It was certainly the case that Dr. Adams’ idea was unconventional; however, there were top bods in the American government who believed that despite the oddity of using flying mammals as an offensive weapon that the theory was sound. That the bat bomb actually could work.

Adams submitted the idea to the White House in January 1942, where President Roosevelt himself authorized the further development of the project. It fell to the inventor of military napalm, Louis Fieser, to devise an effective bomb that was also light enough for the bat to carry. Fortunately for Fieser, bats can carry more than their own weight in flight, so the bomb he developed was roughly the same size as a bat and was an impressively diminutive sixteen grams in weight.

The bat bomb itself.

Now that Fieser had bombs attached to bats, the next problem to overcome was to actually get all of them to Japan. And for this there was created an elegant and cunning solution. A device so simple and yet so genius I will write the details of it in its own paragraph.

A big metal box.

Yes, a big metal box with multiple compartments that could be used to house the hibernating bats. A parachute was stuck to the back so when it was dropped by a plane at high altitude over Japan, the descent of the box could be slowed. At 1,000 feet the bats were awoken from the hibernation; the compartments then opened and 1,000 bat bombs were released.

If at this point you are thinking that I’m making it up (and who can blame you), then have a look at the big metal box in question. 

The big metal box.

NUCLEAR WEAPONS

So, how come the bat bomb was never used?

Well it was, although only as a test admittedly. Even so, the military were very pleased with the results of the bat bomb when it was deployed on a mocked up Japanese village built in the Dugway Proving Grounds of Utah. Yes, there were some setbacks along the way (the bats set fire to Carlsbad Army Airfield Auxiliary Air Base when they roosted under a fuel tank, resulting in property damage and a high death count of bats). Nonetheless, the effectiveness of the bat bomb appeared to be promising. Not only that but bat loving mathematicians also surmised that ten B-24 bombers could carry over one million bats to their target.

So, to ask the question again, how come the bat bomb was never used?

Essentially the atomic bomb rendered it irrelevant. The new weapon was so devastating in its power and so terrifying in its annihilation of life that the bat bomb was consigned as a footnote in history.

On the surface the bat bomb seemed like a ridiculous idea; after all, attaching explosive devices to any sort of animal seems like something you would watch in a cartoon. However, what if the bat bomb was used before the atomic bomb was dropped on Japan? What if this seemingly absurd weapon managed to bring a close to the Second World War? What kind of world would we live in if an atomic bomb had never been used on a civilian population?

Let’s leave the final word to the inventor of the bat bomb himself, when commenting on why his invention - ‘X-Ray’ - would have been a much better weapon to use on Japan than ‘Little Boy’ or ‘Fat Man’:

Think of thousands of fires breaking out simultaneously over a circle of forty miles in diameter for every bomb dropped.

Japan could have been devastated, yet with small loss of life.

Adrian Burrows works for Wicked Workshops, an organization that brings historical workshops to primary schools across the UK. They are currently delivering many workshops about World War I. Click here to find out more about this great organization.

Want to read more? Well, here is an article on the Cold War and World War III.

Principal References

• http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/04/old-weird-tech-the-bat-bombs-of-world-war-ii/237267/
• http://hushkit.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/napalm-bats-the-bizarre-true-story-of-bat-bombs/
• http://gizmodo.com/the-pigeon-guided-missiles-and-bat-bombs-of-world-war-i-1477007090/all

The British Village that died for Liberty – Image of the Week

This week’s image is of the small village that perished during World War II.

The following images of the week have a shocking story at their center.

Tyneham was an idyllic English village, but World War II changed that. And this eventually led to the crumbling of the village, something that our photos show. Above we see a great, boarded-up building, while below we see the ruins of buildings in the village.

​

Want to find out more about Tyneham?

Well if you have an iPad or iPhone, take up a trial of History is Now magazine and find out for free!  Click here to download the app!

George Levrier-Jones

Were the Nazis punished enough? The Nuremberg Trials

Samantha Jones looks at the Nuremberg Trials in a modern context. These trials took place in the aftermath of World War II and sought to condemn those Nazis who had committed some of the most heinous crimes in the history of the world.

A Nazi parade.

Politics tells us justice is blind, and that it is justice that is fundamentally right in our society. Yet history shows us this may not be true. In the aftermath of World War II, the Western world’s form of justice was put to the test. And looking back we are troubled with the question: did democracy fail?

As Nazi leaders were confronted with their crimes against humanity in front of an international military tribunal, the entire world learned the truth behind The Final Solution, Concentration Camps, medical experiments, and the extent of Nazi genocide. These war crimes shined a spotlight onto a new and modern form of warfare, where civilians became targets and war no longer had to be declared upon a country to invade it. It was no easy feat to punish the Nazis, as the victorious Allied Powers had to question and convict those they had caught, as well as deter future nationalists from committing such crimes again. But that is what the Nuremberg Trials attempted to do.

It is said the infamous Nuremberg Trials marked the end of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Empire. Indeed, despite the Soviet Army storming Berlin, Nazi uprisings were still a threat to the triumphant Allies. So it was decided that to ‘clean up’ Europe legally and politically, the Allies were to hold a series of trials in order to fully understand and punish Nazi criminals in a democratic setting. The trials were held from November 20 1945 to October 1 1946, in the German city of Nuremberg. This site was chosen because of the somewhat intact Palace of Justice, a suitable building for the event, and the symbolism attached to Nuremberg, after the passing of the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews in 1935.

One prosecutor, one judge and one alternative judge from the Allied Powers oversaw the trial. Those that were caught included 23 high ranking Nazi officials, including the notorious Goering, Speer and Hess. Of course the highest Nazis such as Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were not present, as they had escaped punishment through suicide before capture.

But as the news of the devastation of the war in Europe spread to the corners of the globe, interest and attraction into the Nazis grew enormously. Because of this, the Nuremberg Trials were filmed and covered by the global media, something that was to follow in other major world events.

HOW MIGHT THE TRAILS BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

The Nuremberg Trials are a small sliver of history, particularly among the World War Two era, yet this event marks the beginning of several major practices and institutions. For example, the power and dominance of democracy, the involvement of the media, and the use of knowledge and education as a deterrent were present during the Nuremberg Trials. However, looking back, would the trails be undertaken differently today?

One theme that needs to be addressed is the arguable leniency upon the Nazi prisoners. For example, even today it is debated whether it was unjust that Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, was sentenced to merely twenty years in prison and lived the rest of his life a free man. Despite being sentenced to death, Hermann Goering, Hitler’s successor, escaped justice by committing suicide in his cell. It remains a mystery how this was able to happen. And Rudolf Hess, Hitler`s Deputy Fuhrer, was sentenced to prison where he too committed suicide. Discussing these awful things in such a dismissive tone is not my intention. But remember the graphic pictures of the Holocaust victims and the Concentration Camps that still stand today because of these men. Just under half of those charged at Nuremberg were sentenced to death, yet it was these Nazi men that were committed to gassing, killing and removing an entire people from the face of the earth. Perhaps justice was not served, but nor was revenge.

Aside from this somewhat macabre observation, the Nuremberg Trials did make advances. The organization of evidence and the methods used to explain the Nazi occupation helped the world to understand what actually happened. The Trials also contributed to the development of international legal institutions that attempt to seek justice in global crimes, such as the United Nations and the Genocide Convention. Of course it is debated whether these institutions are successful, yet the message they stand for began in Nuremberg.

History has and will repeat itself though. Crimes against humanity have been committed on an unimaginable scale quite recently, as seen in Rwanda and with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, with these events in mind, it is hard to argue whether or not justice can remain democratic or if can it be transformed into a form of revenge.

It is easy for our generation to look back upon Nuremberg and judge those in charge for their leniency or their harshness. But equally, as time pushes the deep dark crimes of the Nazis further back into history, I wonder how future generations will judge us on what we do. Perhaps justice will be served then.

You can read about how the radical Freikorps were one of the pre-cursors to the Nazis in issue 3 of History is Now Magazine. The magazine is available for iPad and iPhone and is free for at least one month when you try the magazine on a subscription. Click here for more information!

Duck and Cover - The Infamous Cold War Civil Defense Film

In this often light-hearted article Janet Ford considers the famous 1950s Civil Defense film Duck and Cover. The film uses a turtle, Bert, to teach children – and adults - how to respond in the event of a nuclear bomb.

Before you read on, you can watch the film Duck and Cover here.

Bert the Turtle in a still from Duck and Cover.

During the Cold War, but especially during the 1950s and 1960s, the US Federal Civil Defense Administration produced numerous leaflets and films that informed and educated the American public about the atomic bomb, the damage it caused, and what to do if an atomic bomb was dropped. One of the most well-known Civil Defense films is Duck and Cover, which was produced in 1951 and first broadcast in January 1952. It was produced by Archer Productions in co-operation with the Federal Civil Defense Administration and in consultation with the Safety Commission of the National Educational Association.

In this article, we will consider the film and pick out some of the most famous (and infamous) aspects of it.

So before you read on, why not watch the film here?

The use of a cartoon

Central to the film is the animation. There is animation in parts throughout the film, but especially at the beginning and end. It was used to get the attention of children, and to make the message of duck and cover easier for them to understand. The animated nature of the film also made it markedly cheaper to show a bomb explosion in the film, as shown in the still from the film below.

Animation showing the destruction of the bomb, with Bert the Turtle in the foreground.

​Unless the Civil Defense Administration visited the Nevada nuclear test site and filmed a bomb going off, it would have been nearly impossible to show a live explosion. Another point to note is that showing the damage the bomb caused can make the animation seem a little darker, but as it is a cartoon the destruction appears less real and more abstract.

The most famous aspect of the animation is the character of Bert the Turtle. He is one of the most famous icons of the Civil Defense Administration, showing the nation how to protect itself from the bomb. The main reason for having Bert in the film was to get the attention of a younger audience.

A still of Bert the Turtle.

Even though the subject matter itself could not be much darker, there is one other menacing part of the film that is found in the animation. This may not have been seen by all viewers, and it took me a few views to see it, but once you see it, you cannot fail to notice it. In a scene towards the start of the film, Bert the Turtle is minding his own business, and suddenly there is some dynamite following him; it is not a magic piece of dynamite though - it is being held by a monkey in a tree. The dynamite then goes off and Bert ducks and covers; however, the monkey that had been holding the dynamite vanishes. In fact, the monkey is blown up by its own dynamite.

Before the dynamite goes off.

After the dynamite goes off.

​Music

Another famous aspect of the film is the very catchy theme song and music. Indeed, as I am writing this, the song is in my head, and once you have heard the song, it will be in your head for a long time too.

The music itself is quite cheery and upbeat and even the lyrics are not too negative. The most menacing lyrics are 'when danger threatens him', but then it is followed by 'he never got hurt, he knew just what to do.' The images above with the monkey and the dynamite are shown over this music. This makes the theme song, unintentionally, a little darker as you have the image of a monkey being blown up while listening to the song. The song can also seem to lessen the danger of the bomb and even the process of Civil Defense, as they are linked to a cheery song.

How to Duck and Cover

The main purpose of the film was to show the public, and especially children, how to duck and cover in various situations. It shows how to duck and cover in school and at the home. But it also shows you how to protect yourself when there is no shelter around. And this is the most infamous aspect of the film.

One scene in the film features two children, Patty and Paul, who are just walking down the street. The flash of the bomb goes off and they dive into a wall and cover themselves with their coats. What makes this absurd is that ducking and covering would not do much use if the building they were by or other buildings around them fell onto of them. Furthermore, it seems that Paul smashes himself into the wall. 

Patty and Paul ducking and covering by a wall.

Another seemingly strange part of the film features a young boy called Tony who is riding his bike. He sees the flash, drives into a wall, and covers himself up. The film thus suggests that walls are a good place to go to protect yourself - although the wall would not have given much protection even if a blast was coming from the other side of the wall.

Tony ducking and covering by a wall.

However, even more bizarrely is the scene with a family having a picnic. The family are all having a lovely time until they see the flash. Then the mom and children go under the cloth, while the dad uses the newspaper for protection. It is this idea of using a newspaper or sheet as protection that seems to be the most ridiculous aspect of the film.

The father using a newspaper as protection.

Walls and covering yourself with a thin object would have given some protection from the bomb, but only if it was miles away and there was not much debris from the blast. In short, they would provide only a very small level of protection. Saying that, while we can of course look back at the film and make fun of it, when nuclear bombs were as big a threat as they were in the 1950s, the idea of an everyday object like a newspaper being used to protect yourself must have given people some hope.

Even so, there would have been those smarter souls who would have realized that a newspaper could never protect you from a nearby nuclear explosion and accepted their sad and inevitable fate.

What do you think of the video? Share your thoughts below!

References

All stills were taken from the film Duck and Cover here: https://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava11109vnb1

Churchill and a V for Victory – Image of the Week

Sometimes images of the week need only a line or two of explanation – such as Winston Churchill here…

World War II had been an epic war and as a symbol of victory, Winston Churchill produced his famous V for Victory. Here he is producing it complete with a classic Homburg hat!

Catch all of our articles by subscribing to our rss feed - click here.

George Levrier-Jones

How a Nation Was Made – Canada in World War I

In this article, Matthew Struth tells us about Canada’s story in World War I. He informs us of the fascinating colonial background and starts to share the story of a battle that made a nation, the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

What is it like to go to war?

For most of human history, going to war was seen as glorious and honorable, a civic duty. Until one hundred years ago, this was the common perspective of almost all cultures. Napoleon proudly stated that he expended 30,000 men a month, and it was still glorious. It was glorious to fight with him; it was glorious to fight against him. It was an honor and duty to fight for your country, crown, ideology, and family. War was a part of life, and one that showed the worth of those who did the fighting.

When World War I broke out, thousands were excited to go marching off to battle. Leslie Hudd, a Canadian veteran, had wanted to go for the adventure. He didn’t think about being killed; rather, he just focused on coming home and telling everyone about it. Was he crazy? Maybe. Looking back, Hudd later thought that he had been crazy. But that is hindsight. We know what happened. We know about the twelve million dead on the soil of Europe. Hudd, sailing off for battle and adventure, didn’t.    

A World War I British Empire recruitment poster.

And he was not alone. Many of the combatants on all sides of this war were not the fully trained, experienced standing armies of today, or of Rome, or of other historic militaries. These were everyday men, some still in their teens. Some were carpenters, railway workers, shoe shiners; they were all manner of people. Even the majority of the soldiers in the German army, with their grey uniforms, and discipline, and precision marching, were still just reservists. Those German reservists had probably the most training out of all the armies in that war, but few had seen true combat and even then, never on the scale that would unfold. But of course, all the major combatants had their cores of trained and experienced military professionals, however small or large they may be.

Canada didn’t though.

Canada was a noteworthy player in the First World War. The country sent hundreds of thousands of men to fight in Europe. That was a very high percentage of the total population of the country, as the country had a little over seven million people living in it.

Canada had no standing army to speak of at the time. Yes, it had its veterans who fought the Boers in South Africa, but these were men who had gone to fight when the British demanded, came home, and went back to work. Most of the men in what would become the Canadian Core had held a rifle once or twice, if they had ever even fired one. Arthur Curris, the man who would lead the Canadian army at the end of the war, was a real-estate agent. And what professional soldiers the Canadians did have were under British command. When you think of these soldiers, think less of trained and disciplined soldiers and more of the weekend warrior.

A DYING EMPIRE

Now, I am focusing on Canadian casualties and the Canadian military, but it is important to remember that other nations that formed part of the British Imperial system also fought in the war. Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and many other silent partners suffered alongside Canadians for the glory of a dying empire that often did not care enough.

The stories of Canada, India and Australia, are stories of hardship and self-sacrifice, honor and glory. But these countries are all seen in the same “little guy” light, and so often not considered to be true players in the war. This dismissal of many contributing countries can be put down to the fact that their casualties weren’t in the millions like the major powers; we can even call it a dismissal of perceived lesser countries of the age.

Normally when you hear about the combatants of the First World War, you are told of the Allied Powers of the USA, Britain, Russia, and France versus Germany and Austria-Hungary. But with this biased attitude towards these countries, many of the important stories that have shaped our world today have been forgotten. Indeed, many of the battles waged by Canadians are forgotten.

tIn the opening of he Battle of Arras, Canadian soldiers took on the task of storming a ridge where German soldiers were entrenched. That ridge, located just outside a French town called Vimy, had been the scene of heartbreaking defeats for the French and British forces. On April 9, 1917, this unimportant place would become a symbol for Canadians to rally behind. It was the day that Canada proved itself as a nation. It was the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

Four divisions of Canadian soldiers joined together to fight a battle that would see Canadian soldiers led by Canadian generals, using Canadian battle tactics, to win a Canadian victory.  And these adventurers, these colonials, these little Canadian boys, many of whom only held a rifle, looked out to what would later go down in Canadian history as one of the country’s most important events. Nations were born in this war; Canada was born in this battle.

This story will be continued next month.

Read more about World War I’s Eastern Front in the latest issue of History is Now Magazine. Get a free trial on iPad and iPhone today - take a look here.

References

• Stats Canada.ca
• 3PPCLI.com
• Vimy by Pierre Burton
• The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson
• Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast

Intrepid Americans in the Center of Chaos - China Hands by Peter Rand

In this book review, George Levrier-Jones tells us about the excellent China Hands by Peter Rand. The book tells the incredible stories of American journalists in China from the 1920s onwards.

I’m sure many of you have been watching the news about Ukraine lately. I’m sure many of you were watching the news during the Arab Spring. This got me thinking, as something that has always intrigued me is how journalists covering these events get to where they are in the world. Whether that be the reporter in Ukraine who accompanied troops as they confront each other. Or the reporter in Libya who tried to be close to the fighting in the rebel uprising against Colonel Gaddafi.

And when I say where, I don’t only mean physically. In theory anybody with the right press pass could get close to these areas. It is the mentality that also interests me. Is it bravery, stupidity, or the quest for adventure that leads to people to put themselves in often dangerous and unknown situations? Or just a desire to tell others what is happening in the world?

A dashing couple. Edgar Snow with his wife in China.

Source: Edgar Snow Collections, University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Well, whatever the case, such questions were raised in my mind once again while reading the book China Hands by Peter Rand. This book was published a number of years ago, but we heard about it recently as we were researching authors who had written about articles related to Chairman Mao Zedong, the Great Helmsman who led China for over 25 years from 1949. That led us to this book for several reasons, but key among them was the unique story of Edgar Snow. Snow went to China in the late 1920s and decided to settle there. He worked as a journalist and covered all manner of events during what was a very turbulent time in Chinese history. The Chinese Civil War was erupting as the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek battled Communist forces in a long-running war. Violence also seemed to be forever close to the surface of society, even in cities.

But this book does not just tell the story of events in China. It also looks at the lives and the thinking of the people involved. And Snow had a very interesting personal life. He married Helen Foster in the early 1930s, somebody who was in many respects more ambitious, able and determined than he was. That would be a constant source of tension for the couple. Snow was later chosen by the communist hierarchy to meet Mao Zedong, the man who was of course to go on to dominate China. When Snow met him though, Mao was in a cave with his hardy soldiers, having been the victim of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces.

In some ways Snow was in the right place at the right time for this famous meeting, but it also helped that he was not strongly affiliated with communism or socialism. That meant that he had more credibility in the eyes of the many in America to whom his encounter with Mao would be told. A second factor that worked in his favor was that America was not gripped by anti-communist hysteria in the 1930s – that truly started after World War II.

But as I’ve just hinted at, a number of the Americans who went to China were closely associated with communism. There was Harold Isaacs, a man who supported the rebelling communists. Equally, there was Rayna Prohme. She went to China in the 1920s, as somebody already affiliated with the communists. Prohme had a certain joie de vivre, and was noticeable wherever she went as she was tall and had striking red hair. While in China, she edited a newspaper, but perhaps more importantly, became closely involved in political machinations. She was involved with shadowy Soviet agent Mikhail Borodin, a man who was under orders to support the Nationalists more than the Communists on occasions. And amid all the chaos in China, Prohme was to make one very important trip to the heart of the communist empire, Moscow. This book recounts that tale in detail – from the luxury to the back-stabbing.

And aside from those mentioned above, there are a number of other stories and lives considered in this book.

YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP

In summary, this book shines a light on several areas. It provides an intriguing view of a China in chaos from the 1920s onwards. It really gives you a feel for the turbulence and fear that people had to live through. It also gives us an insight into the wider communist world. The links between Joseph Stalin’s USSR, the Chinese Communists, and the Chinese Nationalists are highlighted – and Stalin’s communists did not always support the side you may think. In addition, the book tells us of the dilemmas, complications and joys that people had to live through in unfamiliar surroundings far from home. As you can imagine, some people reacted well, others less well, in situations that you could simply not make up.

The book was years in the making and it is evident that it was a real labor of love. Above all though, Rand’s excellent writing shines through. He has the rare and great ability to make a story, even a non-fiction story, really come to life.

But at the book’s heart are the tales of adventurers, mavericks, rogues. Call them what you will. People who decided to throw off the shackles of the ordinary and report the news from an extraordinary country at an extraordinary time. Just like some people still yearn to do today.

By George Levrier-Jones

If you would like to find out more about China Hands by Peter Rand, you can click here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Finally, you can read an article by Peter Rand in the latest issue of History is Now magazine, available here for iPad and iPhone. The magazine will be available on Android imminently.

Now, tell the world! Share this article with the world by clicking on the buttons below!

The amazing story of Chairman Mao’s American best friend. HiN Mag – April Issue

Chinese ruler Chairman Mao Zedong was one of the most important leaders of the 20th century. He was one of two communists titan who defined the age. But there is one unknown aspect of his life – he had a lifelong friendship with somebody who was born in the USA, China’s capitalist enemy.

The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now. And our main article tells the story of this lifelong friendship that would go on to influence the Cold War.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your free copy of our interactive digital magazine for the iPad and iPhone today!

Click here for more information!

Plus, the new issue is available in a text version – perfect for smaller devices.

And coming very soon – History is Now Magazine for Android.

And here is what our editor has to say about the new issue…

This month’s issue starts with a fascinating article on Chinese leader Mao Zedong’s American friend, Edgar Snow. Snow was a young American journalist living in China in the 1930s when he was selected to meet Mao and his rebel forces. This extraordinary article goes on to chart their relationship not only during the time when Mao was a revolutionary seeking power, but also when Mao assumed power in all of China. Our second article is another piece of fascinating writing. It charts the story of Lionel Wigram, a man who developed revolutionary military training in the British Army and went on to lead a very unique Anglo-Italian fighting force in World War II. And then we’re back to the Cold War in the article after that. In it, we consider the case of Bulgarian dissident Georgi Markov. Markov became an exile from his Communist homeland and dared to continue to criticize Bulgaria’s leader when he was in the West. Despite Markov being based in London, there were a number of attempts on his life…

Next up is an article on an idyllic English village that was evacuated during World War II. However, the village was evacuated for reasons that you may not expect. Rather than German airplanes driving people from their homes, it was the British Army. Following that, we continue our look at the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The invasion by a group of Cuban rebels based in the US sought to topple Communist Fidel Castro from his position as leader of Cuba. In this article, we look at how the battle progressed and how the rebels fought off repeated waves of attacks from Communist forces before the assault ended.

Finally, as we all know, 2014 marks the 100th anniversary of the start of World War I, and with that in mind, we will have a number of World War I articles this year. First up is an interactive essay on a largely unknown aspect of the Eastern Front. The Battle of Lake Naroch was a major battle with disastrous consequences for one of the sides involved. By the way, an ‘interactive essay’ features text accompanied by many images as well as videos.

Click here for more information and to take up your free trial

With all that and more, come and join us inside for a free trial of up to 2 months…

Just click here for more information! Alternatively search for History is Now on the iOS app store.

George Levrier-Jones

Now, tell the world! Share this article...

The Tale of Two First Ladies. Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce

In this article, Wendy S. Loughlin tells us about the results of a recent poll of first ladies. And discusses possible reasons why Jane Pierce came last in the poll and Eleanor Roosevelt first. 

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce walk into a bar…

Well, maybe not. While Eleanor Roosevelt would have been more than comfortable walking into a bar (or a coal mine) and talking with whomever she met, Jane Pierce probably would have preferred to spend her time in isolation. Which, during her first two years as first lady, she did. 

A portrait of Jane Pierce.

It comes as no surprise that Eleanor Roosevelt takes the top spot in a recent ranking of first ladies. She always has. The ranking, based on a survey of historians, scholars and political scientists, has been conducted five times in the past 31 years. It evaluates first ladies based on 10 criteria: background; value to the country; being the White House steward; courage; accomplishments; integrity; leadership; being her own woman; public image; and value to the president.

Jane Pierce, wife of 14th president Franklin Pierce, comes in last.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a sentient American adult who isn’t aware of Eleanor Roosevelt and the multitude of reasons she is considered the best first lady. But most people don’t know much - or perhaps anything - about Jane Pierce, and why history does not look kindly on her.

Jane Pierce did not attend her husband’s inauguration in March 1853, nor did she preside over any inaugural balls, because there were none. Franklin Pierce moved into the White House directly following his swearing-in, but his wife took more than two weeks to join him there, and would inhabit the place almost like a ghost for the four years of his administration. The author Nathaniel Hawthorne, a close friend of Franklin Pierce, once referred to her as “that death head in the White House.”

And no wonder. By the time she became first lady, a week before her 47th birthday, Jane Pierce had lived through the deaths of all three of her sons. The first, Franklin Jr., died three days after birth in 1836. The second, Frank Robert, died of typhus in 1843 at age four. The loss of her third son, eleven-year-old Benjamin, was perhaps the most devastating. Born in 1841, “Benny” was just two years old when Frank Robert died, and became the sole focus of his doting mother. In January 1853, after Franklin Pierce’s election but before his inauguration, the family was involved in a train accident while traveling to Washington from Boston. Benny’s head was crushed and partially severed in the crash, and he died on the spot, his parents as witnesses.

Deeply religious, Jane Pierce hated politics and had prayed that her husband would lose the election, a sentiment apparently shared by Benny. Now, on the verge of becoming first lady, she believed God had taken her child because he would have been a distraction in the White House. When she finally joined the new president in Washington, she retreated to the upper rooms of the executive mansion and shirked all duties usually required of the first lady, spending her time instead writing sorrowful letters to Benny. She had the White House decorated in the black bunting of mourning. Her health, always uncertain, continued to suffer. Historian Richard Norton Smith calls her “the most tragic of the first ladies.”

Jane Pierce with her son Benjamin.

Quiet in the White House

Washington has always been a social town and the position of first lady has always been primarily a social role. To some extent, the political (albeit indirect) contributions of many of the first ladies have come through their prowess as hostesses, through which they have created the social settings that allowed for political relationships and agreements to flourish. Franklin Pierce took office at a time when such agreements were sorely needed - on the eve of the civil war, the country was deeply divided over slavery - but Jane made no public appearances for the first two years of the administration.

Eventually, she came around… kind of. She attended a reception on New Year’s Day 1855, her first public appearance, and sporadically served as hostess for the remainder of her husband’s term. But when she did, she usually wore black and had “a sad, distracted look.”

Like Calvin and Grace Coolidge, Franklin and Jane Pierce were a classic case of opposites attract. It has been speculated that “Silent Cal,” famously dour and taciturn, may have achieved the presidency in part because of Grace, who had such an ebullient personality she was nicknamed “Sunshine” by the White House staff. Similarly, the outgoing Franklin and the withdrawn Jane were a seeming mismatch. And while they were purportedly devoted to each other, Jane may have done as much to hurt her husband’s presidency as Grace did to help hers.

Or maybe Franklin Pierce did enough damage on his own. Regarded by historians as one of the worst presidents in history, Pierce pursued policies that likely perpetuated the breakdown of the union and led to war. Though he had been elected in a landslide, he failed even to win the nomination of his party for a second term.

And therein lies a kind of conundrum regarding the first ladies ranking. To a certain extent, the reputation of the president’s wife will always be inextricably tied to that of her husband.  Before you compare Jane Pierce to Eleanor Roosevelt, compare the abysmal presidency of Franklin Pierce to that of Franklin Roosevelt, a four-term president who led the country through World War II, died in office a hero and is still remembered as one of the best presidents in U.S. history (In C-SPAN’s 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, Roosevelt is ranked third from the top, and Pierce third from the bottom).

Of course, Eleanor Roosevelt was a great first lady in her own right. Her contributions to human rights, to international relations and to the role of first lady remain unmatched, and her work continued even after she left the White House. She is one of the most admired women in American history. But how would we regard her today if she had come into the White House grieving the loss of a child, or if her husband had been a failure?

Tell us what you think. Do you have a favorite first lady? Share your thoughts below…

Read more great history in our digital magazine History is Now. It is available by clicking here and downloading the app for iPad and iPhone. It is also free for up to two months if you subscribe!

References

• Siena Research Institute/C-SPAN First Ladies Study: http://www.siena.edu/sri/firstladies
• National First Ladies Library, Jane Pierce biography: http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=15
• C-SPAN, “First Ladies: Influence & Image” – Jane Pierce: http://firstladies.c-span.org/FirstLady/16/Jane-Pierce.aspx 
• Anne Middleton Means, “Amherst and Our Family Tree”: http://books.google.com/books?id=Zcw0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Amherst+and+Our+Family+Tree&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MNwcU6OuC8emygGw2oGwBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Amherst%20and%20Our%20Family%20Tree&f=false
• New Hampshire Historical Society – manuscript collection: http://www.nhhistory.org/libraryexhibits/manuscriptcollection/manuscript.html
• Philip B. Kunhardt III & Peter W. Kunhardt, “The American President”: http://books.google.com/books?id=m-pNPgAACAAJ&dq=Kunhardt+american+president&hl=en&sa=X&ei=57YcU4ysH4TuyAHX-YHIBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA 
• C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey: http://legacy.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
• Burlington Free Press, “Burlington-born first lady Grace Coolidge was happy to ‘talk for two’”: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130224/ARTS/302240006/Burlington-born-first-lady-Grace-Coolidge-was-happy-to-talk-for-two-
• The White House, Franklin Pierce biography: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklinpierce
• The New York Times, Eleanor Roosevelt obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1011.html

How World War I continues to affect Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and the wider Middle East

In this article, Ben Parten considers the mandate system that was set up after World War I by Britain and France. This system allowed European Powers to rule countries including Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon. And its effects last to this day.

The First World War is called the Great War for a reason; its violence set the tone for the 20th century, and its aftermath posed new challenges to traditional political leadership. Yet, despite the title of a “world” war, the Great War’s global significance is often understated. In America, for instance, young students are often taught that the primary outcomes of the war were that it opened the door to Nazi Germany and established the United States as a world power. Those are both true, but there is one major consequence of the Great War that should be added to that list. To see this other significance, Americans and other Westerners should shirk their Western perspectives and look outside of Europe, particularly to the Middle East and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman’s demise opened up a large swath of land unclaimed by a world power and enabled the Allies to decide how it should be divided. With the Treaty of Sevres, the Allies drew up artificial boundaries for countries that have come to be the states of the “modern” Middle East. However, in the state-making process, the litany of different sects and ethnicities in the region were amalgamated into nominal nations, causing instability that America and other Western powers are still dealing with today.

The Wailing Wall or Western Wall, circa 1920. This site of worship in Jerusalem was to become a site of controversy after World War I.

Great Britain and the Mandate System

Great Britain and France began thinking about how to partition off the former Ottoman Empire in 1916.  As made famous in the motion picture Lawrence of Arabia, the British and the French had been conducting secret negotiations regarding the ownership of Syria. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, as it has come to be known, acknowledged France’s claim to greater Syria while giving Great Britain rights to Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq). As the war came to an official end in 1919, the question of how to officially divide the Ottoman lands was once again raised. Gathering in San Remo, Allied diplomats agreed to divide the lands into separate entities called mandates. These mandates would act as glorified colonies operating under the façade of self-determination and self-governance until their charters expired in the 1940s.

The British desire to control parts of this region derived from its economic interests in the Persian Gulf.  Therefore, Mesopotamia was transformed into the Kingdom of Iraq. Combining the three territorial capitols of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul into Iraq gave the British a strong foothold in the region with direct access to the Persian Gulf and India. The other motivating factor for the British was their pledge to support Jewish settlement in Palestine as promised in the Balfour Declaration. The British incorporation of Jewish settlement in Palestine prompted immediate resistance from local Arab leaders. Thus, the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was established to provide stability to the region and pacify the local Arabs.

No matter the theoretical objectives behind the British mandates, they lacked practical sense. For instance, Iraq became an ad hoc state where no national sentiments existed. The cities of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra were grouped together when they previously shared a separate and distinct identity. Mosul had a longstanding connection with the mountain lands of Southern Anatolia and Western Syria. Baghdad tended to be more urban, linking itself to east-west trade. Basra identified itself as a self-sustaining seaport, aligning itself more with the Gulf States than with Iraq. Underlying this regional divide was the great sectarian division amongst the populace. Over half of the population were followers of Shia Islam, yet the British named Faysal ibn Husayn, a Sunni, King of Iraq. There was also a large contingent of Kurdish people living in the Northeast portion of the Kingdom. Even under Faysal’s rule, these three distinct religious and ethnic (the Kurds are often identified as their own ethnicity) groups still adhered to clan loyalty and tribal governance, making state led unification and leadership difficult. 

Likewise, continued Jewish settlement in Palestine aroused tension between the Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinians. One of the first outbursts of violence occurred over the right to the access the Wailing or Western Wall. For centuries the Wall has served as a holy site for Jews to pray at in honor of the ancient kingdom of Israel, but the Wall also makes up the Dome of the Rock where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended into heaven. As both sides claimed lawful access to the wall, the intensity of the dispute boiled over into violence and riots that spread across the city. This same type of violence erupted again in the late 1930s after the British decided that the mandate was inoperable and recommended a separate Arab and Jewish state.

Greater Lebanon

Problems with the mandate system were not limited to the British mandates. For instance, the French divided their mandate to create Greater Lebanon in 1920 in order to provide refuge to the Maronite Christians, whom the French felt obligated to protect. The Maronites were the primary sect of Mt. Lebanon and Beirut, but the surrounding areas of Greater Lebanon were predominantly Muslim.  To quell Muslim dissatisfaction and ensure Maronite authority, the two sides, along with French help, established The National Pact. The Pact created a ruling government that would always place a Maronite as president, a Sunni as Prime Minister, and a Shi’a as President of the General Assembly regardless of population. The political hierarchy created by the National Pact was spun by the French and Maronite population in a way that celebrated diversity, but, in the end, it only convoluted Lebanese identity. The Maronites saw Lebanon as an extension of the Mediterranean; whereas the Muslims purported that Lebanon belonged to a Pan-Arab world. It is not hard to imagine then that sectarian strife would eventually explode, as it did in the fifteen-year-long Lebanese Civil War.

The primary failure of the mandate system was its attempt to create Western style nationalism in an area where nationalism had neither existed previously nor maintained the proper conditions for statehood. Forcing the number of different sects and ethnicities to exist under one political body was bound to cause fissures and division amongst the political and social structure of those states. Today, the states created by the San Remo Conference are still in existence and the sectarian disunion continues to plague the region. The fundamental difference between now and the years following The San Remo Conference is that the United States has replaced Great Britain and France as the primary intervening power. Since the 1970s America has been forced to deal with the geo-political headaches that were caused by World War I and the policies of its immediate aftermath. Nearly one hundred years after it ended, it is time to reconsider the Great War’s global impact to include the formation of the “modern” Middle East.

By Ben Parten

You can read more about change that World War I brought by reading our short article about women and World War I here.