Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 3 – Ever Greater Tensions in Europe

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers the roles of Russia, Germany, France, and Britain prior to war breaking out in August 1914.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here and part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here.

German troops marching through Blankenberge, Belgium in World War I.

We ended part two with Austria beginning to mobilize towards war. The generals had a plan; and sad to say it’s probably the most flawed war plan of all time. Their plan was based on a six-week timeline. In that time they planned to invade Serbia, destroy it, and subsequently conquer it. Anyone else see a problem with this plan? Its ambitious sure, it may even be a feeling of confidence. But any confidence Austria had is sheer cockiness. Let us face it, Austria has always wanted the area that makes up Serbia and needed a reason to go in and take it. The Archduke’s death allowed this to happen.

There is a truth to what is really going on in Austria. The last time the country was at war, was 48 years prior in 1866. Between then and now, there is no definitive armed force. The would be soldiers were actually farmers and industry workers – these soldiers weren’t even alive the last time war came to their homes. Right off the back Austria needed to train soldiers and quickly. But that’s not the only reality they hadn’t faced. The railroad system had not been tended to in years, and there were areas across the country that still didn’t have rail tracks at all. The ones that remained had not been tended to in years. Lastly, there were the ranking members of armed forces - these men were veteran soldiers. They were also overly confident. But these were also men who fought 48 years before. Their tactics and plans and approaches were all outdated. Their choices in formations and the use of cavalries weren’t feasible any longer.  

With all these issues and preparation for war, they faced one more issue. The timing of the escalating conflict had occurred in the middle of the farming harvest for the year. So now not only did they need to train soldiers, update railway systems, and plan with outdated military resources, but they also had to wait for those farmers to finish their harvest. This is why the plan of six weeks was fundamentally flawed. They’d need six weeks to take care of the issues they have and then prepare for war. In short, it was an unrealistic plan. 

Russian Action

Meanwhile, over in Russia, the Tsar had some choices to make. He knew that if Austria mobilized her army that Germany would too. Germany had a border with Russia; which increases the chances of conflict at that border. There was also the relationship with Serbia. There was no formal agreement in place like Belgium had with Britain. Either way, the tsar felt that there was some level of protection he should give to help the Serbs. He decided to mobilize. 

In terms of preparedness, Russia was like Austria; the only caveat is that they did not have a timeline of how events were to play out. They too had outdated rail systems, farmers that needed to be trained as soldiers and commanders overly confident in the power of what the country can muster in a crisis. Russia is the largest country on earth, and with that distinction comes another: the largest army in the world. But the number of men cannot be successful if they were beaten by technological advancements. 

Back in the late 19th century Russia had a spat with Japan. This conflict would become known as the Russo-Japanese War. Other powers in Europe assumed that any ‘civilized’ country could easily beat a country that is little more than an island chain. Well good thing no one bet on the matchup because Japan won the war. Their win sent shockwaves through Europe. The war revealed to the world two dark truths of Russia: that their army could not be controlled, and there was an uneasy resentfulness of the monarchy. 1905 was a year that had handed a warning in another way - it gave the royal family a warning that the Russian people were not happy. 

No one could understand how a country as large and as populated as Russia could lose a war in such a way. The reasons lay in the lack of training we mentioned above as well as technology advancements elsewhere. But there was also the issue of transportation. The country probably had a worse rail system than Austria did. In fact, at the time, the United States had more railway systems than Russia had ever put down. 

Military Commanders in Russia were not appointed based on experience. It was a society of ‘who knows who’ aristocracy that paid little attention to threats facing the country. That’s not to say that all positions were based on who you knew; there were a few ranks that required military experience but they were far and few. The commanders of the war would make decisions that had major repercussions across the country during the war years. These actions only added to the fuel that was the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

German Ultimatum

Now that Russia had mobilized, Germany sent an ultimatum: Either stop the preparations or they would be forced to mobilize their forces. While the official message was clear, what was not is the relationship between their respective heads of state. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were third cousins; both sharing the same great great grandfather Peter I of Russia. The two began writing to each other in hopes of coming to some kind of agreement. The letters, later known as the “Willy-Nicky correspondence” did not have the result either of them wanted. The reason being that by now the decision making was well out of their hands - generals, prime ministers, and other officials were now calling the shots. 

Seeing how the letters did nothing to soothe the situation, and with Russia concerned over her ability to succeed in another war, Russia made a few calls to their ally France. The Franco-Russian Alliance was essentially a military agreement between the two nations. With Germany gaining strength in the late 19th century both countries found it needed to align with each other in the event of conflict. Now with Germany giving ultimatums, Russia activated the alliance with France. 

France up until this point had been waiting in the wings. The government had been paying attention to the events knowing that this may be the chance to get a little revenge on Germany. When Russia called on France they are all for it. The territories they lost in the Franco-Prussian War were still a sore spot and they wanted that land back. 

Escalating Tensions

Lets stop and recap for a second. Two sides have now formed: Germany and Austria-Hungary versus Serbia, Russia, and now France. If you looked at a map, or even from space that is a solid chunk of Europe and part of Asia. This is escalating, but at the level of the commanders and leaders, it's still not apparent that it will end in war. 

Germany realized that with France to its west and Russia to its east they were looking at a two front conflict. On one point they were determined to finish off France. Russia they thought could be dealt with later. This is where their plan forms to deal with both countries. As long as they could take out one of them first before either is ready, they had a shot of winning. This plan looked great on paper, but was not fully investigated. The German plan was to invade one of them, and take them out. This way a two front conflict becomes one. In looking at their options, Germany chose France to invade first because they assumed that it would take Russia longer to mobilize its forces. In that time it was theorized they could eliminate France before Russia could come with aid. 

So France was the first step. It would not be an easy approach either. Commanders went over all possible points of entry to invade France. Only one made the most sense and that was to march through the relatively new country of Belgium. Germany asked Belgium if they could march through to get to France and Belgium said no. Well Germany didn’t take well to the denial and begin to threaten Belgium that they would march through with or without permission. This was a huge mistake on the part of German arrogance. They neglect the fact that Belgium is under the protection of Great Britain.

Britain’s Role

If there was any European Power truly not directly affected by the events in Sarajevo, it was Great Britain. She’s is like the sleeping bear in the back of the cave; she may stir every once in a while, but as long as you don’t bother her or her cubs she’ll stay sleeping. Belgium is one of her cubs. When the country was formed a treaty was put in place. The Treaty of London (1839) stated that if any state threatened the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain was required to enforce the treaty and protect Belgium. This is where Germany went wrong. When it came down to it, Great Britain was the one country that Germany did not want to go up against.

Britain had not only the firepower and global standing, they had more troops than any other country across its territories. Those troops would be not only from Britain, but also Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc. With the largest empire on earth Germany knew fighting them would likely mean defeat. But by now the situation was too far along. And the confidence Germany had blinded them to any real logical action. After threatening Belgium, they invoked the terms of The Treaty of London.

War Begins

Britain wasn’t really trying to go to war. They had their own problems in Ireland. Political unrest and violence between Catholics and Protestants kept them from really watching what’s happening across Europe. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George received the call of help from Belgium and discussed it with his government. They decided to give Germany a timetable. They had until midnight local time to send word they would not enter Belgium. Midnight came and went, and Britain had her answer. They started mobilizing their troops. 

By now Germany was at the border of Belgium. They did ask one more time about marching through. Again Belgium declines. Germany began entering Belgium. The date was August 4, 1914 and the war was officially live. So now we know how it all began. What’s next? Part 4 will have that and the wrap up to this tale.

What do you think about Germany invading France through Belgium? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 2 – Crisis in Austria-Hungary

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Austria-Hungary and its pivotal role in the events that led to the outbreak of World War One.

Part 1 in the series focuses on the decades leading up to World War One: Available here.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. His assassination precipitated a crisis that led to World War One

In Part 1 we talked about the basics - some of who the main players were, and Germany’s habit of having a ruler who is an overachiever. We know that the country as a whole felt boxed in due to the alliances surrounding them. But what about their allies? We left off on the background of one of them: Austria-Hungary. Get comfy because this is where things get interesting.  

Succession in Austria-Hungary 

Wondering why the country was called Austria-Hungary and today they are just Austria and Hungary? Well, it is a bit complicated, but essentially both are separate countries and both are monarchies. Only, they have the same ruler just under different names. Using this example makes it clearer: after Queen Elizabeth I of England died, King James was called James I of England. But in Scotland, where he had been king since he was an infant, he was known as James VI of Scotland.

So, the ruler at the turn of the century was Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary and he was in a bit of a pickle. Good Emperor Franz had no male heir to take his place when he died. At the start at the war in 1914, he was 84 years old. He and his wife, the Empress Elisabeth (known as Sisi) had four children. But of those four, only one was a son. One thing to mention about Empress Sisi is that she was the most beautiful woman of her time, and was beloved by her people. Franz Joseph was deeply in love with her. Only she never quite felt the same. Her death in 1898 by an assassin deeply affected the Emperor and the country at large. The Crown Prince Rudolf was groomed from day one to replace his father. Only he would never get the chance.

Like many marriages of the day the relationship between Rudolf and his wife Stephanie of Belgium was an arranged one. Still they were able to have one child together. Perhaps it is fate, but that child would be a girl. Every prince had their occasional or favorite mistress, but Rudolf seemed to be a bit more involved with his than most. Mary Vestra was from society but had a reputation herself. At 17 years old the two of them had a torrid affair. In January 1888, Rudolf and Marie were found dead at the Mayerling Hunting Lodge. No one knows the circumstances of what the motive was or if they had planned it. The story that seems to fit best based on the discovery of Marie’s diary in 2015 is that they had a suicide pact. 

Either way, Rudolf’s death shook the country to the core. Franz only had one son and he was no longer alive to take his place. A true succession crisis was now clear to all those around the Emperor. After some consideration, the Emperor decided to make his nephew the Archduke Franz Ferdinand his successor. Ferdinand didn’t have the greatest relationship with his uncle and most of his family. His choice in marrying Sophie Chotek, a woman with no title and a morganatic marriage (a marriage with somebody of different social rank) alienated everyone. Upon the marriage, Sophie and Ferdinand waived the rights of succession for any children they had together. This was based on the fact that Sophie wasn’t of noble blood. It was a pain point for the couple, as in every official duty Ferdinand attended, his wife was forced to ‘take her place’ in the back of the room. 

Austria-Hungary’s maneuvers

Around this time, Austria-Hungary decided to officially annex the lands in Bosnia and Herzegovina into the country. This land had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, but had been occupied and essentially run by Austria-Hungary since 1878. What they didn’t consider was the reaction from nearby areas. Serbia, for one, was not happy about the annexation. They felt that lands in the Balkans should be ruled by those living in the Balkans. As a result of this, pro-independence and terrorist groups begin to form within Serbia. By making this move, Austria-Hungary’s actions led to conflicts in the years leading up to World War One - the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913.

With tensions high, Franz Joseph asked the newly made heir-apparent Ferdinand to travel to the region under instructions to review the military. The day of June 28, 1914 started just like any other day. Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were in Sarajevo; and they were put into an open car. Side note: it amazes me how long it took people to realize that any “open” mode of transportation linked with a target with this kind of high profile. Anyway, they traveled along behind local officials. As they moved through the streets, a man threw an object at the couple. There was an explosion, but the only people hurt were civilians. This would be assassin took a cyanide pill and planned to take his knowledge with him. He also threw himself in a river – but lived.

The danger apparently over, the motorcade arrived at the scheduled destination. The Archduke and his wife are a tad shocked but not too worse for wear. As they leave both Ferdinand and Sophie decide to change plans and make a visit to the local hospital to see those that were hurt in the bombing. The motorcade leaves, but no one told the driver that the plans changed and he made a wrong turn. In order to get them back the way they came and to the hospital he needed to turn around. It was in this moment that Gavrilo Princip just happened to be standing within steps of the couple. He pulled a gun and shot both Ferdinand and Sophie at point blank range. Initially those in the car did not realize that either of them had been shot. It wasn’t until Sophie loss consciousness and collapsed in Ferdinand’s lap that the realization set in. Ferdinand yelled “Sophie, don’t die. Stay alive for the children.”

Then Austrian-Hungarian Colonel Count Franz von Harrach asked if Ferdinand had been wounded. He only replied: “It is nothing. It is nothing”, before he too lost consciousness. Those in the car with them moved with all haste to the Governor’s house for immediate care. Unfortunately both Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek, Countess of Hohenberg, were dead on arrival. And with their deaths springs open a can of worms that changed everything for the next hundred years.

Aftermath

You would think that an assassination of an Archduke and heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary would send shockwaves across the globe. When we modern day folks tell the story, that’s the perception it gives. In reality, internationally it was not major news. It ended up in a few papers in some countries; but it certainly was no front-page affair. In the immediate days after their deaths, the government of Austria-Hungary wanted answers. In all honesty they were pretty annoyed. The Emperor had now lost his only son and heir, and that heir’s replacement.

Austria-Hungary knew the assassins were Serbian and wanted answers. And if they couldn’t get them, they were threatening a fight. The Serbian government was in a tough spot. The assassination wasn’t sanctioned by them, but the planning and execution of the plan were made by Serbs. For you conspiracy buff’s out there; there is a theory that the real killers were in fact part of a Serbian military force and Gavrilo Princip, along with the others, were just patsies. Maybe or maybe not, there were still no good options here for the government. So they did what any little brother would do when caught in a tough spot - they called their big brother Russia.

Now in part one I mention that the alliance between these two was nothing in a formal sense. What tied them together were ethnic lines. Many Russians were Serbian, and many Serbians were Russians. Serbia gave Russia the heads up that this situation may turn south and if it did they will need help against Austria-Hungary in a war. Russia, at the time, was still ruled by the 300-year-old Romanov Dynasty under Tsar Nicholas II. After consulting with his advisors, he opted to not make any move yet. Instead, he waited to see how things played out.

The July Crisis

While all this was going on in Serbia, Austria-Hungary made a call of their own to Germany. As part of the Triple Alliance, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to support them if war breaks out against Serbia. It’s important to keep in mind here that these events are happening lightening fast. The assassination was June 28, 1914. By the time Austria-Hungary reached out to Germany the date was July 6, 1914. From this point until the outbreak of war, it will go down in history as the “July Crisis.” 

Germany decided to pledge to Austria-Hungary in the event of war. This is called the “Blank Check;” where it is implied that Germany more or less just agreed to whatever Austria-Hungary wanted to do. By agreeing, this was a huge risk for Germany. They were already surrounded by Russia and France. And while France was not in the picture yet, if fighting broke out at the Russian border, it could trigger a two front war. The other issue was the thought of honor. Their ally had suffered a terrible blow. The honor they lost from the initial act should be defended. There was one positive going for the Germans - that Russia was still rearming itself following the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. In order for them to come to Serbia’s aid, they had to mobilize faster than Germany thought they could. With that in mind, the war generals considered the idea of a quick and easy conflict. 

Meanwhile in Austria-Hungary the plan for war was in full motion. Generals devised a timeline of how they would deal with Serbia. Side note: this was a horrible. Anyway, their timeline was to invade, destroy and occupy Serbia in six weeks. We all should be for lofty goals but this is not one of them. Why won’t this timeline work? Because Austria-Hungary was seriously underestimating its own people and their readiness to prepare for war. Also, from a technology perspective, they had little to no paved roads, and a lack of a railway system. It had been 48 years since they’d seen a war; and their generals had an outdated way of thinking. Either way, the plan was to mobilize and when they did Russia would have to make a choice. That’s for next time.

What do you think about Austria-Hungary’s importance in the outbreak of World War One?

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

The Amazing Story of the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two

The Women Airforce Service Pilots (or WASP) of World War Two played a great role in the American war effort. Here, Mac Guffey tells us about their story – and fight for recognition both during and after the war.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here) and on Franksgiving (here).

WASP pilots (from left) Frances Green, Margaret Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn leave their B-17 trainer, (christened ‘Pistol Packin’ Mama’), during ferry training at Lockbourne Army Air Force base in Ohio. They’re carrying their parachutes.

Two years before America entered the Second World War, a pioneering group of more than a thousand, relatively unknown, veteran pilots stepped forward and volunteered to be a part of the solution for what they could see as a looming manpower problem in the air-arm of the U.S. military.

 “…at the height of World War II, [they] left homes and jobs for the opportunity of a lifetime – to become the first in history to fly for the U.S. military…these women became the Women Airforce Service Pilots – better known as the WASP.” [1]

This is the story of that long unrecognized and underappreciated group of determined pilots and their uphill struggles to be accepted as the soldiers they were. And it all began with a letter – woman-to-woman – because Jacqueline “Jackie” Cochran recognized a kindred soul in Eleanor Roosevelt – the First Lady.

BACKSTORY

It was 1939, and WWII had just exploded across Poland.

Realizing America’s eventual involvement, the country’s most famous female pilot wrote a letter to the most progressive First Lady in American history with a startling suggestion – use women pilots in non-combat roles to compensate for the coming manpower demands of the military. [2]

Recognizing the wisdom and prescience in Cochran’s proposal, Eleanor Roosevelt introduced her to General Henry “Hap” Arnold, head of the U.S. Army Air Force. Cochran’s plan, however, was initially rejected. Arnold expressed the misbegotten sentiments of most Americans – especially men – when he said in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose in a country which has adequate manpower at this time.” [3]

But the manpower necessary to fight this coming world-wide war was far greater than Arnold (or anyone else for that matter) ever expected, and by September 1942, Nancy Harkness Love and Cochran, with Arnold’s support, independently founded two separate flying programs (Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadronand Women’s Flying Training Detachment). On August 5, 1943, these were merged to become the WASP – Women’s Airforce Service Pilots - a civilian squadron under the aegis of the U.S. Army Air Force. And it was composed of only women pilots. Cochran was chosen to serve as the director of WASP and its training division, while Love was appointed director of the ferrying division. [2]

Nancy Harkness Love.

Jackie Cochran surrounded by WASP trainees.

QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING[4]

The military trained male civilians with no flying experience to be pilots for jobs ferrying aircraft from the factory to various military airfields all over the U.S. and even abroad. But Cochran and Love knew the bar for women pilots – even “civilian” women pilots – had to be a higher one. 

The qualifications Cochran and Love set for a woman just to be an applicant for the WASP were stringent: Potential recruits had to be between 21 and 35 years old, in good health, already possess a pilot’s license, and 200 hours of prior flight experience! 

In the sixteen months that the WASP squadron existed, more than 25,000 women applied for training. Only 1,830 of them (spread over eighteen training classes), were accepted as candidates. In the end, 1,074 of those candidates successfully completed the grueling four-month (Army way) training program at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas.

Despite their advanced experience as pilots, WASP recruits were required to complete the same primary, basic, and advanced training courses as the inexperienced male Army Air Corps pilots. In addition to learning the superfluous - like marching and close order drill - they also spent roughly twelve hours a day at the airfield. Half the day was spent doing stalls, spins, turns, take offs, and landings – and all of it in very crowded airspace. The other half of the day was spent in what they called “ground school.”

By graduation, all WASP had 560 hours of ground school and 210 hours of flight training (in addition to the 200 hours required for them just to apply). They also knew Morse code, meteorology, military law, physics, aircraft mechanics, and navigation (and, of course, how to march).

Their previous level of flying experience allowed a large number of these pilots finished their WASP training with such stellar marks that they qualified to go on for specialized flight training. Many of them, by the end of their time as WASP, had flown every single plane in the American arsenal – including jets!

Despite the stiff entrance requirements and all of the additional training these female pilots endured, the WASP were still considered just “civil service employees”. Cochran, director of the WASP, and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, who was now the head of the U.S. Army Transport Command, pressed for full militarization of these female pilots, and for the WASP to be commissioned directly as service pilots, a procedure the Air Transport Command used routinely with male civilian pilots. But because of the considerable opposition to the program, both in Congress and in the press, Cochran’s and Arnold’s requests were denied. [5]

‘THOSE DAMN W.A.S.P.‘

As a WASP, Betty Archibald Fernandes’s primary job was to pick up a plane at the factory where it was built and fly it to the east coast so it could be shipped abroad. During her wartime service, Fernandes flew 30 different kinds of military planes, including fighters, bombers, transport, and training aircraft. But her number one love was fighters. “I flew every kind of fighter plane, including P-30s, 51’s, 39’s, 63’s, 47’s and 40’s,” Fernandes proudly boasted. [6]

In addition to ferrying aircraft and cargo from factories to stateside military bases and transporting military cargo all over the country, WASP also trained male bombardiers and provided instrument training to male cadets; they participated in simulations to help train radar and searchlight trackers, and they even towed targets for live anti-aircraft gunnery practice. [4]

The WASP were even used as motivators.

“When men were less willing to fly certain difficult planes, such as the YP-59 and B-29 Super Fortress, General Arnold recruited two WASP, Dorthea Johnson and Dora Dougherty Strother, to fly these aircraft. Arnold believed that if men saw women fly these planes successfully, they would be “embarrassed” into taking these missions willingly. Johnson and Strother flew to Alamogordo, New Mexico in the B-29s. There was a crowd waiting to see them land. General Arnold’s plan worked, “From that day on, there was no more grumbling from male pilots assigned to train on and fly the B-29 Super Fortress.” [7]

‘Those damned WASP‘ became a familiar refrain.

SOME WASP FACTS AND PILOTS

Collectively, the WASPflew every conceivable type of American military aircraft and logged over 60 million miles during their sixteen months of existence – often flying seven days a week. [8] Thirty-eight WASP lost their lives, and one – Gertrude ‘Tommy’ Tompkins-Silver – disappeared while ferrying a P-51 from LA to the East Coast. She is the only WASP whose fate today remains unknown. [9]     

Although the majority of the pilots were Caucasian, five pioneering women of color did break the racial barrier. Two of them were Chinese-Americans (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee ); one was Native American (Ola Mildred Rexroat, a Oglala Sioux woman from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota), and two were Hispanic-Americans (Verneda Rodríguez[**] and Frances Dias). [10]

The number of black women pilots who applied for WASP training is unknown. However, several African-American pilots did make it to the final interview stage.

Mildred Hemmans Carter was one of those finalists. In 1940, at age 19, she earned a Bachelor Degree from the Tuskegee Institute, and a year later, she earned her aviation certification. In 1943, Carter was among the first to apply to be a WASP. Like the other black pilots, she was rejected, largely because of her race. Finally, Carter’s extraordinary qualifications and her unfair rejection were acknowledged. She was retroactively recognized as a WASP– seventy years after the fact. [11]

Hazel Ying Lee.

‘THE AAF WILL MISS YOU…’

By 1944, America and its allies dominated the skies over Germany, and the air war in Europe was winding down. The Allied leaders now planned a massive ground assault to put the finishing touches on Nazi Germany. Accordingly the Army Air Force cut back its training forces and revoked civilian male training pilots exemptions from serving in ground combat units. [12]

A brouhaha ensued.

Fearing the draft, the men complained – as a group – to Congress, the media, and accused the War Department of favoring female pilots over male pilots. Congress listened and on December, 20 1944 – five months before the end of WWII and sixteen months after their formation – the WASP, as a squadron, were disbanded. [12]

And rudely.

In fact, here is part of General Arnold’s letter of notification and thanks to the WASP for their service:

When we needed you, you came through and have served most commendably under very difficult circumstances, but now the war situation has changed and the time has come when your volunteer services are no longer needed. The situation is that if you continue in service, you will be replacing instead of releasing our young men. I know the WASP wouldn’t want that. I want you to know that I appreciate your war service and the AAF will miss you… [5]

There were 915 women pilots on duty with the Army Air Force at that time, and they were scattered on bases around the country. Since they weren’t military, there was no “mustering out” time after Arnold’s notification arrived, and the women pilots were released outright. Some WASP members were allowed to fly on board government aircraft from their former bases to the vicinity of their homes – but only as long as room was available and no additional expenses were incurred. Others, however, had to arrange and pay for their own transportation home. [11]

EPILOGUE

Records of WASP were classified and sealed by the government after the war, so historians minimized or ignored the women pilots.

The WASP, however, deserved more respect and recognition than a condescending thank you note tied to an immediate eviction notice back in 1944 or being ignored by history. Thirty three years later, they took matters into their own capable hands.

However, the entire affair came with a very heavy dose of irony.

In the 1970s, the Air Force announced that it would begin accepting women for pilot training, and the media reported the story as if this would be the first time women could fly for the US military. The WASPsthen began to push for the recognition that they deserved.  U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (one of those male transport pilots in WW2) along with General Arnold’s son – Colonel Bruce Arnold – helped these women pilots lobby Congress for their long overdue recognition. [8]

In 1977 — the same year the Air Force graduated its first post-WASP women pilots — Congress granted veteran status to those who had served as WASP, and in 1979 issued official honorable discharges. [12]

Thirty-three years after that, in 2010, President Barak Obama signed the law that gave these brave, pioneering Women Airforce Service Pilots the highest civilian honor given by the U.S. Congress – the Congressional Gold Medal.

But less than 250 surviving WASPwere on hand to receive their long-overdue thanks. [8]

Veterans deserve better treatment – especially while they’re still alive to enjoy it.

QUOTES

“Already my big worry is that I might wash out. It’s going to be plenty tough to come up to Army standards. Several from W-7 ‘washed’ today. Everyone gets depressed when they go; tonight the Recreation Room was like a morgue–you just can’t help wondering “Will I be next? “ ~Adaline Alma Blank, WASP Class 43-8, Avenger Field Sweetwater, TX [*]

“Glamour, hell; it was hard work!” ~ Florence Shutsy-Reynolds, W.A.S.P.Training Class 44-w-5 [*]

 “The P-63 was quite an airplane. I just loved it. I flew as many as I could, as far as I could, as fast as I could.”  ~ Betty Archibald Fernandes, Class 43-3 [*]

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE WASP? LET US KNOW BELOW.

WORKS CITED

[*] All quotes are from https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/campfire-stories/wasp

[**]Rodríguez, who died on March, 19, 1982, was the first of the WASP to be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Ceremony. From http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2007/3tri07/ashcrofteng.html

[1] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Official Archive.” Texas Woman’s University. (Denton, TX) @ https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/collections/women-airforce-service-pilots/

[2] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Gateway to Women’s History: Women’s Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive.” @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[3] Cornelsen, K. (2005). “Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America.” Journal of Women’s History 17(4), 111-119. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from Project MUSE database.

[4] All the information used under this heading came from one source: Texas Woman’s University. “Training.” Woman’s Collection – Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). @ https://web.archive.org/web/20180728221611/https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/featured-collections/women-airforce-service-pilots-wasp/training/

[5] “Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Women in the Army @ https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html

[6] Binz, Larry E. “Airport Day provides nostalgia for crowd, local veteran aviatrix.” Clarksdale[Mississippi] Press Register – October 20, 2010.

[7] Monahan, Evelyn M.; Neidel-Greenlee, Rosemary (2010). A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York: Alfred A Knopf. pp.136-137.

[8] Texas Woman’s University. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive – WASPFacts and Stats.” Gateway to Women’s History. @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[9] Baylor University. “Above and Beyond.” Wings Across America. @ http://www.wingsacrossamerica.org/above—beyond.html

[10] Steck, Em. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Aided American War Efforts With Help From These Women of Color. TeenVogue –December 24, 2017. @ https://www.teenvogue.com/story/women-airforce-service-pilots-aided-american-war-efforts-with-help-from-these-women-of-color

[11] Cornelsen, Kathleen (2005).”Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America”. Journal of Women’s History. 17 (4): 111–119. – via Project MUSE.

[12] Wackerfuss, Dr. Andrew T. “Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Air Force Historical Support Division. @ https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458964/womens-airforce--service-pilots-wasp/

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 1 - The decades leading up to the war

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs starts her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Germany’s 19th century rise, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the complicated alliances in place in Europe before the war broke out.

German Kaiser Wilhelm II with Winston Churchill in 1906.

This is a question I asked years ago when I first learned about the World Wars. No one could really give an answer though. Even in college, the narrative was the same: An Austrian Archduke was assassinated and a war begins because of it. After four years of fighting, the country that started this whole thing isn’t even blamed or even stuck with some share of guilt? It seemed unfair for Germany to have all that on their shoulders; and it makes one wonder if it would have made a difference in the years leading up to WW2. So, because no one ever told me why I will tell you why. And I promise it won’t be boring, let's make history fun.

1871 – Germany is born

Now in order to understand how and why Germany gets the blame, we first have to look at the circumstances that started the war in the first place. We’ll need to take a trip down memory lane to establish just where everyone involved is in time. The year is 1871, and Germany, as we know it today territorially, is born. Before this, there was no unified German state. It was just a collection of separate Duchies all being ruled by their own head of the house. One of the most famous was the Duchy of Bavaria (and later the Kingdom of Bavaria). Its claim to history is the gorgeous Neuschwanstein Castle, built by Ludwig II. Ludwig wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and had a rather odd demise. That’s a story for another time. 

Each of the duchies (or in the case of Bavaria Kingdom) elected to become one country with one Emperor to rule. The one chosen became known as Kaiser Wilhelm I of house Hohenzollern. The name Kaiser is the German word for Caesar, the traditional name used by later Emperors of Rome. A little known fact about this - we in the present day have been mispronouncing Caesar this whole time. The German pronunciation of Kaiser is actually close to the Latin pronunciation. The ‘c’ is not an ‘s’ sound but more of a ‘ke’.

Wilhelm, I at the time of his ascension had a son that would in time wed the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria. Victoria, Princess Royal, married Frederick; who would later be known as Kaiser Frederick III. The son they have will become Kaiser Wilhelm II. Wilhelm was born with a deformed arm as a result of complications at birth. As a result, the arm was withered and smaller than the other. He, not wanting to look weak, took up every manly thing there was to do at the time.

A complex?

Wilhelm had this complex about himself, and really about the German people. He was proud to be a German and did not identify with his mother’s perception that everything British is best. She made him speak English to her and not his native German, and she also looked at Germany as a sort of step down. After all, her mother was the Empress of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and other places... So he hated all things British; and spent most of his life trying to be better in everything they did. But even though he hated all things British, he adored his grandmother Queen Victoria - a feeling that was not mutually shared by her. 

Knowing this about Wilhelm I will help to understand why Germany did the things it did as a whole. His commanders and leaders had the same feeling of pride about themselves and wanted the world to know it. He wanted to be up there with his cousins; King George V of Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. He would never be like them though in temperament or in ruling. Wilhelm got his chance when he ascends to the throne after his father Frederick III dies before anyone had a chance to get used to him being Emperor. He’s basically the blip on the story that is WWI. So Wilhelm gets the crown in 1888 and begins making his mark on the country.

Franco-German relations

He starts to build up his military and begins to take on colonies. Wilhelm is all about getting to this table; his cousins are already there. He’s the new kid on the block and he wants them to know that he can roll with the big boys too. But that’s not all the reason he’s building. Germany’s arch-rival is France. They’ve had quite the skirmishes in the past. The last being the Franco-Prussian War; where at its conclusion Imperial Germany was born. They won this war against France and took land in that victory. So the more powerful he looked the better to keep France from thinking about revenge. 

But all the building and changes he did was really making people uneasy. To its east, in Russia, there was a concern that if they got too confident Germany could try and gain more territory. To the west, in France, they were immensely concerned that the rapid armament of Germany was increasing the chances of a conflict. Even though France lost the war, they still wanted that land back. They wanted payback, but not if they couldn’t do it alone. They needed some help.

The Triple Entente

One of the many reasons the war occurred was due to the number of treaties, alliances, and pacts made between countries over the 30-40 years prior to 1914. These agreements crossed over each other; some secret, some out in the open, and some that weren’t even official. When it came to France, they knew that if Germany became too powerful, it could be a threat to everyone in Europe. So in 1904, they proposed a formal agreement with Great Britain. For those not familiar, this was significant as the fight between Britain and France is legendary for the sheer span of time that they fought off and on. Both countries agreed to come to each other’s aid; with Britain not being exclusively required to do so. That would be determined by the circumstances. Either way, France now had an ally. This agreement became known as the Entente Cordiale. 

Russia, feeling the same as France and not wanting to fight without an ally, also formed an alliance. The Franco-Russian Alliance enabled each to come to the aid of the other when or if Germany ever threatened their parts of mainland Europe. Great Britain also teamed up with Russia and formed an alliance at the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907. Now we have three countries that all have some kind of an alliance with each other. They combined into one alliance becoming the Triple Entente. 

One treaty that is not part of the Triple Entente is the Treaty of London of 1839. This treaty applied only to Great Britain. The treaty was in regards to the newly minted country of Belgium. One of its main terms were that being a new independent state, Belgium had to remain neutral in any subsequent conflicts. This will become an important treaty to remember as we get closer to Germany’s overall blame.

The Triple Alliance

Now, just because there were alliances on one side didn’t mean that Germany was alone. Because of the Franco-Russian Alliance, they were now facing a potential threat both east and west. In adding Great Britain with the Triple Entente, the threat was even more stressful. Britain and Germany had been in a small but potentially heated arms race between 1898 and 1912. Both countries essentially tried to psych the other out. The idea was for Germany to build a fleet of ships that could defeat Britain, assuming that any relief from a British Colony would take time to arrive. (This thought process is an example of Germany thinking too well of itself and having the confidence that they could actually do this. Having self-confidence isn’t a bad thing, but it is problematic when that self-confidence isn’t based in reality). Germany would continue to make that assumption of their power, and this will eventually lead to their downfall. 

In 1882, an agreement was struck between Austria-Hungary and Germany. It will come to be known as the Triple Alliance. Like the Triple Entente, there were three countries in the agreement to support each other. The third country was Italy. (This is surprising to some since we know what happens during World War I, but the events of the beginning of the war will cause Italy to reconsider some priorities.) Eventually, another country would be added to the alliance bringing the total to four, yet still kept the name triple. The alliance had discussed the opportunity of Italy gaining colonies just like the other powers of Europe. The Triple Alliance was a renewable agreement, and it would be renewed up until the breakout of war in 1914. But unbeknownst to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy had also signed a secret treaty with France in 1902. Italy did this because they still did not have any new territories that were promised to them from Germany. So the treaty with France is similar in nature to the original one with Germany.

Up until now we’ve explored Germany’s rise to an empire, covered their ruler, and discussed the enemies surrounding them. Their allies, though they may look great on paper, are in reality no more than out-dated old men.  In part two, we’ll start with the Hapsburg family in Austria-Hungary. 

What events in the decades prior to World War One were most important to Germany getting the blame at the end of the war? Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Wikipedia

The Year Thanksgiving Changed to a New Date: Franksgiving

Thanksgiving now occurs in America on the fourth Thursday of November – but it has not always been the case. Here, Mac Guffey looks at how President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving in 1939 – and the issues it caused.

You can read Mac’s first article on the site, A Brief History of Impeachment in the US, here.

Troops enjoying Thanksgiving after the end of World War I, November 1918.

November 1939: ‘The Great Turkey Issue’

In the summer of 1939, an executive order was whimsically issued by the President of the United States, while vacationing at his resort. It came at the request of one of his Cabinet members, and it was executed without any due diligence other than a request by the head of a national business association for the change. His irresponsible action caused an unprecedented uproar across the country for three years.

Sound familiar?

That ‘Executive Order’ happened eighty years ago; the President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the issue that caused the uproar was the date of Thanksgiving.  

Traditions

Since 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the executive order (then known as proclamations) officially proclaiming the first Thanksgiving and stipulating the last Thursday in November as the date of its observance, it became a yearly tradition followed by every President of the United States to do the same (except President U.S. Grant in 1869, but that’s another story). [1]

Periodically however, Novembers have five Thursdays. In Lincoln’s time, no one cared. But by 1939, another holiday tradition had become a part of America’s yearly holiday traditions – the Christmas shopping season. And it officially kicked off the day after Thanksgiving.

As the Daily Republican (Monongahela, PA) explained:

“It is a tradition among business men that advertising and display of Christmas goods is withheld until after Thanksgiving, and since that holiday would have fallen this year on the latest possible date, there would have been only 20 Christmas shopping days.” [2]

Big Business

Since the American economy was finally picking up its pace after being dormant for so many years due to the Great Depression, and because a minor recession in 1937-38 scared many business owners, some retailers were naturally concerned that losing six days of the Christmas shopping season might have a detrimental effect on their businesses. 

Therefore, Lew Hahn the general manager of a retail groups and more than 5,000 storeowners - the National Retail Dry Goods Association– wrote a letter to Harry Hopkins, Secretary of Commerce for FDR, with a request: An earlier Thanksgiving would be “good for business”. [3]

Time Magazinewryly noted FDR’s August response to the delegation’s request in its August 21stissue:

“At his Campobello cottage, Franklin Roosevelt broke his umptieth precedent, and gave a headache to football fans and turkey-growers by moving Thanksgiving Day up this year from November 30 to November 23.” [4]

Roosevelt explained that his decision was at the requests of thousands of businessmen and merchants, and since there was nothing sacred about the customary date – and no Federal law governing it – he moved it up a week. He also announced that all future Thanksgivings, beginning in 1940, would be on the second Thursday of November. [2]

Here’s a key fact worth noting at this point: Since there was no Federal law regarding the date of Thanksgiving, any President’s Thanksgiving proclamation truly affected only the District of Columbia and any territories belonging to the United States. It was actually up to the governors of each state to decide when to celebrate that day in their state. Since 1863, the governors traditionally just echoed the President’s proclamation.

Until 1939.

America’s Split Reaction

FDR’s lack of economic “due diligence”, his political oversight, and his insensitivity to the American public’s reverence for its traditions all combined to make this issue a political bludgeon and a public relations nightmare for his administration!  

The political backlash was immediate. 

“Mayor C.D. White of Atlantic City, N.J. dubbed it ‘Franksgiving’…” The term went national (and historical, and it was seemingly misattributed). [5*]

Alf Landon - FDR’s 1936 G.O.P. presidential opponent - pointed out:

“If the change has any merit at all, more time should have been taken in working it out so as to assure wholehearted co-operation instead of springing it upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.” [6]

Other Republican politicos insisted that such important changes should be resolved through a deliberate, bipartisan legislative process, and not by arbitrary, executive decisions. Many Democrats agreed. 

The governors of each state were forced to decide whether to follow Roosevelt’s proclamation or stick with the traditional fourth Thursday in November. The results were twenty-three states and D.C. followed FDR’s proclamation date of November 23rd, and twenty-three other states disagreed and kept the traditional date. Two states – Texas and Colorado - decided to honor BOTH days. [7]

The American public flooded the White House with letters and telegrams. One Brooklyn businessman immediately wrote to FDR regarding the President’s sweeping but unsubstantiated allegation that more shopping days benefitted merchants.

“The small storekeeper would prefer leaving Thanksgiving Day where it belongs. If the large department stores are overcrowded during the shorter shopping period before Christmas, the overflow will come, naturally, to the neighborhood store…We have waited many years for a late Thanksgiving to give us an advantage over the large stores, and we are sadly disappointed at your action in this ma tter[sic]…Kindly reconsider and oblige thousands of small retail storekeepers throughout this country.” [8]

Newspaper articles pointed out some of the glaring consequences of FDR’s hasty decision. One consequence was the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 costs to the calendar business. In 1939, the ONLY calendars America had were printed ones, and they were used by every business, school, government office, and many individuals.

“It will be terrible” [Fredrick E. Baker, president of H.G. Brace Calendar Co.] said. “Better than 70 per cent of 1940 calendars have already been sold and about 50 per cent or $50,000,000 worth are already in production throughout the country. Most calendar makers begin production in January on the following year’s calendar.” [2]

Other articles detailed how America’s schools, both public and private, as well as both K-12 and universities were totally disrupted.  Like the calendar businesses, schools schedule everything in advance – school functions, vacations, and annual sports events. FDR's new date for Thanksgiving forced school boards, teaching staffs, athletic departments, and athletic conferences into emergency meetings to reconsider set schedules and decide whether and how to reschedule everything just prior to the start of the new school year.  Boston College decided to ignore it.

“Franksgiving was held yesterday but don’t let that worry you, our turkey stuffing day comes on the 30thwhen we get time from classes to stuff ourselves.” [9]

Besides all of that, many Americans were just plain angry that Roosevelt tried to alter such a long-standing tradition to help businesses make more money. A very sarcastic editorial, “Thanksgiving – A La FDR”, appeared in a small town weekly in upstate New York - ironically published ‘on Thursday of each week’.

“But why should the President stop with this slight change in the traditions of a nation? Why not extend his pet whimsies? We would suggest the following…Advance the observance of Thanksgiving Day to January first of each year, which, in accordance with presidential opinion, would give the public fifty-one solid weeks of Christmas shopping.” [10]

The uproar even found its way onto the Hollywood Big Screens with the 1940 Three Stooges short film No Census, No Feeling, and Irving Berlin’s 1942 filmHoliday Inn(Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Marjorie Reynolds).  [11]

George Gallup Takes a Poll

Because the 1940 Presidential primaries and election were just around the corner and FDR was planning an unprecedented third term run, was every American against the change or was this just a party issue? George Gallup decided to take a poll and find out. 

According to Dr. Gallup, Republicans disapproved of the plan by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Even the Democrats weren’t happy, with 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. “Dictatorship,” “whimsy” and “just upsetting everything he can” were among the most frequent negative responses given to the poll-administrators. [6]

Gallup’s summary:

“What John Smith, U.S.A., thinks about President Roosevelt's plan to change Thanksgiving Day pretty much depends on what John Smith thinks of President Roosevelt…Though President Roosevelt acted in response to the wishes of retail organizations who want the period of Christmas shopping extended, the survey shows that a majority of Americans - and particularly Republicans - are in favor of letting the nation's turkeys live a week longer.”[6]

Gallup also added this final - and rather sage - comment:

“No issue to make cabinets totter, the turkey day issue is, nevertheless, a prime example of the way Americans sometimes see questions through party-colored spectacles [glasses].” [6]

Leftovers

Three weeks after FDR’s Thanksgiving proclamation – at dawn on September 1,1939 – German troops stormed across the Polish frontier. WWII had begun, capturing much of the world’s attention. 

Despite the war and our struggle to remain neutral, the ‘Franksgiving’ or Thanksgivinginconvenience continued to be a distraction in America for two more years. By 1941, the business data indicated that FDR’s date-change had no significant effect on Christmas retail revenue. In fact, it actually affected revenue negatively in some places. So bowing to public opinion in the fall of 1941, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to its traditional date.

But Congress decided to formally mandate that Thanksgiving be observed on the fourth Thursday in November to prevent any future problems. President Roosevelt signed the legislation on December 26thwithout fanfare. [13]

‘The Great Turkey issue’ was finally over.

The ViewNow

Although that was eighty years ago this month, the causes of 1939’s ‘Franksgiving’ fiasco are still around. Those very same forces that created that upheaval – insensitivity to the public, executive orders without bi-partisan cooperation and executive due diligence, the strong political and economic force of big business and retail sales, and special access to the Oval Office - are all the same forces causing our current political, economic, and social uproar. And, unfortunately, our ‘party-colored spectacles’ are still warping the view of our political system, and its proper limitations.

Two Turkey Days anyone?

This is the first of a new monthly feature. We will select one story that occurred during that month from history and take a fresh look at the story through modern eyes.

You can let us know what you thought of this article below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.) v.6: pp.497-498. Also, Ulysses S. Grant, Proclamation 186—Thanksgiving Day, 1869 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.Retrieved October 20, 2019 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204624https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-186-thanksgiving-day-1869

[2] “Roosevelt Advances Thanksgiving Day a Week; Business Pleased, But Grid Managers Aren’t”. The Daily Republican – Tuesday, August 15, 1939. Monongahela, PA.

[3] “Rebellion Grows Against Change in Thanksgiving Date by F.D.R.” Plattsburgh Daily Press – Wednesday, August 16, 1939. p.1.

[4] Time Magazine.(August 21, 1939: Vol. XXXIVNo. 8.). “The Presidency: Off the Floor” p.7.

[5] “Nation, Divided On The Date Of Thanksgiving, Thankful For Peace”. Plattsburgh [NY] Daily Press, Friday, November 24, 1939. p.1. [*] “Franksgiving’ is often misattributed to Thomas D. Taggart, Jr. The term appears in many newspapers during the fall of 1939. Taggart was a NJ state assemblyman AND a Democrat at the time. The Mayor of Atlantic City in 1939 was Charles D. White, a Republican. The term ‘Franksgiving’ was White’s portmanteau.

[6] Gallup, Dr. George. “News Release: August 25, 1939 - Public Sees Thanksgiving Issue Through Party Classes”. Gallup VaultRetrieved October 23, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/vault/222494/gallup-vault-thanksgiving-sparked-partisan-storm-1939.aspx

[7] Waxman, Olivia. “The Real Reason Why Thanksgiving is Always on a Thursday”. Time.com – November 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2019 from https://time.com/5455162/thanksgiving-on-thursday/

[8] “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Thanksgiving Proclamation.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.fdrlibrary.org/document-november

[9] Cullen, Art. “Tabloid”. The Boston College Heights – Volume XIX, Number 37, 24 November 1939. p.2. 

[10] Tefft, W.R. editor. “Thanksgiving  - A LA FDR”. Ticonderoga Sentinel - Thursday, August 24, 1939. p.2.

[11] Retrieved October 25, 2019 from The Three Stooges Website @ https://www.threestooges.com/1940/10/04/no-census-no-feeling/. Also, my parents told me the story behind Berlin’s Holiday Inngraphic the first time we watched Holiday Innon television back in the 1950s. Their personal stories were hilarious – (btw, they chose Thanks notFrank’s). The topic has intrigued me ever since. 

[12] “Abandons Early Thanksgiving: Roosevelt to Return to Old Date in November 1942”Hope[AK]Star – Tuesday, May 20, 1941. p. 1. Also,Jackson, Debbie and Pittman, Hilary. “Throwback Tulsa: Roosevelt created a ‘Franksgiving’ monster.”Tulsa World – November 16, 2017.Retrieved October 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-roosevelt-created-a-franksgiving-monster/article_9e6c3704-d31c-5c48-b79b-1a14a1a7f683.html

World War Two: The Context to Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach

Operation Overlord and the D-Day landings were a huge Allied undertaking in June 1944 during World War Two that opened up the Western European Theater of Operations. Here, Robert Tremblay considers the historical context behind the operation and key considerations for the battle itself.

Robert’s previous article on Operation Overlord and the Differing Allied and Nazi Leaderships is here.

‘Into the Jaws of Death’ - U.S. Troops wading through water and Nazi gunfire on Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944, available here.

Introduction

General (GEN) Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the best description in “At Ease”: “Overlord was at once a singular military expedition and fearsome risk”.[1]The concept of operations for the occupation of Omaha Beach was the decisive reason for the victory of Operation Overlord in Normandy.  Operation Overlord enabled the Allies’ momentum through Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 to the occupation of Berlin.  Operation Overlord was a result of the German aggressive expansionism during WWII. Then, German aggressive expansionism within WWII was the result of factors during the interwar years.  

During the interwar years, America and European countries had the inability to respond to Germany’s aggression; therefore, enabling WWII.  Further analysis shows that these countries did not respond appropriately to Germany’s mature military industrial base and its doctrine through the interwar period and the onset of WWII.  This lack of response facilitated the German aggression. Germany then used this power to be aggressive towards other European military powers. These same European military powers enabled this German aggression by not responding effectively to the earlier warning signs.  Additionally, the United States did not respond effectively either.  

Germany’s mature military industry enabled the aggressive expansionism through its occupation of Austria and Eastern Europe that led to its objective of an increased ideological legitimacy within the European region.  Germany’s military industry had the ability to produce war materials in an effective and efficient matter.  Murray & Millett stated that from a strategic perceptive, while Germany lost the War (World War I), its industrial base stayed undamaged.[2]  In the mid-1930s, Germany was dedicating a large amount of its finances to its industrial base.  Winston Churchill stated in his memoirs, that in 1936, he reported to Parliament that Germany was contributing large amount of its finances for military armaments and materials.[3]  Inability to respond to Germany’s mature military industrial base facilitated aggression from Hitler.

Thirdly, the German military inaugurated a creative combined arms military effort calledBlitzkrieg.  The Germans were able to adapt and improve their Blitzkrieg doctrine through their evolution from WWI and most recently the Polish WWII campaign. German Blitzkrieg took doctrinal lessons from World War I to the Poland invasion.[4]  There was limited response to the Blitzkrieg method from Germany’s adversarial countries. Therefore, this led to Hitler’s strategic gain and confidence, leading to the invasion and occupation of France and Western USSR.

In conclusion, Germany was able to succeed militarily in the beginning of World War II, 1939-1943, based on its mature military industrial base and doctrine during the interwar years.  This German aggressive expansionism led to the Allies needing to conduct a cross-channel invasion (Operation Overlord) in order to liberate Europe and to create an envelopment around Germany. The Battle of Omaha Beach was the main effort for Operation Overlord based on its mission.  There is no way that the Americans could have conducted Operation Overlord without the ability to secure Omaha beach.  There would be a gap between the Gold (British) and Utah (American) beach of 7,000 yards.[5]    

Situation

German Military

The German military had inadequate forces in the Normandy region to defend the Allied operation in Normandy.  Before D-Day, there were sixty divisions throughout Western Europe (France, Belgium, and Holland); however, in the immediate area of Normandy, there were only nine infantry divisions and one panzer division.[6]  The German response to the V Corps invasion was not responsive based on its intense centralized command control.  The lack of responsiveness provided ideal conditions for the German forces being chaotic and inundated during the invasion.

German naval forces were projected to harass the cross-channel invasion. Therefore, the Allied Navy placed sea mines to act as a barrier to which it would secure the approach.[7]  There was limited German air power due to the Allies already having air superiority.

Therefore, the Germans concentrated on defense.  Field Marshal Rommel recognized that the Allies were going to invade Normandy; but, he did not have an accurate time and date.  Consequently, Rommel concentrated German resources to ensure its defense. Mines were established on the Omaha battlefield.  Then, the Germans placed huge iron obstacles at the Omaha beachhead.  Next, there were huge and thick concreated fortifications on the cliffs at the end of beachhead.  In fact, Rommel stated that the defensive works would lead to fortifications and mines going five to six miles inland.[8]  The result was the Allies faced strongly protected and cleverly concealed gun replacements and pill boxes.[9]  Additionally, there were height advantages to the cliffs.  

Concept of Operations for Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach 

Shaping Operations

The shaping operations consisted of Allied naval and aerial bombardment with the intent to destroy the defensive positions and works and to eliminate German forces. Their contributions were the disruption of the fortifications of the defense works.[10]The effect was to give the Germans the inability to have effective defense for their firepower.  Additionally, the bombardments impacted the defense postures beyond the beachhead by destroying mine fields and other defensive fortifications.[11]  During June 5, Allied air forces conducted over 2,200 missions and dropped over 7,600 tons of explosives.[12]  During June 6, the strategic level air forces conducted 5,309 missions to drop 10,396 tons of explosives while the tactical air force conducted another 5,276.[13]  The Naval gunfire and bombardment proved to be effective at destroying the obstacles and other defensive works.[14]

Missions

SHAFE Mission for Operation Overlord

GEN Eisenhower and Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces-Europe (SHAFE)’s mission for Operation Overlord was a multi-divisional invasion front on the territory between Ouistreham and Varreville with an urgent purpose to force project follow-on forces.[15]/[16]  SHAFE knew that the Allies had two areas of operations.  These areas of operations served two purposes for GEN Eisenhower’s strategy for the liberation of Europe.  First, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean served as a secure supply chain for sustainment for their respective fronts while simultaneously exhausting the German’s supply chain at the same time.  Then, Eastern Europe and the Southern Europe area of operations served as a flank that was designed to envelope Nazi Germany for final occupation. Therefore, SHAFE needs to open up another supply chain and force projection from a different European area of operations and flank.  This context led to GEN Eisenhower’s mission for the invasion.  Then, the occupation of Omaha Beach became the vital effort for Operation Overlord’s mission.

V Corps Mission for the Occupation of Omaha Beach

MG Gerow and the V Corp’s mission was to attack, occupy, and secure a 7,000 yard wide Omaha Beach on the northern coast of Calvados near St-Laurent.[17]  As stated before, the secure occupation of Omaha Beach was the main effort for the execution of Operation Overlord.  The other Allied beaches and the American Utah beach provided an advantageous gap (Omaha Beach) for the German defense.  The gap would create a divide in the Allied Forces that were invading Normandy Beach. The separation of Allied Forces would cause disorganized command and control with the divergence of command.  This disorganization and divergence would create conditions for a tactical success for the Germans.  Furthermore, SHAFE considered occupation of Omaha Beach as the main effort based on its impact to the overall Overlord mission and operation. V Corps would invade Omaha Beach with approximately 34,000 men and 3,306 vehicles with follow-on forces consisting of 25,117 men and 4,429 vehicles.[18]  In order to accomplish its objectives, V Corp relied and empowered 1st ID and 29th ID to perform its objectives.

Conclusion

Operation Overlord was a follow-on projection of the Allies’ force in order to finish the theater-wide envelopment of Germany for the European Theater of Operations. The Allies Operation Overlord assault was a tactical surprise to the Germans.[19]  On June 7, 1944, the Allies were 5 to 6 miles inland and on 10 June, the Allies had a sixty by twelve miles lodgment area.[20]

Allies

Operation Overlord’s successes enabled the Allies to have a port of entry through the opening of the western European Theater of Operations.  It took approximately six weeks to establish an intermediate staging base with a line of communication.[21]  This line of communication was critical to the Western European Theater of Operations for the follow-on forces.  It provided the resources needed to sustain the Allies advance to liberate Paris and the rest of France.  Then, this supply chain gave the logistical ability for the Allies to win the Battle of the Bulge and to reach their culminating point in Germany for the Battle of Berlin.  Additionally, it created opportunities of advancement for the Soviets in the Eastern European area of operations and the Allies on the Southern area of operations. 

Finally, psychologically, it created conditions for the Allies to project their forces with speed, surprise and mass through France, Luxemburg, Belgium, and eventually Germany.  Furthermore, it gave the Allies the confidence that a coalition of nations can maneuver, with combined arms, under one commander. This would have a strong impact during the final stages of the war that led to the surrender of Nazi Germany in the Battle of Berlin. Finally, it is stated that Operation Overlord was a domineering accomplishment of the Allies military judgement, technology, industry and ingenuity advanced through the war.[22]   

Germans

The occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord had a huge and adverse impact on the German industrial base.  Operation Overlord provided the final overwhelming impact to Germans lines of communication and industry.  These lines of communication and industry did not have the endurance to support the three areas of operation.  Finally, psychologically speaking, the Germans took a great blow.  In Germany, the population’s morale and confidence went down.  For example, shortly after the success at the occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord, there was a plot to assassinate Hitler.  All of these factors have a strong ripple impact on the Axis during the final stages of the war that would eventually lead to the surrender of Germany.

What do you think of the Battle of Omaha Beach? Let us know below.

[1]Dwight D. Eisenhower. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company INC, 1967), 273..

[2]         Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War.  (Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000), 16-22.  

[3]Winston Churchill.  The Second World War (Condensed Version).  (London, England: Penguin Books, 1989), 94-97.

[4]Murray and Millett, Second World War, 16-22

[5]         Dwight D. Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946, 6.

[6] Ibid, 17.

[7]  Ibid. 

[8] Erwin Rommel. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart (New York: DaCapo Press, 1988), 455.

[9]             Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944), 4-1.

[10]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 57. 

[11]Ibid, 21, 57.

[12]Ibid, 19

[13]Ibid, 20.

[14]Ibid, 20.

[15]Ibid

[16]John J. Marr. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 (2011): 64.

[17]Ibid. 

[18]Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1945, 9.

[19]Viscount Montgomery. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery(South Yorkshire, England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005), 257-260.

[20]Ibid

[21]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 42.  

[22]Adrian R. Lewis. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss. (University of Chicago, 1995), 442.

Bibliography

1.    Churchill, Winston.  The Second World War (Condensed Version). London, England:   

          Penguin Books, 1989.

2.    Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, NY: Doubleday   

            and Company INC, 1967.  

3.    --. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations 

    in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington  

         D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946. 

4.     Lewis, Adrian R. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss., University of 

     Chicago, 1995.

5.     Marr, John J. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 

          (2011): 62-68.

6.     Montgomery, Viscount. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery.  South Yorkshire, 

         England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005.

7.     Murray, Williamson and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World 

         War. Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University   

          Press, 2000.

8.      Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, 

      first published in 1945, 9.

9.      Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, 

        United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944).

10.   Rommel, Erwin. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart. New York: DaCapo Press, 

         1988.

A Brief History of Impeachment in America: ‘The perpetuation of our political institutions’

Impeachment has been a topical subject in recent months in America. Here, Mac Guffey considers the history of impeachment in American, including how it was designed by America’s Founding Fathers.

The impeachment trial of the 17th President of the USA, Andrew Johnson, in 1868.

Historian David Dewitt wrote this rather vivid description of America’s impeachment process:

The ponderous two-handed engine of impeachment, designed to be kept in cryptic darkness until some crisis of the nation's life cried out for interposition, was being dragged into open day to crush a formidable political antagonist a few months before the appointed time when the people might get rid of him altogether. [1]

It was a passage from his 1903 publication regarding the impeachment trial of President Andrew Johnson - Abraham Lincoln's successor.

But it's true - "impeachment" is one of those terms in the lexicon of American government and politics that, until some crisis of the nation's life, as Dewitt so dramatically put it, remains in the political closet. 

But the nature of this process, once this ‘engine’ is dragged forth, makes it essential for a free people to understand the process, and most importantly, the potential effect being unleashed. 

It is, and always should be, the people’s weapon of last resort.

Definition

First, the word impeach has two distinct meanings. One sub-definition means “to challenge the integrity of or the validity of”. The other sub-definition refers to a practice that originated in England - “to charge before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office”. [2] 

Alexander Hamilton even defined impeachment as “a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men.” [3]

To be clear, impeachment is not the end result of a Constitutional process as we often erroneously use it. It’s merely the beginning – to challenge the integrity of a public official’s behavior. The rest remains to be determined.

However, this process has a gravely inherent flaw the Founders did NOT expect - politics.

Who and how to impeach - the Constitutional guidelines 

This process of removing an elected or appointed official from office is structured by the Constitution exactly like the trials we see in all the courtroom dramas on T.V.  It begins with a formal investigation to determine if there is enough evidence of wrongdoing to elicit a charge, formal charges, and a trial before a jury. If there is a conviction, the Constitution even provides the penalty guidelines for the judge. Each specific role in this drama is assigned to a particular branch of the government, with the exception of the defense counsel. (The defendant provides his/her own.) 

The Founding Fathers designed and defined this process as a severely restricted power for the Legislative branch to useif and when the actions of an official in the Executive or Judicial branches appear to meet the Founders’ narrow definition. 

Here’s how they structured it.

Who is eligible for this process and on what grounds? (Article 2, Section 4)

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

After the Richard Nixon - Watergate fiasco (1972-1974), the staff of the Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives attempted to add a bit more clarity with this rather relative guideline as to the types of misconduct that may constitute grounds for impeachment.

1.    Improperly exceeding or abusing the powers of the office;

2.    Behavior incompatible with the function and purpose of the office; and

3.    Misusing the office for an improper purpose or for personal gain. [4]

It’s still vague, and it’s by no means complete, but it was a start.

Who serves as the Prosecutor and the Grand Jury? (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5)

The House of Representatives… shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Who acts as the Jury? (Article 1, Section 3, Clauses 6)

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments… And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

Who sits as the Judge? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6) Normally, the President of the Senate (Vice-President) or the President Pro-Tempore (Majority Party Leader) serves as the Judge EXCEPT:

When the President of the United States is tried the Chief Justice shall preside;

If there is a conviction, what are the penalty guidelines? (Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7)

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: 

The Founders did not want the government to go beyond this two-phase penalty. They felt that removal and banishment accomplished the role that a government of elected representatives should play in judging whether the actions or integrity of another elected official met the narrow limits of ‘treason, bribery, or high crimes and misdemeanors’. 

However, they felt that judging ‘criminal intent’ belonged to the people’s court, so they added this caveat to the end of Clause 7: “but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, Trial, Judgement and Punishment, according to Law.”

There’s always a ‘but’

Thomas Jefferson once said that "... In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the constitution...". [4] However, David Dewitt and Alexander Hamilton were more pragmatic than Jefferson.

Writing about the subject of ‘impeachment’ one hundred and fifteen years apart, both men mentioned the politics of it all. Because this process is set in motion by perceived violation(s) of the public trust due to the misconduct of public officials, the prosecution of these officials, as Hamilton put it, 

…will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other. [3]

But, the greatest danger from this power to impeach, Hamilton noted, is not the potential for chaos and disruption. It’s the danger of this process – which is governed by the comparative political strength of the parties in Congress – being misused as a threat to bully or render the Executive and/or Judicial branches subordinate, rather than coveted as the only Constitutional means to determine official misconduct and remove the offender.

The true Guardians of our power to impeach

Abraham Lincoln once identified the greatest danger to our Republic as a country that elects its own leaders and the greatest bulwark against that danger. 

Invited to give a talk one cold January evening in 1836, Lincoln chose as his topic, The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions. Near the end of his talk, he posed a rhetorical question: “Is it unreasonable then to expect that some man possessed of…ambition sufficient to push it to its utmost stretch, will at some time, spring up among us?” His answer to the question also contained the solution to this potential threat.

And when such a one does, it will require the people to be united with each other, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs.          

We, the People – are both the threat and the answer to the perpetuation of our political institutions. Respect for one another and for our Constitution and laws require a thorough understanding of our impeachment process, and a demand for its judicious use.

We are its true Guardians.

What do you think about the impeachment process? Let us know below.

References

[1] Dewitt, David (1903) "The Impeachment Trial of Andrew Johnson" New York City, NY: Macmillan Company, p. 405.

[2] Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary @ https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeach

[3] Hamilton, Alexander (1788). The Federalist Papers: No. 65from The Avalon Project, The Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale Law School @ https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed65.asp

[4] Boyd, Julian P., Charles T. Cullen, John Catanzariti, Barbara B. Oberg, et al, eds. (1950-) The Papers of Thomas Jefferson- 33 vols. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. v.30:pp.529-556.

[4] Staff of the Impeachment Inquiry (1974). Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment, 93rd Conf. 2nd Sess. (Feb. 1974).

[5] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press. v.1: pp.109-116.

What is a Museum?

Museums come in all sorts of shapes and sizes – but what is a museum? Here, Shannon Bent returns and considers the ‘new’ definition of a museum from the body responsible for defining it - and one glaring omission from their definition.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here), as well as the UK’s Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker (here).

The British Museum, London, under construction in the 1820s.

Museums tend to want to do the same things, generally. They do it in different ways, and provide their information in many different manners, but basically most museums are there for the same reasons. If you asked most people, they would probably say that museums are there to educate, give information, and perhaps even preserve historic objects. This is probably a generally agreed remit, and most people would nod along if you were to say it to them. However, when you break it down there are so many elements to museums. Just from my brief time within museums volunteering and working, I’ve learnt that it simply isn’t just about exhibiting objects and writing interpretation panels on them. There’s the learning department, the archives, the preservation of objects, marketing, retail, catering and many more departments that I couldn’t name off the top of my head. Therefore, any definition of a museum must encompass all of these elements to ensure that each department is clear on what is expected of them. 

Of course, there has to be a designated group of people to sort this out and argue about it. It’s like having a board of directors except this is for all museums rather than just one. For this heritage industry, ICOM is this group of people. The International Council of Museums is in charge of overseeing everything to do with museums, holding conferences and workshops all around the world. As a museum you are automatically affiliated with this group, but individuals can join and become members too, for a fee of course. And you have to prove that you are involved in museums in some manner. So really not anyone can join. Anyway, pulling museums together into a common definition is one of their many tasks, and they have recently proposed a new working definition for what museums should be. And it has caused a bit of an argument.

The definition of a museum

There is always going to be someone that isn’t happy with what is said or produced. That’s just the nature of involving so many people, organizations and institutes into one definition. And some of the arguments against this are silly in my opinion. However, I can see where others are coming from. Here’s ICOM’s current proposition:

“Museums are democratising, inclusive and polyphonic spaces for critical dialogue about the pasts and the futures. Acknowledging and addressing the conflicts and challenges of the present, they hold artefacts and specimens in trust for society, safeguard diverse memories for future generations and guarantee equal rights and equal access to heritage for all people. 

“Museums are not for profit. They are participatory and transparent, and work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, interpret, exhibit, and enhance understandings of the world, aiming to contribute to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing.” 

Firstly, lets talk about why I like it. Well, from the top, it’s diverse. It directly says it should be ‘democratising, inclusive and polyphonic’, a fancy word for saying including many voices and perspectives. It has many other mentions of diversity too, including ‘safeguard diverse memories’, ‘guarantee equal rights’, and ‘equal access to heritage for all people’. I’m up for anything that actually comments on people from every and all backgrounds actually having access to any heritage they wish to observe and learn about. 

The comment ‘work in active partnership with and for diverse communities to collect, preserve, research, and interpret, exhibit and enhance understanding’ is perhaps the moment of gold here. It hits all those points that people traditionally associate with museums that I mentioned at the top of the article, including preservation, exhibiting and researching. ‘Contributing to human dignity and social justice, global equality and planetary wellbeing’ may be very dramatic but it certainly makes the point. It’s nice to see there are other people that believe museums are important to planetary wellbeing… even if it is very theatrical. Perhaps if this perspective is more widely held, all the funding that is being pulled from the heritage sector may slow down and perhaps we can keep these museums and heritage sites afloat. But that’s another argument for another time. 

What’s missing?

So far, it doesn’t seem like this missed anything, right? Seems to hit most important points, seems to be fairly inclusive and understanding. Mostly. But here’s the biggest issue. This working definition misses one very important word: education. Yes, that’s right. Not once does that definition talk about education, passing on knowledge and allowing people to learn from the collections of the museums. Whoops. Yes, ‘enhance understanding of the world’ I guess is a broad way of saying educate, but if there is one thing we know about these kind of definitions, it is all about the ‘buzz words’. If you don’t use the actual word ‘educate’, or ‘learning’ then any learning and education departments in museums are going to immediately struggle to justify their requests for funding because it can be argued that museums are not required to educate. This may seem a little far-fetched but in a sector that is rather tight on money as it is, and yes it all comes down to money, I could image any excuse being used to not grant funding. Anyone in this industry has probably seen this happen. Even I have been told within my roles ‘change the wording of that to this. We’re guaranteed more funding if you say it is for this rather than that’. Appalling, I know, but that’s the way the world works unfortunately.

This has been the biggest issue for most people within ICOM and other organizations. It is a vital word, and when I saw the article headline saying that people were arguing about it, I thought it would be over some silly and insignificant word that really didn’t matter. Upon reflection, this is actually rather important and I find myself completely behind the group of people saying the word ‘education’ or ‘learning’ is needed within this new definition. I have recently started a new job within a museum in which I am an ‘Education Facilitator’, essentially delivering education sessions to visiting school groups. When you break it down and look at the different departments of a museum, as I have mentioned before, the education side of a museum, be it visiting schools or the general public, is one of the most important parts. A lot of large museums’ profit comes from their education departments. They need to be able to justify their existence, and show how important and integral they are into the wider machine of their museum.

Conclusion

As yet there has been no suggestions made for changes. I’m sure they will come soon before it is voted on again. I found it very interesting; when I first saw that people were arguing about it, I rolled my eyes and thought ‘leave it alone, it can’t be that bad’. But upon reflection, and now coming from an education department of a museum myself, I can see why this would be a negative game changer for many museums across the globe. I hope this maybe opens peoples’ eyes to the various elements of museums and how just one word can impact this sector. I hope they can come to a new definition, encompassing all the things I love about it, the inclusivity and diversity, while being aware that every single person and department in a museum is a vital part of the overall apparatus that makes this sector as important as it is. We don’t need a definition that I don’t dispute. Let’s just make it the best we can.

How would you define a museum? Let us know below.

References

https://icom.museum/en/

https://icom.museum/en/news/icom-announces-the-alternative-museum-definition-that-will-be-subject-to-a-vote/

The Horrific Nazi Treatment of the LGBTI Community

The Nazis treated many groups they saw as different terribly – and the LGBTI community was no exception. Here, Kim Barrett starts by considering Dr Magnus Hirschfield, who founded the world’s first gay rights organization in the decades prior to the Nazis taking power in Germany, and then looks at how the Nazis treated the LGBTI community.

Students organized by the Nazi Party parade in front of the Institute for Sexual research in Berlin in 1933.

Beneath the paving stones in Bebelplatz in Berlin is an inaccessible, empty library with enough space on its shelves for 20,000 books. At this site at the start of May 1933, those symbolically missing books were burnt by the Nazis. Among them were books by Jewish people, socialist and communist writings, as well as works advocating for women and disabled rights.

The fire also consumed the entire library and archives of the Institute for Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft): the pinnacle of Magnus Hirschfeld’s life’s work.

 

Dr Magnus Hirschfeld

Dr Magnus Hirschfeld was a prominent gay Jewish man born in Poland in 1868. He founded the world’s first gay rights organization in 1897, the Scientific Humanitarian Committee (Wissenschaftlich-humanitäres Komitee). He moved to Berlin at the end of the 19th century and, in 1904, he wrote Berlin’s Third Sex (Berlin’s Drittes Geschlecht), a book about LGBTI people. He also co-wrote and appeared in the silent film Different From the Others(Anders als die Andern) released in June 1919. The film was the first to positively portray same-sex relationships but also addresses some of the problems gay men faced: the main character is blackmailed and arrested as a result of his sexuality.

Specific sex acts between men had been illegal since the unification of Germany in 1871, under a provision in the German Criminal Code known as Paragraph 175. Magnus Hirschfeld opposed and campaigned against this law. He believed that same-sex attraction was a natural variation. He considered it a mild form of “sexual intermediary” or “third sex”, which also included cross-dressing, intersex and transgender people. He thought up to 20% of people were “third sex”.

In Weimar-era Berlin, Paragraph 175 was only sporadically enforced and there were bars, clubs and balls where “third sex” people could socialize (mostly) safe from the law. However, the police often arrested people who cross-dressed, although cross-dressing itself was not specifically illegal. Magnus Hirschfeld lobbied the police to stop this practice and, in 1909, “transvestite passes” were created. The police could issue a pass to someone if a doctor believed they would be at risk of harm if they were not allowed to cross-dress.

The Institute for Sexual Research

In July 1919, Magnus Hirschfeld founded the Institute for Sexual Research (Institut für Sexualwissenschaft) in Berlin, which researched gender and sexuality. It also provided sexual health clinics and offered marriage and sex counseling. In its heyday, the Institute employed over 40 people, many of them “third sex” themselves.

Magnus Hirschfeld coined the term “transsexualism” to refer to people who would now be called transgender. He provided some primitive hormone therapies, which changed people’s bodies to align with their genders.

The Institute also performed some of the first gender reassignment surgeries. Karl Baer was a women’s rights activist, who was probably born intersex but assigned female at birth. In 1906, he medically transitioned with the help of Magnus Hirschfeld. The following year he received an updated birth certificate that designated him as a man, which allowed him to marry his girlfriend. Lili Elbe was a Danish painter, who Magnus Hirschfeld assisted in the removal of her testes in 1930. She died the following year from complications from a uterine transplant.

On January 30, 1933, Adolf Hitler was appointed Chancellor of Germany. In February 1933, three decrees were enacted forcing most of the LGBT-friendly bars and publications in Germany to close. In March 1933, the first Nazi concentration camp was opened.

Kurt Hiller, a gay socialist writer who worked closely with Magnus Hirschfeld, was arrested in Berlin in April 1933 and later sent to a concentration camp. The Institute for Sexual Research was attacked in May 1933 by a Nazi student group assisted by the SA. Its books, journals, images and museum of sexual artifacts were all destroyed in a ceremonial book burning attended by 40,000 people.

Magnus Hirschfeld was lecturing abroad at the time and never returned to Germany. Two years later he died of a heart attack. His peers continued researching the spectrum of sexuality and gender. The Institute for Sex Research in Indiana, USA was opened in 1947 by Alfred Kinsey, the creator of the Kinsey Scale used to describe sexual orientation.

Under Nazi rule

In 1935, Paragraph 175, the law criminalizing sex between men, was extended to include any action between men intended to “excite sexual desire”. Those convicted were sent to prison or to a concentration camp for up to five years. 

In the concentration camps, a system of symbols was used to identify groups of people. Men who were attracted to men (as well as people who would likely now identify as transwomen) wore a down-facing pink triangle. This symbol has since been reclaimed in its inverted form by gay men. Women who were attracted to women wore a black triangle used to denote asocial (asozial) people, a group that also included prostitutes, pacifists and mentally ill people.

As well as being forced to perform hard labor (known as “extermination through labor”), some LGBTI people were shot as target practice or given dangerous jobs working with explosives. They were also tortured and “experiments” were performed on them, including castration and implanting testosterone devices in their testes.

The Nazis believed that same-sex attraction could be spread to other people, so anyone wearing a pink triangle was kept separate from other prisoners. It was seen as preferable to execute people rather than house them with the gay men in case they also “turned gay”.

Unlike Jewish people or others targeted by the Nazis because of their race, same-sex attraction or cross-dressing was seen by some Nazis as something to be “cured”. Men arrested under Paragraph 175 could sometimes convince their guards to release them by being observed having sex with women prostitutes.

Towards the end of the war, concentration camp detainees wearing a pink triangle were given minimal military training and sent into battle as cannon fodder. An estimated 60% of prisoners wearing a pink triangle died before their release.

Paragraph 175

At the end of the war, some of the LGBTI people who were freed from the concentration camps were sent to prison to complete their sentences, and many were convicted again later under the same law.

In East Germany, the extended version of Paragraph 175 was removed in 1950 and sex between men was decriminalized in 1957. However, in West Germany, the Nazi-era version of Paragraph 175 remained on the books until 1969.

LGBTI people were not officially considered victims of the Nazis until May 2002 when Nazi-era convictions under Paragraph 175 were pardoned and compensation was offered. In June 2017, everyone ever convicted under Paragraph 175 had their convictions annulled.

Everyone who was sent to a concentration camp because of their sexuality is believed to have now died. The last known person was Rudolf Brazda, who died in 2011 aged 98.

Berlin has now reclaimed its title as one of the most LGBTI-friendly cities in Europe, boasting several gay districts. Its annual Pride march, commemorating the Stonewall Riots in New York, USA, is one of the largest in the world. It also houses a memorial to the gay and lesbian victims of the Nazis.

Kim Barrett is a freelance writer – more information is available here.

British Government Planning for Nuclear Attack in the Cold War

The leaked British government plans for a no-deal Brexit show a Britain in peril. In the past, as in the case of preparations for the event of a Soviet nuclear attack, the government has been well advised to keep secrets from the public lest they expose the true extent of the inadequacy of their plans.

Here, Jack Howarth looks at Brexit planning in the context of government planning for a nuclear attack in the Cold War.

There was frequent guidance in the Cold War related to what to do in the event of a nuclear attack, such as this US Government booklet.

The leaked Operation Yellowhammer document, outlining the British government’s planning for a no-deal Brexit, paints a grim picture of Britain’s future. It shows planners preparing for food shortages, economic disruption, and civil unrest; ‘wartime implications, in peacetime’, according to one MP.

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s government claims the consequences shown are merely a worst-case scenario, not a prediction. Still, one imagines the government would rather these plans have remained secret. 

After all, why scare the public with what only might happen?

Planning for a Soviet nuclear strike

This line of argument has a history. Decades ago, the British government was similarly engaged with planning for full-scale disaster: economic collapse, unprecedented health crises, and public disturbances threatening the rule of law. 

Then, the preparations being made behind closed doors were for how Britain might look after an expected nuclear strike by the Soviet Union. Strategic exercises, devised at the behest of the Callaghan and Thatcher governments, were role played to ensure a future for the British state in the event of a catastrophe. 

It was widely known that entertaining any hope for the survival of the public-at-large was futile. The advice given to the populationwas usually ill-considered, sometimes grimly amusingand, scoring points for some contemporary politicians, flew in the face of all guidance given by the experts.

The decimation of the population, though, was not seen as good reason to not ensure the continuity of government.

While it was assumed the Cabinet would either be preoccupied in scrabbling for a retaliation, or be entirely obliterated, declassified civil service records show plans being laid out for the proposed structure of the rest of the state infrastructure after an attack.

In order to avoid anarchy, disorder and delays, officials planned a new, regionally devolved government. County council chief executives would become substantially empowered. A Britain divided into twelve regional zones would emerge, each being ruled essentially as their new leader saw fit.

As the test runs played as war games by civil servants, military officials, and those who would ultimately take up power progressed, many bemoaned the lack of clarity of government figures. Confusion reigned, with the only agreement amongst the players tending to arise around the need for the future leaders to ‘virtually have life and death authority over the people of the county’. In this, at least, the government was obliging: an emergency powers bill was prepared ready to be pushed through Parliament at a moment’s notice.

None of those involved in the actual work of the exercises was under any delusion of bravado; none imagined they could actually face down the threat. Even those who were to be given the role of ruling their region knew they were planning for the impossible. 

Fortunately for the government of the day, the scenarios envisaged by these plans remained largely unknown to the public. Attempts to publish them led to criminal prosecution. Awareness of them might compromise Britain’s power abroad, or embarrass the nation in front of the enemy, it was said. 

Planning in perspective

Reading the correspondence involved now, one might agree that the government was sensible to not disclose its plans. Obvious wartime disadvantages aside, civil defense planners already faced staunch opposition from local government and resurgent protest movements. Had the public known the depth of inadequacy of the government’s plans, the support for the enshrined policy of mutually assured destruction may have ebbed to the extent of requiring reconsideration.

To protect government policy, the officials responsible for contingency planning decided that the ‘balance of advantage’ weighed against any public disclosure, lest they alarm the public. There was, they reasoned, always the possibility that their work may be unnecessary, that disaster may be averted. 

What do you think of Cold War nuclear planning? Let us know below.

Jack Howarth is a graduate of the University of Exeter and is currently a postgraduate student at Oxford Brookes University, having been awarded the de Rohan Scholarship to continue his research into contemporary history.