The Origins of Sesame Street

Sesame Street is an American cultural institution. It started in 1969 and is produced to this day. Here, Douglas Reid looks at the origins of the show.

Then First Lady Barbara Bush on Sesame Street in October 1989.

Do you recall these lines in a song from 1965? 

Counting flowers on the wall,

That don’t bother me at all.

Playing solitaire ‘til dawn,

With a deck of fifty one

Smokin’ cigarettes and

Watchin’ Captain Kangaroo

So don’t tell me I’ve nothing to do”

It is certainly the case that Captain Kangaroo held sway in 1965 but a little green frog was in the wings and he and his muppet gang were about to sweep the clouds away and with them Mr. Bob Keesham, a.k.a. Captain Kangaroo. The prime sweeper was Jim Henson. His early main assistant was Frank Oznowicz, forever after to be known as Frank O. Early additions included Joe Raposo and Caroll Edwin Spinney, who was a child-like man both on and off the set. It can be no surprise that he was Big Bird. Two other major muppets were Cookie Monster (my favorite) and Grover. And the key non-muppet in those early days was Lloyd Morrisette. The next item to be looked at was a name for the show and here is a tale to tell.

A cluster of eight people who made up the Friday afternoon meeting had only one name considered at the time but nobody but nobody liked it – Sesame Street. It was being used tentatively only. Every one hated it. One board member thought it had too many ‘esses.’ Another found it unimaginative. And so on. Then it was decided that until something was agreeable to all they would go with the interim name. No one did and that begs the question, where did the name come from in the first place? 

The name

Just one week earlier Virginia Schoen, a representative of the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW), asked the children to suggest names for the new show and they submitted seven names for her to consider. One of the choices was Sesame Street. And so it prevailed. Virginia never was able to identify the five-year old name-giver. The group had a name for the production. Now it needed a set.

Earlier In the year the CTW had decided that its home base would not be Los Angeles. The unanimous choice was New York. It was felt that the sorts of people needed for this enterprise were to be more easily found here. First a locum was needed.

The board, when first formed, had decided on a set that was a mirror image of contemporary Harlem. A suitable faux Brownstone was erected; complete with stoop and the address for the Brownstone would be 123 Sesame Street. By now it was time to call on good old Joe Reposo for Sesame’s new theme music.

Theme tune

Joe composed the theme music for Sesame Street. It is melodic and simple enough for a child to recognize and even to sing along to but still revealed a musical sophistication. It underscored the footage of joyful children running and the recurring chorus – “Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?” So do you ever wonder where the Children’s Television Workshop finds its stories, banter, plays, etc.? Here is a typical “Solve” achieved by the muppets themselves:

Muppets are sitting around a coffee table pretending they are suits (executives).

“Alright, all right. How about this for a title. ‘The two and two are five show.’”

Conference Leader Muppet, ‘Are you crazy? This is supposed to be an educational show. Two plus two don’t make five.’

First Muppet: they don’t? Then how about the two plus two ain’t five show? 

Second Muppet: This is a show for kids. Right? How’s about we call it the little Kiddie show?

All: Sounds all right! We like it!

Third Muppet: But we ought to say something about the show telling it like it is. Maybe the Nitty-Gritty, Little kiddie Show! 

All: Not bad! Yeah! We like that! 

Fourth Muppet: Yeah but “Little Kiddie” can mean any child up to the age of seven or eight. I think we should aim the show right at the preschooler. 

First Muppet: Well then, how about the Itty – Bitty, Nitty – Gritty, Little Kiddie Show? 

Fifth Muppet: But we shouldn’t aim at either just the city kids, or just the country kids, so we call it the Itty – Bitty, Farm and City, Witty – Ditty, Nitty –Gritty, Dog and Kitty, Pretty Little Kiddie Show. 

Judy Collins

By the mid-seventies the Muppets were in full stride. If there ever was a perfect guest on Sesame Street it was Judy Collins. On the day in 1975 that Judy Collins recorded “The Fisherman’s Song” for Sesame Street, a gaggle of Muppets formed an “old salt chorus, some bedecked in yellow oil-skin slickers. It was a scene right out of Gloucester harbor, with nets and lobster traps strewn about and a lighthouse in the distance. Strumming an autoharp at tempo that recalled a sea shanty, Collins poured out the melody clear and true as the Muppets harmonized and danced about. The puppeteers were Jane Henson, Frank Oz, Richard Hunt and Jerry Nelson, invisible to the eye of the camera, but palpable in presence. 

It was an enchantment of a performance. There are other highlights of the visits of Judy Collins that I recall. There was the operatic-alphabetic duet she sang with Snuffleupagus. To a mock – Mozart score, Collins and Snuffy flowed around the street dancing a mini-minuet. 

Judy Collins credited Sesame Street for extending the depth and breadth of her fan base. “People would come up to me at concerts and tell me how much they loved the Yes and No song I did with Bert and Ernie. They were little children when it first aired. They grew up and started coming to my shows.” For them, during a critically important time in their childhood, Sesame Street was the best of all television. If there is, or has been, anything more in sync with a happy, wholesome, and funny childhood on television I have yet to meet it.

Conclusion

However, some teachers are not best pleased – not all by any means and seldom high school teachers. The perpetrators claim little kids come to them already familiar with basic arithmetic and quite at home with the alphabet. This is bad? Apparently they find it too difficult to blend with their own lesson plans. Neither am I a fan of “lesson plans” but that is for another essay on another day. They act the part of being at odds with something wondrous.

I loved Sesame Street as a little person and as a big person. Now that I have no choice but to always be thoughtful and acting like a serious big person I will attempt to leave this stage with all proper decorum:

Me Like Cookie

Me eat Cookie

UMM-UM-UM-UM-UM

What do you think of Sesame Street? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

The World War Two Japanese Soldiers who Kept Fighting Decades After the War was Over

In the period after World War II the military and the public became aware of Japanese soldiers fighting in the Pacific Islands. These soldiers were later named Japanese holdouts. They did not know that World War II had ended, leading to some intriguing stories. Daniel Boustead explains.

Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda (on the right) offering his sword to Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he surrendered in 1974.

Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code contributed not only to Japan’s soldiers’ “fight to the death” spirit but also their refusal to surrender. In addition, Japanese military orders, training, and regulations further reinforced this attitude. Japanese soldiers believed that all surrender orders were a work of American propaganda. Thus, some Japanese soldiers held out years after World War II was over

In the Japanese religion of Shintoism the Japanese Emperor was a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu ([1]). This made Emperor Hirohito a Demi-God, who Japanese soldiers gave their lives to (1). This belief was further supported by the Imperial Receipt on Education of 1880, which stated that the Emperor of Japan is a “deity incarnate” and “…the climax of harmony is the sacrifice of the life of a subject for the Emperor” (2). The Japanese religion of Shintoism elevated dying for the Emperor of Japan to a state of grace (2). This reason is why so many Japanese Military service personnel died in multiple battles in the Pacific and Asian theatres - they fought to the death.

Bushido Code

The Bushido Code was also an important philosophy that dominated the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy’s way of thinking. Bushido (or the way of the warrior) evolved from the 9th to 12th centuries CE and was a mixture of Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism and was followed by the Japanese Samurai (3). Bushido stressed martial spirit, self-sacrifice, loyalty, justice, a sense of shame if dishonored, refined comportment, modesty, frugality, and honor being more important than life itself (3). The Zen Buddhism aspect of Bushido also stressed an indifference to pain as an essential virtue (4). Bushido also strongly emphasized self-discipline, loyalty to one’s superiors, and fearlessness in the face of death (5). The philosophy of Bushido existed long after the Japanese Samurai went away, and it found a ready acceptance in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces (3). Bushido starting appearing in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during the reign of Emperor Meiji, who ruled from 1868 to 1912 (5). Captain Rikibei Inogichi elaborated on Bushido by saying “We must give our lives to the Emperor and Country, this is an inborn feeling. We Japanese base our lives on obedience to the Emperor and Country. On the other hand, we wish for the best place in death, according to Bushido”(2). The tradition of Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code is also captured in the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Anthem “Umi Yukaba”, which emphasized death in battle and no surrender to the enemy (6). Bushido also motivated some Japanese soldiers to disappear and fight years after the war rather then give themselves up. 

Surrender was not an option

The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces regulations, orders and rules also made death preferable and surrender not an option. The 1928 edition of the document Principles of Strategic Command, deliberately expunged the words defense, retreat, and most importantly surrender, because such words were considered detrimental to the morale and marital spirit of the Japanese soldier (3). The 1908 Imperial Japanese Army’s criminal code contained the following provision: “ A commander who allows his unit to surrender without fighting to the last man or concedes a strategic area to the enemy shall be punishable by death”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code contained an additional injunction: “Do not be taken prisoner alive”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army Field Service Code also stated “In defense, always retain the spirit of the attack and maintain freedom of action. Never give up a position, but rather die”(2). Indeed the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code was not just simple regulations for Japanese soldiers; it was the result of lifelong conditioning in a culture revering honor, loyalty, and obedience to superiors above all else (2). This meant that if a Japanese soldier was to surrender or be captured, according to the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code, it meant failure to the Emperor and dishonor to soldiers’ families (2). 

Special orders - Hiroo Onoda

In some cases Japanese soldiers were given special orders. The longest holdout soldier, Hiroo Onoda, was given such an order. It was right before Hiroo Onoda was sent to Lubang to conduct guerilla operations against the Americans (7).  His commanding officer of the Eighth Division Commander, Lieutenant General Yokoyama, conveyed this fateful order to Hiroo Onoda by telling him: “You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily” (7). Furthermore, while it was Hiroo Onoda’s superiors, Major Taniguchi and Major Takahashi, who instructed him to conduct guerilla operations on Lubang, they had no authority to alter Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order (8). Furthermore, Hiroo Onoda told Japanese adventurer Norio Suzuki in 1974 that he would only give himself up by the orders of his immediate superior Major Taniguchi (11). In addition since Hiroo Onoda was not sure that Norio Suzuki was not an enemy agent and thus he could not give away the officers who were above the rank of Major Taniguchi, who were Lieutenant General Yokoyama and Major Takahashi (11). When Major Taniguchi relieved Hiroo Onoda of his duties in 1974 he bypassed Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order because Lieutenant General Yokoyama could not be found (9). Also, Hiroo Onoda was trained to view enemy surrender leaflets as tricks (10). Lastly because Hiroo Onoda was trained in unconventional guerilla warfare, his home was the battlefield and there was no going home (10). All these factors help explain why Japanese holdouts existed after the war.

Onoda finally surrendered to his “superior” Major Taniguchi at Wakayama Point, Lubang Island, Philippines on March 9, 1974 (18). Onoda fought a guerrilla war for many years on Lubang, which resulted in one of his fellow soldiers named Kozuka being killed in a shootout with Filipino Police in October 1972 (19).  After Major Taniguchi read Hiroo Onoda’s surrender order he was briefly in a state of shock because he could not believe Japan had lost the war and the war was over! (18)

Captain Sakae Oba

An early example of a Japanese holdout was Captain Sakae Oba. Oba and his 46 men formerly surrendered to the Americans on December 1, 1945 on the Island of Saipan (12). Sakae Oba had evaded capture by the U.S. Marines patrols for 512 days and was nicknamed “The Fox” by the U.S. Marines (12).  In the period of the battle, Sakae Oba was going to commit suicide after a failed attack against the Americans (13). He then realized that if every Imperial Japanese soldier killed himself there would be no Imperial Japanese Army left, which prevented him from doing so (13). Near the fall of Saipan, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers decided to kill themselves in a suicide attack on the American position, while a contradictory order was issued by Vice Admiral Nagumo, commander of Japanese naval forces assigned to Saipan, that said don’t participate in Lieutenant General Saito’s suicide attack and keep fighting because reinforcements were coming (14). Sakae Oba learned of these contradictory orders at Matansha, and decided and that he and his group of men would continue fighting using Mount Tapotchau as a base of operations - while the vast majority of men there decided to die in a suicide attack (14). On July 7, 1944, while 4,000 Japanese soldiers died in a suicide attack west of Matansha, Sakae Oba moved his forces south toward Mount Tapotchau (15). Captain Sakae Oba was persuaded to surrender in late November 1945, when Major General Umahachi Amo, the former commander of Japanese forces on Saipan, gave him documents from the defunct Imperial Japanese Army, that the war was over and that his group should surrender (16). Just before Sakae Oba was repatriated to Japan, he was feted by the U.S. Marine Officers Club on Saipan to honor him for his skill, courage, and tenacity (16). Captain Sakae Oba continued fighting because he believed the war was continuing and as he was cut off from his command, and therefore should continue the war until communication was reestablished and new orders received from his superiors (17). This was different from other Japanese holdouts who had the “fight until the end” mentality or persisted in disbelief that Japan had lost the war (17).

Conclusion

The Philippines became a notorious center of Japanese holdouts after World War II. Indeed during late 1940s there was a sign outside the capital Manila that warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills (20). More broadly, the phenomenon known as the Japanese holdouts began in the aftermath of World War II. Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code gave the Japanese holdouts the ideological backbone to continue fighting. Japanese military orders, training, and regulations made surrender not an option. Surrender orders were viewed with much suspicion. The common theme of “fight to the death” and not to surrender permeated the Japanese psyche. This inspired the Japanese holdouts to continue to fight long past the end of the war.

What do you think of the World War II Japanese holdouts? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here and “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here.

[1] Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 30-31.

2 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005. 32 

3 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. Inc, 2005. 31. 

4 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 32. 

5 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books, Inc., 1980. 40. 

6 Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown and Company. 2003. 38. 

7 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland.  Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 42-44. 

8 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 44-45. 

11 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books; Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 200-202. 

9 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry.  Annapolis; Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 13-14. 

10 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War.  56. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

18 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 11-14. 

19 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books. Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 174-175. 

12 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 13. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

13 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 17. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

14 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 18. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

15 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers  Who Refused  to Surrender After the War. 19. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

16 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 23. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

17 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 22. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com . 

20 “Japanese Holdouts:  Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

References

Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown, and Company. 2003.

“Japanese Holdouts: Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

Onoda, Hiroo.  No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War.  Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999.

Rottman, Gordon.  L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005.

Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 

Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

The Fates of Benito Mussolini, his Wife Rachele, and the Mistress Who Wouldn’t Leave his Side

Benito Mussolini, the Italian Fascist leader during World War Two, is infamous for many reasons. But do you know what happened to his wife Rachele Giudi and his loyal mistress Claretta Petacci as World War Two came to an end? David Lehmann explains.

A colorised image of Benito Mussolini.

One of the most notable characters of the Second World War and, indeed, of the 20th century, Benito Mussolini, or as he was better known, Il Duce rarely needs an introduction. The Fascist leader of Italy captivated the world with his bold promises of restoring the Roman Empire, promising to once again return the Mediterranean Sea to its rightful status as Mare Nostorm or “Our sea.” Il Duce’s meteoric rise to power, culminating in 1922, was fueled by his charisma and his bombastic addresses to the public. Using his imposing oratory skills, Mussolini fed the desperate Italian public the steady diet of instilling confidence in his demoralized countrymen and promising a return to Italian glory - ensuring that he was the man who could singularly heal the wounds that had plagued this once great people.

We all know the well-known trope that “opposites attract” in the world of relationships. But when considering a man of Benito Mussolini’s character type, who regularly consumed approximately 98% of the oxygen in the room in order to fuel his ego and oratory style, it was an absolute necessity. Enter Rachele Mussolini or “Donna Rachele”, as she became known to the world. Born Rachele Giudi in 1890, Rachele was first introduced to Benito after being hired to the Mussolini family-owned tavern in Predappio as a kitchen maid. In 1910 the two were joined in less than holy matrimony due to Benito’s anti-clerical stance - but matrimony nonetheless. The two were not formally wed until 1925, well after Benito’s rise to the position of dictator. Rachele resisted relocating to Rome, preferring life outside the capital and would only relocate seven years later. Even then she sustained her avoidance of the limelight, much preferring the life of a homemaker. This contrast to her husband, in addition to a lot of traditional Fascist propaganda, earned her the love and sympathy of the Italian populace who were eagerly consumed by the trope of Mussolini and his traditional wife. Much of what is known about Rachele is understood through the lens of her husband, but her dedication to her children and her husband and commitment to family cannot be overstated. Rachele lived for family and in turn dedicated herself to their care.

A less than perfect union

The marriage of Benito and Rachele most often unfolded in the privacy of their own home. Unfortunately Il Duce’s indiscretions often did not. A well-known philanderer, Mussolini wantonly disregarded the fidelity tenet of marriage and regularly absconded from his marital bed. The explicit details of Il Duce’s escapades came to light with the publishing of the diary of Ercole Borrato, Benito’s longtime driver. The diary depicts a man wanton in his lust who possessed all the efficacy of a less physically restricted JFK, often having him stop while driving to pursue a beautiful woman he observed. Benito would regularly retreat to his beach resort, Castel Porziano, in order to properly concentrate on his less than sanctimonious trysts. 

Rachele seemingly tried her best to deal with her husband’s nature. Once stating, “My husband had a fascination for women. They all wanted him. Sometimes he showed me their letters – from women who wanted to sleep with him or have a baby with him. It always made me laugh.”[1] This was a surprisingly cheery view of the situation. However Borrato’s diary also contains a small glimpse into the pain Rachele must have experienced. In one instance, Benito returned to their home only to find Rachele waiting for him to confront him, chastising him for his lack of fidelity. One can imagine his car was symbolic of her husband’s infidelities. Despite the pain his cheating caused it seems Rachele had a harsher view of Benito’s other great pastime, politics. She once remarked: “You can't be happy in politics, never, because one day things go well, another day they go badly." [2]

Veni, Vidi, Vici - except the opposite

Mussolini’s bold proclamations of a return to Roman glory were soon exposed as the blustering of an overcompensating tyrant. Fascist Italy’s dreams of conquest quickly came to a sputtering halt. First, Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 after months of preparation badly exposed the Italian military. Despite modern weaponry and the use of highly controversial gas bombs, the military struggled to defeat the much more poorly armed Ethiopian forces. Next, after the commencement of the world war and Nazi Germany’s rapid success, Mussolini grew impatient and invaded Greece in 1940. Again, the Italian forces fared poorly against less equipped Greek soldiers. The Italian advance soon flagged and then was shockingly forced to retreat, only to be saved by a Nazi intervention, further shaming Mussolini. One embarrassing defeat after another followed as Mussolini’s image shrunk in the minds of the Italian people. So much so that on July 24, 1943, Mussolini was ousted from power by the Fascist Grand Counsel and imprisoned. The once great man and his family were prisoners of his own populace.

The final apple of his wandering eye

Mussolini and his family were soon freed from their captivity after a daring German rescue. Instead of leaving Italy completely under Nazi control, he agreed to lead a newly created puppet state based in northern Italy. Benito was conscious of the inevitability of his impending defeat though, and helpless to affect change as greater powers used his homeland for their battlefield. Benito’s flagging spirits were buoyed by the presence of one Claretta Petacci. A lover of Benito’s since 1936, Claretta was devoted to Benito, sticking by him through his fall from grace. Following him to his new northern base, Claretta transformed into more than just a fling. Claretta attempted to bolster Benito’s confidence, urging him to retake his country and punish his enemies. This was exactly the kind of support a man like Benito Mussolini preferred at the time. So much so, that as the Allies marched north and partisan Italians decided now was the time to do away with their former dictator, it was Claretta who accompanied him via car in his attempted escape. Abandoning his family, Benito, Claretta and a few supporters attempted to make their way north into Switzerland. Unfortunately for the newly formed family unit they did not get far, with Benito’s face being all too familiar to the general Italian population. The pair were captured on April 27, 1945 and after Claretta’s refusal to abandon Benito, both were summarily executed the next day. 

Rachele and her surviving children were soon captured and handed over to the Allies, spared in sharing her husband’s fate. Rachele eventually settled in her native Predappio and never disavowed her husband’s politics and legacy. While her public sentiments to Benito always remained positive we can never truly know what was in her heart. Being abandoned by her husband in his final drive to freedom must have deeply wounded La Donna. After the war, Rachele fought for the proper burial of her husband’s remains and the return of his personal items. However there was one personal item which she refused, a bed which she dismissed with the comment, “Claretta used it.”[3]

What do you think of the fate of Mussolini’s wife and his mistress? Let us know below.

[1] Rubert Colley. “Rachele Mussolini- A Brief Biography.” April 11, 2015 

[2] J. Y. Smith “Rachele Mussolini Dies, Fascist Dictator's Widow.” October 31, 1979

[3] ID.

Sources

Ben Downing, March 24, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-bed-with-il-duce-1490382122

Patty Agnew December 9, 2004 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/driver-blows-the-whistle-on-mussolini-s-frantic-love-life-1.1169289

J.Y. Smith October 31, 1979 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/10/31/rachele-mussolini-dies-fascist-dictators-widow/06a5db07-fb20-4cfd-bee1-dd59fb6806c1/

October 31, 1979 https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/31/archives/rachele-guidi-mussolini-widow-of-italian-dictator-is-dead-at-89.html

Rubert Colley https://rupertcolley.com/2015/04/11/rachele-mussolini-a-brief-biography/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benito-Mussolini/Role-in-World-War-II

How Public Opinion Impacts Foreign Policy in America

Throughout the history of foreign policy, arguments have been made that public opinion is ineffective and cannot influence foreign policy, with cogent arguments being made by respected writers, historians, and international relations theorists likeWalter Lippmann, Thomas A. Bailey, and George F. Kennan. However, public opinion can influence foreign policy to a large degree.

Here, Alan Cunningham explains how US military conflicts have been influenced by public opinion.

The sunken USS Maine in Havana harbor, leading to the 1898 Spanish-American War.

By simply looking at military conflicts in the United States, we can find that many of these are sharply influenced by U.S. public opinion. The American Revolution, the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War, and the 2003 Iraq War were all heavily influenced by the public’s desires and the media. Individual operations, such as 1989’s Invasion of Panama, 1916’s Pancho Villa Expedition, and 1980’s Operation Eagle Claw, too suffer from public opinion; if the public and Americans’ at large feel that the operation or the conflict is worthwhile, assists in preserving American security and safety, or stops an extreme crisis (like genocide or crimes against humanity) then the overall foreign policy goal continues, but that public support is integral.

Ole Holsti, a professor of political science at Duke University, writes, “the Vietnam War served as a catalyst for a re-examination of the post-World War II consensus on the nature and effects of public opinion. Although these recent studies continued to show that the public is often poorly informed about international affairs, the evidence nevertheless challenged the thesis that public opinion on foreign policy issues is...without significant impact on policy making”. I agree that while most of the public is largely uninformed on international issues and key political-military affairs (social media posts about a draft for World War III in the aftermath of General Qasem Solemani’s targeted killing exemplifies this in my view), the public’s voice does matter and can significantly shape foreign policy decisions and what actions a state takes. The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia and the 1898 Spanish-American War are prime examples of this.

1993 Battle of Mogadishu

To first understand the battle, one must look back at the conditions that shaped Somalia into needing outside, global intervention. The country had long been ruled by Mohamed Siad Barre, a ruler who had accepted both U.S. and Soviet aid, and eventually lost hold of his nation due to declining influence, the collapse of the Soviet Union and a major benefactor, and poor economic policies thrusting the country into decline; In 1991, a rebellion overthrew Barre which resulted in a civil warbased upon tribal lines. The UN developed a task force to return order to the country and U.S. Marines invaded and removed the major tribal forces from power in the capital of Mogadishu. Upon completion of the humanitarian mission, however, it became apparent that the strongest warlord, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, would return to power, so the U.S. began planning to return Somalia to a democracy. As most know, the following six weeks of military special operations were successful, but eventually made large scale, international news when Special Operations Forces operators became entrenched in a fifteen-hour firefight defending two crashed helicopters, with nineteen U.S. military personnel and two UN multinational force soldiers being killed throughout the entirety of the mission. While the mission itself (to capture two high level members of Aidid’s clan) was a success and the U.S. military severely crippled the clan’s military capacity, public opinion about the conflict was molded heavily after seeing the bodies of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Pressured by their constituents, Congress began making similar statements and eventually the Clinton administration decided to fully remove American forces from Somalia.

Public opinion in this case completely changed the outcome of the entire, two-year mission in Somalia and essentially dictated Bill Clinton’s foreign policy until 1995. Due to the public’s desire to focus on domestic issues and not become embroiled in a foreign war (especially one that many saw as having no clear exit strategy or goals), Clinton’s administration kept out of Darfur, Rwanda, and (at least initially) Bosnia. Public opinion dictated how the U.S. should respond in these incidences and eventually forced the administration to reintegrate themselves into defending against genocides after the Rwandan incident.

1898 Spanish-American War

Another example of this can be seen with the Spanish-American War. The Spanish Empire was largely seen as a nuisance and fear to the U.S., being an imperial force so ingrained and entrenched within the Western Hemisphere. Being that the Cuban Revolution was largely seen as a force for democracy and were portrayed as brothers to the American public, many imperialists began calling for war against the Spanish. This call was bolstered by Pulitzer’s New York World and Hearst’s New York Journal and eventually culminated with the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor; with news reports claiming that the Spanish had deliberately sunk the warship, the U.S. made preparations for invasion and launched operations. While the war was short and something of an anomaly in military endeavors (with more personnel dying due to diseases than bullets or wounds), the impact of this was that Cuba’s populace were freed and then immediately put under U.S. rule for a period of time before being handed over to pro-U.S., anti-Communist strongmen like Fulgencio Batista. What this points to is the effect that public opinion and desires have upon foreign policy decisions. While some blame solely Hearst and Pulitzer for beginning the war and single-handedly provoking war, it is important to note that both Pulitzer and Hearst did not have an audience outside of New York and only appealed to the working class, not anyone in politics or white collar workers. As Thomas Kane points out in the journal Contemporary Security Studies, the true decision to invade was because the broad majority of Americans were sick of bloodshed and because many in American politics agreed that trying to contain the situation in Cuba was lost. In the end, public opinion mattered, not how influential newspapermen were.

Conclusion

In both of these, public opinion and support or opposition towards specific policies played a large role in determining how the government would deal with foreign policy matters and how individual administrations would deal with future crises in the globe. Public opinion and outward support of operations, military conflicts, or foreign policy goals has enough coherence to be effective and to seriously change the way that governments operate and go about performing missions and attaining their overall goals.

What do you think of the role of public opinion in influencing foreign policy in the US? Let us know below.

About

Alan Cunningham is a graduate student at Norwich University where he is pursuing an MA in International Relations. He will be joining the United States Armed Forces upon the completion of his degree and aims to gain a PhD in History and a JD from Syracuse University. He has been published in the Jurist, Small Wars Journal, the U.S. Army War College’s War Room, and Eunomia Journal.

The Secret Lie that Ended World War One: The Bulgarian Contract

As hard as it may be to believe, not everything is yet known about World War One. Even some major events have remained hidden for more than a century. Here, Graeme Sheppard, author of a new book, tells us about the extraordinary Bulgarian Contract.

Over a hundred years on, and after the production of so many detailed studies, anyone might reasonably assume that there can be nothing new, surely, to discover about the events of World War I. That is, nothing surely of major consequence. A new aspect or angle to a campaign or battle maybe, or perhaps a fresh insight into some familiar ground. But the discovery of new and previously unseen evidence of how and why the war ended when it did in 1918, rather than continue in to 1919? Surely not? And yet a few years ago that was precisely what a visit to the UK National Archives in Kew presented me with.

Why the war ended?

I hadn’t been looking for it or anything like it. In fact, I was searching for unrelated material pertaining to British diplomats in China. But while doing so, I came across a very slim Foreign Office file from 1931. It came in a box with the unpromising title of “Miscellaneous”. It contained a mere few pages: an internal letter from a junior diplomat, one D.J. Cowan, explaining how, while a prisoner-of-war in Bulgaria in 1918, he had encountered among its peasant population word of an extraordinary act of political propaganda and misinformation, one so effective that it had succeeded in propelling Bulgaria out of the war. It was this act, he believed, rather than the Allied offensive of that September, that had been the true cause of the collapse of Macedonian front - a collapse that foreshadowed the November armistice six weeks later. Cowan was clearly making an important claim, and yet, by the look of the file, at the time the letter had elicited little interest.

I was still trying to make sense of this find when a few weeks later I came into possession of the unpublished memoirs of another Foreign Office diplomat and fellow Balkan prisoner, Robert Howe. Howe wrote in the 1970s in his retirement. Quite independently, and with greater detail, he described being a witness to the same Balkan deception. But Howe went further: a few years after the war, in Belgrade, he had actually met the political architect behind the plot. He had discussed the matter with him in the royal palace.

An extraordinary tale

Quite apart from the startling information the pair provided, junior officers Cowan and Howe had an extraordinary story of their own to relate.

In late September 1918, Cowan and Howe, prisoners since 1915 and twice before failed escapees, walked out of their Bulgarian prison camp deep behind enemy lines. Having heard rumors that the Macedonian front had collapsed, on this third occasion they simply announced to their resigned captors that they were leaving. No one stopped them. They then spent several days travelling a hundred miles over chaotic roads and rail lines jammed with an enemy army in a rebellious retreat. Largely ignored on their way, they headed not toward the advancing Allied forces to the south, but instead west toward Sofia, the enemy’s capital, and a city now engulfed in political turmoil. Arriving at the main rail station, which they found in a state of frenzy, they caught a horse-drawn cab to the nearly deserted Ministry of War building. There, despite their less than orderly attire, they brazenly announced to staff there that they were British officers and were taking control of the city in the name of His Majesty the King. No one raised an objection. With their authority established, a ministry car and driver were summoned to take the pair to the city’s Grand Hotel, where they demanded and were provided with the best rooms the establishment had to offer. An hour later, having washed and shaved, they entered the hotel restaurant, only to find it full of senior German officers gloomily eating their dinner. The hotel, it transpired, happened to serve as the German regional headquarters. Undeterred, they informed the maître d' that they required the head table and would the two gentlemen seated there kindly vacate it, at which point the German officers concerned rose wordlessly from their seats. Rubbing salt into the remaining diners’ wounds, one of the chums then raised a toast to the victorious Allies.

“It was a great moment,” remembered Howe. “One of the greatest moments of my life - perhaps never again one like it. One of those moments when you know there is nothing you cannot do, when no obstacles exist, when no one can touch you.”

Contract

A great moment, indeed. And yet, though they did not realize it fully at the time, the two men had so much more to relate. They had experienced a very peculiar captivity in Bulgaria, one of extremes, ranging from internment in the worst of punishment death-camps to that of living in virtual freedom among its peasant folk. Their survival tale, however, provides only the backdrop to their unique eye-witness accounts of a secret act of Balkan propaganda, known as the Contract, one that triggered not only rebellion in Bulgaria and the collapse of the Macedonian front, but also acted as the catalyst for German defeat and the road to the armistice of November 11.

A new book, The Bulgarian Contract, provides readers with two new strands of evidence that together change our understanding of how and why the Great War reached its conclusion. Firstly, recently discovered eye-witness accounts of a clandestine deception that was crucial in bringing about the dramatic collapse of the Macedonian front. Secondly, the direct influence this fraud had on Germany’s High Command (Oberste Heeresleitung) in occupied Belgium, and on de facto dictator, Erich Ludendorff, and his crucial meeting with the Kaiser of September 29, resulting in the road to German surrender six weeks later. Describing politics, revolution, treason, assassination, and deceit, the book explains how without the hitherto unknown Contract, the Great War was destined to continue through the coming winter and into 1919, resulting in many thousands of further deaths.    

You can order The Bulgarian Contract here: http://thebulgariancontract.com/

Image provided to the site and used with permission.

Was Romania Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War 2?

Officially Romania started World War II as neutral, but was it really neutral throughout the whole war? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this question by looking at Romania in the 1920s, the rise of authoritarianism in the country in the 1930s, the role of Romania during the war in the USSR and the Holocaust, and finally how it changed position towards the end of the war.

Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler. Munich, June 1941. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B03212 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Looking back on the belligerent nations of the Second World War, Romania is often counted as part of the Axis nations. Romania’s Fascist leader, Ion Antonescu, was close with Hitler, the country had officially joined the Axis in 1941, and Romanian troops fought alongside the Germans on the Eastern Front.

If one was to judge Romania simply by these factors alone, then the county can be consigned to the realm of yet another Axis collaborator. However, Romania’s situation during the Second World War was more complex than meets the eye, and an assessment of neutrality requires an examination of what led to its position in the conflict.

A Political Problem

Following the conclusion of the First World War in 1918, Romania was one of the few countries to end up better off than it had been before the war; it received generous awards of territory that allowed the country to nearly double in size, with its population reaching up to 16 million. [1] 

In addition to managing all its new peoples and territory, a major issue in Romania following the conclusion of the First World War was the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Romania had a solid foundation of democracy, given that its two strongest political parties throughout the 1920s, the Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party, were both recognized for their staunch democratic viewpoints. The National Peasant Party even won the 1928 election, and, at the time, the future seemed to bode well for democracy in Romania.

However, things changed in the 1930s with two major events that would shape Romania’s future turn towards authoritarianism. The first major change was the Great Depression, which crippled Romania’s economy and shook the people’s faith in their democratic government, led by Iuliu Maniu. This left people free to look for solutions to the country’s problems in more extreme political movements, a familiar narrative in Europe at the time. The second major change came with the accession of King Carol II to the throne, who would push democracy aside in favor of his own self-centered reign.

A Controversial Figure 

Carol was born on October 15, 1893 and was the first Romanian monarch to be born in the country; previous monarchs were of German descent. [2] Carol was raised by his aunt and uncle, King Carol I and Queen Elisabeth, who felt that his parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Marie, were unable to raise their son properly because they were too young. His uncle tried to raise Carol in his own militaristic image, but quickly found out the boy preferred a hedonistic lifestyle of party and drink, caring little for military pomp and ceremony. Carol was extremely adventurous; he joined the Prussian Guards military unit and fought in both the Second Balkan War of 1913 and the First World War.

Carol renounced his claim to the throne twice - first in 1918 and again in 1925 - and gave birth to his son Mihail, future king of Romania, in 1921 with his second wife Helen of Greece (his first marriage was a messy affair, conducted without the approval of Parliament and was swiftly dissolved). 

In 1927, Carol’s father died, and the throne went to his infant son, with a regency ruling on his behalf while Carol lived in France in exile. Although he had been officially excluded from the throne by his father’s will and by a law passed in 1926, he returned to Romania in 1930 with the goal of reclaiming his position on the throne. [3] Following a coup that took place on June 7, 1930, Carol took his place as Romania’s king over his infant son.

Upon usurping the throne, Carol immediately tried to increase his own power, disregarding the oath he had sworn upon taking the throne to uphold the 1923 Constitution, and began to fashion himself as a dictator. During his reign, and as a consequence of his growing admiration of the Fascist policies of Benito Mussolini in Italy, he began to dismantle Romanian democracy. His attempts came to a head in 1938, when he dissolved all political parties and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. This was done following his discovery of a plan that attempted to bring the anti-Semitic and Fascist Iron Guard into power.

As Europe once again drew closer to war, Carol tried to appease both sides - he appealed to Britain for help while also trying to improve relations with Germany by visiting Hitler. When the Second World War officially broke out in September 1939, Carol declared neutrality. However, in May 1940, seeing the shocking fall of France and the Allies back-pedaling, he decided to officially join the Axis.

Unfortunately, Carol’s reign did not last much longer. In June 1940, under threat from the Soviet Union and knowing his army was no match for the Red Army, Carol was forced to surrender pieces of Romanian territory to appease Stalin. In August, further territory in Transylvania (which had been awarded after World War One) was ceded to Hungary as a result of the Second Vienna Award. This was a set of territorial disputes arbitrated by the Fascist powers of Italy and Germany with the goal of drawing Hungary into their alliance. [4] This resulted in Carol losing support from the people, and the army refused to follow his orders. Out of desperation, Carol named General Ion Antonescu as prime minister, but was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mihail on September 6, 1940. However, Mihail immediately granted Antonescu dictatorial power, further paving the way for the Fascist regime, as Antonescu would later ally himself with the powerful Iron Guard.

Rise of the Iron Guard

Much like other European countries during the tumultuous interwar period, Romania had its own Fascist-style movement that sprang up during the 1930s. Following King Carol’s dissolution of various political parties in 1938, a new party to crop up in Romania was the Legion of the Archangel Michael led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, whose father was the leader of the largest extreme anti-Semitic party in Romania. [5]

For several years, the Legion was just a small organization with little money or support. In 1930, the Legion founded a militia branch called the Iron Guard, which included all Legionnaires (members) between the ages of 18 and 30, and won two local by-elections, thereby gaining parliamentary representation for the first time in 1931. In the national elections of 1932, support for the Legion rose to only 2.37 percent. [5] However, the National Peasant Party, which won the election, showcased interest in obtaining the help of the Iron Guard’s Legionnaires. At the same time, Nazism was rising in Germany and Nazi contacts became more frequent in Romania, even establishing a Romanian Nazi party.

The Legion acknowledged the Romanian monarchy as an important and fundamental institution, and as a result, King Carol actively tried to reign in and exploit the Legion for his own purposes until 1937. However, realizing his efforts were futile, Carol tried to stamp out the organization - a move which also failed.

In the 1937 elections, the party finished third with 15.5% of the vote, its highest total yet. When Carol abolished all parties and declared a royal dictatorship the following year, Codreanu urged his compatriots to accept the new regime, but was arrested by the government and put to death. An internal battle for power followed his death, with the victor being Horia Sima.

Antonescu’s War Contributions

Upon taking power, Antonescu allied himself with the Iron Guard and established Romania as the authoritarian National Legionary State. However, this new state was not to last long - Antonescu and the Guard had opposing ideologies. Antonescu embodied strict order, while the Guard aligned itself with chaos, rejecting Antonescu’s social policies. This led to a rift which erupted in January 1941 when he used the army to destroy the Guard, making himself a military dictator for the remainder of the war.

By this time, the Second World War was in full swing, and Antonescu decided to ally himself with Hitler, who he had no doubt would win the conflict. He committed Romanian troops and resources to aid the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, hoping that he would be granted the territory of Transylvania after the war’s conclusion. [1] In fact, Romanian troops in the invading Axis army numbered the second highest. [6] This proved to be a disastrous move as the Soviets repelled the attack, leading to huge numbers of Romanian casualties, destroying Antonescu’s hope that Germany would win the war.

In 1941, the Iron Guard attempted (and failed) to overthrow Antonescu, forcing its leaders to flee the country. By 1943, the tide of war had turned against the Axis powers, and Romania was subjected to Allied bombings, especially its oil fields, which were vital to the war effort. The Soviets, who had recovered from the previous invasion and were now pushing their way back across Europe towards Berlin, invaded Romanian territory and the army was unable to hold them back.  Seeing his country’s plight and sensing an opportunity, Mihail gathered his supporters and launched a coup, overthrowing Antonescu's government. He proceeded to align Romania with the Allies and the Soviets, declaring war on Germany on August 23, 1944.

Romania would spend the rest of the war fighting alongside the Allies against the Germans, waging bloody battles across Eastern Europe. Although it ended the war on the winning side, Romania lost a lot of territory as a result of the Soviets downplaying the defection of King Mihail, given that, for a majority of the war, Romania had fought against the Soviets. In post-war negotiations, the Soviet Union was given a 90% share of control over the country, which would result in its Cold War Sovietization and the rise of a Communist regime. [6]

The Holocaust

Romania’s role in the Holocaust is often forgotten. Unlike Germany or Italy, Romania was not driven by a desire for conquest, but a desire to do what was best for the national interests of the country. During the period of Antonescu’s leadership, the government ramped up its anti-Semitic laws and authorized many pogroms which killed thousands of Jews within Romanian borders. However, the Romanian government later realized that they could make a large profit from the situation by allowing European Jews transit through Romania to safer lands while charging exit fees. Abroad, Romanian anti-Semitism was showcased by the atrocities of Romanian troops massacring upwards of 260,000 Jews in southern Russia and Ukraine. [7]

One of the most infamous incidents was the Odessa Massacre in 1941, in which approximately 30,000 Jews were murdered by German and Romanian soldiers. [8] On October 16, 1941, the Red Army surrendered the city of Odessa to German and Romanian troops after two and a half months of bloody and bitter fighting. At this point, roughly 250,000 inhabitants remained in the city, including some 90,000 Jews.

Around 6.45 p.m. on October 22, a bomb (probably in place since before the city’s capture) exploded close to the Romanian headquarters, killing 67 people, including 16 Romanian and four German officers. Angered, the invaders announced that for every dead officer, 200 "Bolsheviks" must be executed, and 100 for every dead soldier.  However, there were no longer any “Bolsheviks” left in the city - they had fled long ago. Instead, the city’s Jewish population faced the retaliation of the invading armies. Between October 22 and 23, up to 30,000 people were rounded up and locked in nine empty munitions depots at the edge of the city, which were then doused in gasoline and set on fire. Similar horrifying acts of extermination took place across Ukraine over the following months and weeks.

Figures show that Romania bore responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any other German-allied country other than Germany itself. [7] In the face of such clear destruction and hatred, the Romanian government has steadfastly maintained its innocence, blaming these acts solely on the Germans and Hungarians. As recently as 2003, the government stated that it is “unjust to link Romania to the persecution of the Jews in Europe” and that the numbers of Jews killed in Romanian-perpetrated atrocities were being inflated for the sake of media impact. [7] Romania must face the horrors of its Holocaust past and accept the role it played in one of the worst atrocities in history.

Conclusion

The question of whether Romania can truly be considered neutral is easy to answer. Despite the country’s declaration of strict neutrality at the outset of the war, the political situation within the country forced Romania into the Axis camp. Its politically Fascist ideologies, anti-Semitic policies and actions taken towards Jews, and the contribution of manpower to help the German army in its attempt to crush the Soviets meant that Romania, like Italy, was firmly a wartime ally of the Germans - even if official statements may have indicated otherwise. Romania made more contributions to the Axis war effort, both militarily and ideologically, than it did to the Allied war effort, only fighting alongside the Allies for roughly a year, and only when it was already too late to have an impact.

What do you think of Romania’s role in World War Two? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Stefan’s article on whether Portugal was neutral in World War Two here.

Sources

[1]“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

[2] Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

[3] “Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

[4] “Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

 [5] Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

 [6] Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

 [7] Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

 [8] Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

Bibliography

-“Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

- Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

-“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

- Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

- Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

-“Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

Japanese Attacks on the USA in World War 2: Beyond Pearl Harbor

While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II is well known, most people are less familiar with other Japanese attacks on US soil in World War II. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about attacks on California and Oregon, and the occupation of Alaska.

U.S. soldiers fire mortar shells onto a Japanese position during the Battle of Attu in 1943. Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

The USA decided to join World War II because of two major factors: the well- known attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s war declaration on December 11, 1941. In addition, in 1942, Japan achieved some strategic gains by launching some lesser-known attacks on the continental United States. The Japanese were an effective Axis Power in part as they occupied a U.S. territory. Additionally, their attacks were not only limited to Hawaii. They also attacked California, Oregon, and Alaska.

The Japanese attack on the U.S. military Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was devastating. The attack killed 2,008 Navy personnel, killed 109 U.S Marines, killed 218 U.S. Army Soldiers, and killed 68 civilians, for a total death toll of 2,403 people ([1]). The Japanese military strike also sunk the American Battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, the target ship Utah, and the Destroyers Cassin and Downes (1). The Japanese attack destroyed 96 Army Aircraft, and 92 Navy Planes, for total planes destroyed at 188 (1). The Japanese also lost 29 planes and five submarines during the raid (1). 

Attacks on California and Oregon

In 1942 the Japanese military launched some attacks though while not as successful as Pearl Harbor, did achieve some gains for the Japanese. On February 22, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-17 Submarine shelled the area of  Ellwood City California near Santa Barbara, California ([2]). The attack by the I-17  lasted 20 minutes and only damaged a pier and oil well derrick near Santa Barbara California([3]). The I-17 attack did result in a shell exploding near an oil well causing about $500 in damage to a catwalk, some pumping equipment, and did create ‘invasion fears’ along the West Coast (2). A U.S. army soldier named Captain Bernard Hagen was wounded while trying to deactivate one of the fuses from one of the recovered shells from the Japanese I-17 Submarine attack (2). He was awarded the Purple Heart for this act (2).

On June 21, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-25 took up position off the Oregon side of the mouth of Columbia River, and shelled the military base of Fort Stevens ([4]). The I-25 Submarine’s shells fell harmlessly in the sand and scrub around Battery Russell, damaging only the baseball diamond backstop and a power line(4). On the dates of September 9, 1942 and September 29, 1942, the Japanese Submarine I-25 launched an aircraft which conducted a single bombing raid in Oregon on those respective dates ([5]). The I-25 Submarine Aircraft’s bombing raids only resulted in little damage with only one incendiary bomb exploding to start a small fire on Wheeler Ridge Oregon, approximately four miles southeast of Mount Emily, Oregon (5). Within four hours of the first raid, General John L. DeWitt, commander of the Fourth Army and the Western Defense Command, sent staff officers to Washington D.C to obtain permission, to add a small squadron of P-38 Lightning Fighters to his defense forces (5). The I-25 Submarine aircraft attack on September 9, 1942 forced the U.S. military to divert valuable P-38 Lightning Fighter Aircrafts, which could have been used on other important military fronts.  

Occupation of Alaska

During World War II, the Japanese would occupy Alaska, which in 1959 along with Hawaii would become a U.S. State. The Japanese decided to attack the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, as a means to divert American military resources away from the Japanese attack at Midway in June 1942 ([6]). The Japanese military also decided to occupy the two western Aleutian Islands in order to gain a psychological victory over the Americans by establishing a foothold on North American soil, and also hide their June 1942 Battle of Midway defeat ([7]). The Japanese launched an air attack on Dutch Harbor, Alaska between June 3 and June 4, 1942 which killed 43 Americans ([8]). The Japanese forces invaded and occupied the Aleutian Island of Kiska on June 6, 1942 and the Aleutian Island of Attu on June 7, 1942([9]). Fortunately, Kiska Island was unpopulated, and no civilians suffered under the Japanese occupation of this island ([10]). In contrast on Attu Island, Charles Foster Jones was taken away by the Japanese and never heard from again, while his wife Etta Jones was taken to a Japanese POW Camp in Yokohama, Japan ([11]). Etta Jones would survive World War II and was released on August 31, 1945 (13). In 1942 there were 43 Attu Aleuts, with one of the 43, traditional chief and village elder, John Artumonoff, dying of natural causes at age 56 during the Japanese occupation (12). On September 17, 1942 the Japanese transported 42 Attu Island natives to Japanese POW camps in Japan, of which only 25 Attuans and a surviving baby were repatriated after the war ([12]). The Attuans lost 17 out of the 42 that were transported to Japan, with also four out of five babies that were born in captivity dying at birth (12). The Americans responded to the Aleutian Islands invasion with outrage since this was the first time American soil had been occupied since the War of 1812 (14). Indeed in a nationwide public opinion poll, only 21% of Americans could find Hawaii on a map, while 71% could find Alaska (14). However, there were still some segments of the population who did not know the Aleutians had been invaded (14). More broadly, American war planners were still reeling from the aftermath of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (9). 

Retaking of Alaska

On May 11, 1943 the American military forces began the invasion of Attu to help retake Attu Island (15). The battle officially ended on May 30, 1943, when the Americans declared Attu secured after very fierce fighting (9). The widely accepted U.S. casualties from the Battle of Attu, according to the Army Source The Western Hemisphere, Guarding the United States and its Outposts, listed 549 American soldiers dead, 1,148 wounded and 2,100 suffering non-battle injuries (16). On the Island of Attu there were approximately 2,500 Japanese soldiers on Attu Island when the U.S. forces landed  (17). According to Anchorage attorney, Michael McLaughlin, who visited the Attu battlefield on multiple occasions, used multiple sources from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland, and the records of Camp Tracy, an interrogation center, he came to the following conclusion about the Japanese causalities (16). McLaughlin claimed that 28 Japanese soldiers were captured after the Battle of Attu, and one an officer was killed while trying to escape, which reduces the number of Japanese who went into captivity from 29 to 28 (16).  This means that the Japanese suffered 2,471 died in battle, and one died while trying to escape, which totals to 2,472 men died out of an approximate garrison of 2,500 men during and after the campaign on Attu. This means the Japanese garrison on Attu suffered a 98.88% fatality rate.

The story was completely different on Kiska. On July 28, 1943 the Japanese military, under the cover of fog, evacuated the entire garrison of 5,183 men off of Kiska Island in “Operation Ke” (18). The reason why the Japanese evacuated troops off Kiska Island was as a means of reinforcing other Japanese occupied territories (21). The Americans came to Kiska Island on August 15, 1943 and found the island deserted (9). On August 24, 1943 the Americans declared Kiska Island secured and thus the Aleutian Islands campaign ended (9).

Later attacks on America

In 1944-45 the Japanese military used a secret weapon to attack America. On November 3, 1944 the Japanese military launched fusen bakudan or balloon bombs which were carried to America by the Pacific jet stream (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were armed with four incendiaries and one thirty-pound high explosive bomb (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were designed to cause damage and spread panic in the continental United States of America (19). The weapon achieved its greatest success on May 5, 1945 when an explosion from a Japanese balloon bomb killed six people in Bly, Oregon. Among those was Elsie Mitchel, who was five months pregnant (19). They were the only Americans killed by enemy action on the continental USA during World War II (19). Even though Bly locals knew about the attack they adopted a code of silence by military order and reported that the victims of the tragedy died of “an explosion of undetermined origin” (20). Even though the military did release information about the attack at the end of May 1945, its impact was not widely known (20). The reason for this is because the impact of the Pearl Harbor Attack dominated the history textbooks for decades to come, which caused news of the attack to not be widely known until recently. These various attacks make Imperial Japan the only Axis Power to launch attacks against American territory and the only one to occupy American soil during World War II! 

In conclusion, the closely guarded, secretive and less publicized attacks by the Japanese and their subsequent invasion of the Alaskan Territory have now been revealed. Truly the Japanese were the most effective Axis Power to face the USA! 

What do you think of the World War II Japanese attacks on US soil? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here.

[1] Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 72. 

[2] Hackett, Bob and Kinsepp Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com/I-17.htm

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 68. 

[4] Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005. Last corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011.  History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

[5] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 110. 

[6] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  123.

[7] Cloe, John Haile.  Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service- 2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 23. 

[8] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  124 to 125. 

[9] “Battle of the Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th, 2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

[10] Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mari. “75 years later, ‘forgotten’ WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com . Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

[11] Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Aunt Phil’s Trunk. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

13 “Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POWs”  www.lastlettersfromattu.com Accessed on February 15th 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

[12] Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017.  https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 32 to 33. 

14 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 25.

15 Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1980. 136. 

16 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-The National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf . 113. 

17 “Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st, 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu . 

18 “Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm . 

21 Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming An Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Last Modified July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com . Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-300-dead-wounded/

19 Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanese-baloon-bombs-fu-go . 

20 Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-balooons-70-years-ago . 

Bibliography

“Battle of Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th,2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

“Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st , 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002.

Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming an Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Modified on July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskandpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-left-300-dead-wounded/

Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com//I-17.htm

“Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm

Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-baloons-70-years-ago

“Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POW’s”. www.lastlettersfromattu.com. Accessed on February 15tth, 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified  August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https:/www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanaese-baloon-bombs-fu-go 

Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.

Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mar. “75 years later, “forgotten” WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/vtereans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005.  Last Corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011. History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy - The Modern Role of the First Lady

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy took quite different directions when they were the First Ladies of America. However, they both had a lasting impact on the role. David M. Huff explains.

Jackie Kennedy at the Taj Mahal in 1962.

Jacqueline Kennedy once said, "Everything in the White House must have a reason for being there. It would be sacrilege merely to 'redecorate' it — a word I hate. It must be restored, and that has nothing to do with decoration. That is a question of scholarship."

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "You must do the thing you think you cannot do". 

The modern view of the president's wife in American political life was intrinsically shaped by two extraordinary women: Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy. Astute, engaging, and well-educated, both women left an indelible imprint on the American cultural, social, and political consciousness. Eleanor championed social and humanitarian reform and Jacqueline taught a nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense fashion with a commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities.

Although they were different stylistically, both First Ladies shared similar characteristics. Both Eleanor and Jacqueline were born into wealth and privilege. Each woman experienced an unsettled, turbulent, and lonely childhood. Both loved books, history, and leaned toward introspection. Eleanor's mother died when she was eight and Jacqueline endured the tragic ordeal of divorce. In addition, both emerged as enlightened patricians, whose fundamental aims, motivations, and personal convictions differed from their contemporaries. Moreover, Eleanor and Jacqueline married men who suffered not only from life-threatening illnesses (FDR was stricken with polio and JFK suffered from a failed back and Addison's disease), but whose acts of infidelity served to crystallize a renewed sense of self-awareness and direction within each woman. Each was also private; neither wanted to live initially in the White House. Yet, both women summoned an inner resolve that enabled them to carve out a role, to create a voice, separate and distinct from their husband's.

Differences

Notwithstanding common similarities, differences also existed between these two women. Eleanor displayed an eagerness to embrace Democratic politics and actively engaged with the press. A woman of considerable intelligence, perception, and personal conscience, she traveled throughout the country during the Great Depression delivering speeches and writing her own column, "My Day," which was published five days a week. With insight and understanding, Eleanor wrote about the poor, the dispossessed, those who had been left behind in American society. She was Franklin Roosevelt's "eyes and ears" in regard to the impact that FDR's politics had on the American people.

On the other hand, Jacqueline preferred to avoid the contentious field of politics and the press. Underneath her soft-spoken voice, however, was a woman who possessed a depth of intelligence and a subtle wit along with a passionate conviction for the cultivation of the arts and humanities, particularly among youth. To the role of First Lady, Mrs. Kennedy brought grace, beauty, intelligence, and cultivated taste. Her avid interest in the arts, publicized by press and television, inspired an attention to culture never before evident at a national level. Mrs. Kennedy originally felt the restoration should focus on the White House's early style (it was completed in 1802, then rebuilt in 1817 after being burned to the ground by British troops during the War of 1812). Yet her goals soon expanded to have the restoration reflect the whole history of the presidency.

Art and history

To highlight her artistic and historic accomplishments, Mrs. Kennedy invited artists, writers, Shakespearean actors, ballet groups, musicians, opera singers, and poets to the White House, who spoke with politicians and statesmen. An eclectic, multicultural, and strong-minded individual, Mrs. Kennedy spoke Italian, French, and Spanish fluently. She not only advocated youth concerts to encourage the next generation of musicians, but also felt that the White House rooms were furnished with pieces of furniture that lacked distinction and the history they should, in a place as special as the Executive Mansion. As a result, Mrs. Kennedy created The Fine Arts Committee with Henry Francis du Pont as the chairman.

Furthermore, she requested Congress to declare the White House an historic landmark, founded The White House Historical Association to protect, preserve, and provide public access to the rich history of the White House and wrote and edited the first White House guidebook, which was sold to tourists. The proceeds from the book were used to help finance her restoration of the White House with historic antiques. To that end, on February 14, 1962, Mrs. Kennedy took America on a televised tour of the renovated White House. In addition, working with Rachel Lambert Mellon, Jackie also supervised the redesign and replanting of the Rose Garden and the East Garden, pushed for the creation of a National Cultural Arts Center (now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts), urged President John F. Kennedy to create a national department of culture in America and collaborated with architect John Carl Warnecke for the historic restoration of Lafayette Square and Pennsylvania Avenue.

To that end, shortly after moving into the White House in 1961, Mrs. Kennedy became intensely interested in plans afoot to redevelop Lafayette Square, opposite their new address at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Several architectural firms, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the General Services Administration were the principal players, and talks centered on the style of new office buildings to be built there. Some camps favored a Beaux Arts structure, others, more modernist. Mrs. Kennedy favored the winning plan that would create a seamless facade of nineteenth-century residences on Jackson Place, the western side of the square. The New Executive Office Building, built during the renovation, is set back from the square and rises unobtrusively above the row of town houses.

Perhaps the greatest difference between these two First Ladies, however, came at the end of their husband's administrations: Franklin slipped away from Eleanor as a result of a cerebral hemorrhage, while Jackie endured the horror of her husband's brutal assassination.

Lasting impact

Eleanor and Jackie were movers and shakers who played a critical role in the political, social, and cultural times in which they lived. Their extraordinary, yet turbulent lives, brought forth a determined, intriguing, and passionate curiosity that shaped their public persona and actions. Their lives brought meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and sorrow, these women learned to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron that enabled each woman to bear the burdens that fate dealt them with an uncommon grace. Rather than retreat, they rose to the occasion to create, to summon creative impulses that they saw within themselves and in turn, utilized them to benefit American society.

Eleanor and Jackie also represented an evolving change in the role that women played in politics. Instead of walking in their husband's shadow, both women emerged with strong personalities who played an instrumental role not only in their husband's presidencies, but also in shaping the hearts and minds, hopes and aspirations, of generations of Americans. As a result, the torch they lit provided a beacon for a more visible, independent, and substantive role for future First Ladies, such as Betty Ford, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Michelle Obama.

Such historic figures in a great civilization, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, can help to illuminate, cultivate, and to summon the reservoir of talent and individual ingenuity that resides within our people. In the American experience, we, as a nation, as a people, have shown that we can meet challenges head-on. Brave and passionate, steadfast and undeterred, we are a nation of pioneers, gifted with the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character.

Conclusion

In sum, I believe so strongly the American people should be reminded about pivotal historical figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, who each played a vital role in shaping our history. I think there is a yearning on the part of the American people not only for political change, but also for enterprising individuals who would exert a positive influence on American society. Sometimes we have to look to our past to find individuals who elevated our civilization to new heights. If we do not understand our past, we cannot understand our country's future. Our country's youth, who are America's future, need to understand that Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy believed they could make a positive difference not only in their own personal lives, but also in the social-economic and cultural fabric of American society.  Since Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy made a difference during their generation, why shouldn't we expect those in a position of influence to make a difference in the difficult and turbulent time in which we live?

Finally, Eleanor and Jackie's dedication to personal development and sense of obligation can best be summed up in a poem by Robert Frost, "Choose Something Like A Star."

...It asks a little of us here. It asks of us a certain height, so when at times the mob is swayed to
carry praise or blame too far, we may choose something like a star to stay our minds on and be staid."                                                                        

Let us know your thoughts on the article below.

About the Author

David M. Huff was born in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1968. A violist, he studied with the Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra from 1983-1984. He attended the Interlochen Arts Festival and Interlochen Arts Academy from 1984-1986 and also participated in the Boston University Tanglewood Institute's Youth Program during the summer of 1986. He earned a B.A. in History from West Virginia University and an M.A. in History/Research from West Virginia University. He works in Washington, D.C.

Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?

In 1920 Britain was granted an official Mandate by the League of Nations to administer the country of Iraq - and ultimately allow it to achieve independence.

The whole affair, which lasted from the end of the First World War to independence in 1932, was largely a failure, with few flattering accounts and obligations often unfulfilled. It is from this point in time that the first underlying signs of declining British power are evidenced, while for Iraq it set a path to a fraught and unstable future.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

The British presence had been building up in Iraq since 1914 when her forces had removed the Ottomans from the region with domestic support. As soon as the British had expelled the Turks they were making encouraging noises that raised Iraq’s hopes of independence.  

The British, in the words of General Maude and High Commissioner Percy Cox, implied loudly that they came as liberators.  This was welcomed by Iraq, which already had nationalistic aspirations and expectations were raised.

The Ottomans previously allowed levels of autonomy to many areas of Iraq and the noises from the British were encouraging, but what followed was very different and did little to assuage growing Iraqi concerns as the British occupation continued.

The Post War Mandate

The League of Nations appointed the mandate to Britain in 1920 to run Iraq and lead her on the path to self- determination.  In retrospect it resembled a poorly disguised colonialism. 

Iraq offered a geographically strategic position as a potential overland route from Egypt through the Middle East to South East Asia.  Iraq filled a gap of land in the middle of a long run of British possessions. It would provide a useful alternative to the long and arduous sea lanes that had been threatened by submarine warfare.

There was also an urgent need to offset the cost of the war that Britain bore in the region.  The overland route would be safer, quicker, and - more importantly - cheaper as there would be less demand on oil from the navy. Whether this theory was correct or not, the later revolt and the cost of suppressing it made the economic debate moot. By the end of 1920 Britain could see further lost opportunities as her plans to monopolize the oil reserves also met US resistance and generated a reversal of policy.

Nevertheless, another possession in the oil rich region at the time could enhance Britain’s international leverage, and counter French and Russian influence in the region (in May 1920 the Red Army invaded Northern Persia further fuelling Bolshevik expansionist fears).  

Now Britain had the mandate it was the India Office that provided the administration to mobilize it.  It imposed a very prevalent British presence in all aspects of Iraqi life – that would prove very unpopular. 

The Uprising

The uprising that occurred in Iraq in 1920 was fuelled by an unrelenting nationalism that was growing years before the British presence whilst under Ottoman rule.  The very loud and public promises made by the British during the war now looked like they were going to be unfulfilled. Arnold Wilson and other British high commissioners treated peaceful petitions and representatives in a high-handed and often dismissive manner, which no doubt irked these nationalists.  

The various tribes were treated inconsistently, controversial taxes were established, and a questionable plebiscite was orchestrated that favored a British outcome. Much of the country was resentful, as they felt excluded from political decisions.  The India Office imposed colonial rules on all aspects of life that felt more restrictive than that of the Ottomans.

The British responded to the uprising by deploying the full force of the military, with Royal Air Force (RAF) support.  Despite the belief that Churchill was an advocate of the use of poison gas, this was not deployed but the use of the air-force’s bombing tactics was no less brutal than that used by Italy in Abyssinia against poorly equipped tribes.  It was all over very quickly by the end of the year, but it was not an easily fought campaign for the British.

The British had far superior forces at their disposal with the presence of the RAF. This should have put them at a far greater advantage than the less well-equipped tribes.  The revolt was suppressed in a few short months after a brutal response that cost 10,000 Iraqi lives, the bombing of mosques and the burning of villages. There were also defeats and retreats that bloodied the nose of this huge Imperial force. Humiliating examples were the seizing of HMS Firefly and her artillery by the tribes who turned the arsenal on the British and the retreats from Karbala and Najal (to name but two).  It was a humiliating situation for a Great Power.

After counting the cost of the revolt and the continued strain on the finances, Britain began to urgently push for Iraqi independence. When the final tally was counted the uprising cost the exchequer circa £40m and the continued occupation of Iraq would cost circa £20m per annum.  Policy now had to change.  There was then an interim approach in Iraq in the meantime - and that was in the form of a democratic offering of sorts.

The Veneer of Democracy 

It was clear that military intervention would not be enough to keep a sustained peace.  The British needed a friendly Iraqi government that they could still influence and control in the background, whilst at the same time creating a veneer of a democratic government.  In 1921 that friendly pro-British ruler took the form of King Faisal, a man who was in favor with the British for his support during the war.  After his expulsion by the French for his attempt to establish power in Syria he took an offer by the British to head up a ruling government in Iraq. Faisal was not representative of the varied and diverse population - and it would not satisfy the underlying tensions completely.

Meanwhile, the British, with successive high commissioners over this period, still pulled the political strings. Faisal’s new government was shored up by 300 Ottoman officers who fought for his side in the Great War, but a large proportion of the population was still left ignored and dissatisfied.  This discontentment would still bubble under the surface long after the 1932 independence. Iraq was never going to be the stable state that Britain promised under the auspices of the League of Nations. 

Economic Concessions

There are several views on Britain’s intentions with the oil and petroleum reserves that Iraq had.  David Lloyd George wanted to monopolize the oil and petrol reserves for British interests as there was a dependency on US and Mexican oil that was embarrassing to Britain - despite having an abundant and sufficient source with The Turkish Petroleum Company. 

This stance would soon change from a monopolistic policy to one of an open free market by allowing US investment. There were other ways that the oil could serve British interests and that did not necessitate having a monopoly.

The oil revenues would financially support the objectives of the mandate and offset the economic liability she had undertook. Iraq’s own resources would be used but when it came down to the bare facts the Iraqi nation would have no voice in how their own natural resources would be used.

The Conclusion – An empire in decline and a new nation broken

Before the war Iraq was modernizing and progressing into the Industrial world.  The building of the Suez Canal had opened her grain and wool markets to the world.  There was German and British interest in her vast petrol reserves as early as 1907.  The war and the Mandate era had set her far back.

Although Britain was not the originator of the nationalistic fervor it was her heavy handed and brutal response that did little to help Iraq’s future unity and stability, as King Faisal would later comment in his memoirs.

There were ominous signs for Britain also. The Empire was dangerously over-stretched, and cracks were now appearing in Ireland and India as well as Iraq.  Although the idea of Empire was still something the British were proud, other priorities were becoming more apparent on home shores. 

On paper the revolt should have not been as troublesome to suppress for a Great Power such as Britain, with the power of the RAF and mechanized divisions at her disposal to fight the local tribes. Considering the resources, the British had this was not an easily fought campaign, possibly a sign of waning military strength.

The drain on the British Exchequer was not insignificant and the economic situation was bleak at the time. This was something the public purse could not tolerate as Britain had over one million unemployed, the large majority being de-mobilized servicemen. By 1921 unemployment had risen to over two million with several major strikes taking place.  There was no room for troublesome additions to an already troubled Britain.

All these factors contributed to a less that half-hearted commitment to Iraq. By 1932 a poorly produced independence was handed over. There were no winners or favorable outcomes for Iraq but for Britain that small snippet of history held so many signs of the beginnings of imperial decline. 

What do you think of the British Empire and Iraq? Let us know below.

References

David E Omissi – Air Power and Colonial Controls, Manchester University Press 1990

Dr Toby Lodge – The British Mandate in Iraq 1914-32, Institute for Strategic Studies

Amal Vinograv – The 1920 Revolt in Iraq Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 1972

William Shrivers - International Politic and Iraqi Oil 1918-1928, Business History Review 1981 (Pages 517-540)

Judith Yaphe – War and Occupation in Iraq: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?  Middle Eastern Journal 2003, Middle East Institute

Kashmir: A Divided Territory Since 1947

The region of Kashmir largely lies across the territory of modern-day India and Pakistan. The area has had a tumultuous history since India became independent in 1947. Here, Manan Shah explains what happened to Kashmir in 1947 and the years after.

India soldiers during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–48.

In Asia lies the picturesque region of Kashmir, which records history from as early as the Neolithic period. Over a period of time numerous sovereigns have ruled over the land, which has established and benefited their empires. The area has always benefited from its geography and has proved to be a major trade route which connected Central Asia to the north of India. It was not at all surprising to see rulers take refuge in the beautiful valley of Kashmir, since it is protected by the natural frontiers and difficult terrain.

While we shall not go into the detailed past of Kashmir, the article takes into consideration the events that have shaped the current socio-political character of the valley, thus making it one of the world's most militarized zones. As of today it stands as a politically disintegrated country which is a constant battle ground for three nuclear powered states - India, Pakistan and China. It is a place where human rights abuse is no exception and people do not have basic rights.

1947

In 1947, world's biggest colonial power Britain left the territory of India after colonizing it for about 200 years, thus marking its independence; however, dividing the Indian sub-continent into two separate countries, India and Pakistan, the former largely for Hindus and latter largely for Muslims. It should be noted that prior to independence, India had about 584 princely states, states that were ruled by rulers while acknowledging British sovereignty. Kashmir was one of them. At the same time these princely states were given an option either to join the union of India or union of Pakistan and few had the option to remain independent. Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler to his Muslim subjects, tried to delay his decision thinking this could maintain the independence of Kashmir. Meanwhile, rebellion from the west and infiltration from Pakistan's tribal groups into the territory forced him to sign the famous “Instrument of Accession” of Indian Union on October 26, 1947 - against the will of the people. The document was signed with three conditions that the Union of India has control over: defense, external affairs and communications. This gave rise to local warfare. While popular opinion in the valley says Kashmiris' accession to the Union of India was temporary and was asked as a favor to protect their territory and to provide essential help, it was agreed that the Indian Army would evacuate as soon as there was no external threat to the land. However the irony is the situation in Kashmir has never been stable since then.  Both India and Pakistan never fail to put the blame on each other, time and again.

The matter was put forward to the United Nations in 1948. The resolution was passed by the UN to restore order. The three-step recommendation suggested that Pakistan withdraw all the forces that they had infiltrated into the territory of Kashmir. Secondly, India was asked to reduce the number of forces to the minimum level required. Thirdly, a plebiscite was to be conducted. As we speak right now, none has taken place as both India and Pakistan raised objections to the resolution. In January 1949, India and Pakistan agreed a ceasefire line that divided the country into two temporarily. Although, that so-called “temporary” partition still exists, even after 72 years. All this is happening in the democratic country of India, as it occupies most of the territory of Kashmir, followed by Pakistan, and then China’s incursion in 1962 to Aksai Chin.

Since the 1940s

Over the years Kashmiris have raised their voice against the abuse even though the two nuclear powers remain silent or blame each other. While a small percentage of the population wants to accede to India and a substantial part favors Pakistan, most of the population chooses to remain independent.

People have continuously feared and resisted the presence of Indian Army in the state due to the threat to their lives. They fear India is not holding up its promise of evacuating the land of Kashmir as the India has made it public that Kashmir belongs to them. Bills were passed in parliament to change the character of the state and to legitimize India's claim over the land. Recently there has been the abrogation of article 370 and 35A, which protects the demographic status of Jammu & Kashmir in a constitutional form. The state was put under lockdown and all means of communications was suspended for an indefinite period of time, high speed internet being one, which was restored after 17 months.

Kashmir’s independence right and claim was even acknowledged by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, who said on January 2, 1952:

“Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to Kashmiri people. When Kashmiris acceded to India, we made it clear to the leader of Kashmiri people that we could ultimately by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell me to walk out, I will have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir.

We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honor for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question of a final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

Since independence both India and Pakistan share a bitter relationship and therefore Kashmir has served as the vote bank for both. It has time and again helped political parties to shift the momentum in their favor. It has become a weak point for both states to shift public opinion and deviate them from other issues.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, in 1947, 1965 and 1999. They caused numerous casualties and human rights abuses. People were raped, tortured and murdered in cold blood. Today the state is under threat, there are continuous attacks on the state’s identity and people’s voices being suppressed. As Basharat Peer writes, “Srinagar* (Summer capital of Jammu & Kashmir) is never winning and never being defeated.” 

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Manan Shah is a student of Archeology and Ancient History who writes for independent publications. Born and brought up in Kashmir he shares an intriguing insight of the culture and political history of the region.

His email is shahmanan74@gmail.com