Hitler Youth: The Attempted Foundation for the Future of Nazism

The Hitler Youth was established by the Nazis in pre-World War II Germany. It was set up to indoctrinate children in Nazi ideology. Here, Disha Mule tells us about the group and its methods.

Hitler Youth members. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-5592-14A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

If you keep up to date with Google Doodles, you’d be aware that this year on June 25, it commemorated 75 years of Anne Frank’s diary. The Diary of a Young Girl is one of the most important pieces of Holocaust literature. Despite facing several censorship issues, it still occupies a respectable spot in the list of books most widely read around the world. The book provides various insights about life during the gruesome period. There’s no doubt that it is an eminent source of study. But at heart, it remains the diary of a teenager.

Anne’s innocence, humor, and insecurities are reflected through her entries, making the reader empathize with her. Aside from all the complications of transitioning from a child to an adult, teenage life is full of hope and vivacity. It is the time when an individual is driven to prove their worth and bring about some change. If this zeal is corrupted by a race-obsessed dictator, things are bound to get dark and the rest is history.

Hitler

The German defeat in World War I was a sore spot for Hitler and played an important role in forging his strategies. Being particularly good with words, his passion showed in his speeches. His ideas and promises brought hope to the people who were still reeling from the effects of the Great Depression and the failure of the Weimar Republic. He presented his ideologies under the guise of utopic versions of Germany. At the peak of his popularity, he was hailed as the savior of the country. An extremist politician had become the Fuhrer.

The fame helped in the proliferation of his beliefs but workings to spread them across the country had already begun since the time anyone hardly knew who Nazis were. Among these endeavors was the formation of an organization for German youth. What started as the Youth League of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party, in 1922, later came to be known as the Hitler Youth(1).

“The Jew must clear out of Europe. Otherwise no understanding will be possible between Europeans. It's the Jew who prevents everything. When I think about it, I realise that I'm extraordinarily humane.”(2)

In a bid to revolutionize German nationalism, Hitler imposed various measures - the extermination of Jews being an important one. He saw the Jewish killings as a means of progress. For fulfilling his ambition of the Third Reich, it was convenient if people began viewing his ideas as their own. It would be helpful if the public were convinced that Hitler’s actions were for their betterment. And what would be more effective than targeting the most susceptible part of the population?

He set up the Hitler Youth which made the upsurge of Nazism all the easier. It was compulsory to be a part of the organization. Parents had to serve prison sentences if they objected or refused to send their child for this training(3). Some parents were proud to send their children for national service. The youth was moved by his propaganda to such an extent that they began considering these atrocities as a necessity and their service to the Fuhrer nothing short of prestige.

Beginning of a Gloomy Future

Hitler wanted to internalize the Nazi ideology in the minds of ‘pure’ Aryan children as young as three years old. According to Robert Ley, the head of the German Labor Front, the children were given a small flag to wave as soon as they started to think. This was followed by school, the Hitler Youth, and military service. Later they were taken under the front and served till death, even if unwilling.

First of all, Jewish children were segregated from the ‘desirable’ children.

“I was accepted to the Jewish Lyceum on a conditional basis. I was supposed to stay in the seventh grade at the Montessori School, but when Jewish children were required to go to Jewish schools, Mr. Elte finally agreed, after a great deal of persuasion, to accept Lies Goslar and me.”(4)

The Jewish Lyceum was the school where Jewish pupils were sent after the summer holidays of 1941. In addition to these children, those of Catholic or Protestant belief also had to attend different schools if they had Jewish blood (5).

Right around the time of Hitler’s rise to power, young Germans were failing to set high standards academically. The fact that ten Jews were awarded Nobel prizes by 1931 (6) did not help. As a result, the curriculums were changed and an extremely demeaning education system was introduced.

The study of “racial sciences” was promoted and German physics, German mathematics, etc. began to replace the erstwhile taught subjects(7). Teachers and professors also faced the consequences of this new system. Jews were forbidden to teach. While others had to swear their loyalty to Hitler under the Civil Service Act of 1937(8). There came a time when serving in the S.A. or the Labor Service or the Hitler Youth was a must to be eligible for teaching(9). All of this was done to strengthen nationalism. But that’s not the worst part. Some professors were in favor of these changes and openly endorsed anti-Semitism(10).

Training

The process of creating future Nazi soldiers started early. Boys aged six to ten were required to complete an initial training period. They would be tested in camping, athletics, and history (tampered by Nazi beliefs, of course) after which they were transferred into the Jungvolk(11). Hitler wanted them to be bold and stoic. The task for which they were being recruited had no place for the weak-hearted. Being sensitive and compassionate was seen as a flaw.

Girls, too, were organized into groups like Jungmaedal and the B.D.M. Though they went through the same training as the boys, being docile, giving birth to healthy children, and nourishing them were made their priorities(12). At eighteen, the boys joined the Labor Service and the Army whereas girls did one-year farm service while they were still in the B.D.M.(13).

The older members of the Hitler Youth also served to inspire preteens. In rooms filled with propaganda posters and the greetings of “Heil Hitler”, meetings were held for teaching the recruits how great Hitler was(14). Seeing how enthusiastically their seniors supported Hitler and his cause, the organization’s younger members blindly followed them. These senior members could be considered ‘influencers' in a way. The cakes and sweets provided at these meetings could also play a role in deciding who was a good person(15) given that the decision makers were barely ten years of age.

A very interesting point to note is that these boys and girls were not chosen from a specific background. Even if they were taught to hate a sect of people on baseless notions, discrimination was absent in case of their recruitment. Once they turned ten, whether their parents were peasants or wealthy merchants, it was mandatory to be a part of the Hitler Youth. They were trained together and ordered to carry out the same tasks. It’s odd how a sense of solidarity was instilled in these children with such delusional ideas and heinous crimes in the foreground.

Leaders of Tomorrow

Baldur von Schirach was an important name in this youth propaganda. His case seems to be an appropriate example to demonstrate the importance of good influence during adolescence. He was so mesmerized by Hitler that he even composed flattering poems about his heroism(16).  While he was at Munich University, he joined National Socialist German Students’ League and helped in increasing its votes in the student elections(17). As a result, he was made the Youth Leader of the German Reich and reported to no officer or ministry but the Fuhrer(18).

Creating new leaders was as important as creating new soldiers. After an incident with his teacher at Steyr, Hitler decided that things should not be run like a Jewish school - like an anarchy.

Adolf Hitler Schools, under the Hitler Youth, sought out twelve-year-old brilliant students in the Jungvolk and subjected them to undergo six-year-long training in leadership. They were later eligible for higher education in universities. There were two other types of schools established - the National Political Institutions of Education and the Order Castles. The Order Castles were at the top with all the creme de la creme of the Hitler Youth. High achievers from the other two institutes were sent to these Order Castles where they stayed for another six years. These students were prepared to devote themselves to Lebensraum.

After the end of the Nazi regime, the Hitler Youth was evidently dissolved. The members were not convicted as they were still children. Nevertheless, studying how this entire generation was brainwashed into believing what they were doing was a great service to the nation is both pitiful and mortifying.

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

References

1 Richard J. Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich (Penguin Press, 2003), 261

2 Adolf Hitler, Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations, trans. Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens (Enigma Books, 2000), ‘119 - 23rd January 1942’, 235

3 William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (RosettaBooks, 2011), 333

4 Anne Frank, The Diary of a Young Girl, trans. Susan Massotty (Doubleday, 1995), ‘SUNDAY, JULY 5, 1942’

5 Anne Frank House, “Jewish children are made to got to separate schools”, https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/217/jewish-children-are-made-to-go-to-separate-schools/

6 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 328-330

7 Ibid.

8 Ibid.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid.

11 Ibid., 333-334

12 Ibid,

13 Ibid.

14 Karen Truesdell Riehl, Helga: Growing Up in Hitler’s Germany (Karen Truesdell Riehl, 2014), Treats and lies

15 Ibid.

16 Evans, The Coming of the Third Reich, 262

17 Ibid., 262-263

18 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 332-333

19 Hitler, Hitler’s Table Talk, 192

20 Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, 335-336

21 Ibid.

Bibliography

Evans, Richard J. The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Press, 2003.

Frank, Anne. The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition. Edited by Otto H. Frank and Mirjam Pressler. Translated by Susan Massotty. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Hitler, Adolf. Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944: His Private Conversations. Translated by Norman Cameron and R. H. Stevens. Enigma Books, 2000.

“Jewish children are made to go to separate schools | Anne Frank House”,

https://www.annefrank.org/en/timeline/217/jewish-children-are-made-to-go-to-separate-schools/.

Shirer, William L. The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich. RosettaBooks, 2011.

Truesdell Riehl, Karen. Helga: Growing Up in Hitler's Germany. Karen Truesdell Riehl, 2014.

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 2 - Fidel Takes Power

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at US assessments of Fidel Castro just before he took power, the 1958 Cuban election, and the early days of Castro in power.

If you missed it, read part 1 on Cuba before the revolution here,

Fidel Castro and Camilo Cienfuegos in Havana in January 1959.

Enter Earl Smith. This non-Spanish-speaking businessman with no diplomatic experience took over duties as American ambassador in Havana in June, 1957. On the urging of his staff, Smith did some traveling in Cuba to get a better feel for the country. Based on his experiences and observations, Smith developed firm views on Castro and the anti-Batista movements, which views were not completely in accord with the CIA. The ambassador did not omit to inform Kirkpatrick that in his view, the CIA mission had allowed itself to fall under the sway of the July 26 movement. Smith urged the CIA to stop giving any encouragement to them. He furthermore accused the CIA of greatly underestimating the strength of the Communist party and its influence in Cuba. The CIA official responded by basically denying Smith’s charges with a bland recital of recent CIA operations, which he characterized as above reproach.

The new ambassador decided to conduct his own investigation into Castro’s background and what he found alarmed him. Smith conducted an intensive process of interviews including a multitude of people, many of whom had known Castro since his youth. He was careful to include those who were anti-Batista, representing different segments of Cuban society. According to Smith “No matter how anti-Batista these people were, they believed Castro would be worse for Cuba than Batista.” Among other reasons, those Smith interviewed stated that Castro was “an unstable terrorist.” Smith's ultimate conclusion was “It was becoming more and more obvious to me that the Castro-led 26th of July Movement embraced every element of radical political thought and terrorist inclination in Cuba.” But despite Smith’s position as ambassador, some personnel in the American Embassy continued to support Castro and relay messages to the State Department indicating that the Castro movement was nothing to fear. Not only that,  in early 1958 Radio Moscow broadcast its support of the effort to overthrow Batista. They continued especially supporting the 26th of July Movement. The State Department was informed of this by Ambassador Smith.

It was only when some rebels, under the command of Raul Castro, began kidnapping Americans that the State Department began to direct the CIA to prevent Castro from attaining power. The CIA then attempted to cultivate an alternative leader, without success.

Democratic process

Another possible solution lay in the democratic process. In 1958, after six years of military dictatorship under Batista, Cuba held a free election and began preparing the way for a peaceful transition of power. Three main candidates vied with each other for the presidency; Andrés Rivero Agüero of the Progressive Action Party, Carlos Márquez Sterling of the Partido del Pueblo Libre. The elections represented an opportunity to get rid of Batista but the US remained non-committal about which candidate to support or what official policy to adopt towards the on-going armed rebellion. Castro seemed to be a viable option. In his first speech on Radio Rebelde on April 14, 1958 Castro repeated many of the cherished ideals of classical liberalism; freedom of the press, republicanism and constitutionalism. He went out of his way to deny his association with communism, “These dictators will not tire of repeating the lie that we are "communists." He began the speech, in fact, with a withering attack on government censorship.  “As hateful as tyranny is in all its aspects, none of them is so irritating and crudely cynical as the absolute control that it has imposed on all the media for disseminating printed, radio and television news.”

On July 16 the American embassy passed along to the State Department the views of one of the opposition candidates, Dr. Marquez Sterling. Sterling communicated to the American Embassy that, in his view, the political situation was the most dangerous the Island had ever encountered. He claimed that the insurrectionists, unable to win on their own, were seeking to create conditions of anarchy that would allow them to seize power. He called Castro “mad” - not the first person to do so. Additionally, ambassador Earl T. Smith, vocally opposed any possible support of Castro. He declared openly that Castro was not someone with whom the US could trust or work with. Despite these warnings, the US did not take a firm position on Castro or the election.

The American embassy in Cuba's attitude was crystal clear, in contrast to the vague official American policy. The embassy represented a valuable front-line perspective which should have guided US policy. On October 3, 1958, just weeks before the election, an embassy dispatch entitled: “1958 Elections; Electoral Outlook Six Weeks Prior to Elections” arrived in Washington. After a thorough analysis of the political situation in Cuba, the embassy urged the following course of action:  "Though the coming Cuban elections will not meet all the standards of an ideal democratic election, they are the best that can be had under the circumstances now prevailing. They are in the Embassy’s view infinitely better than a violent overthrow of Batista and far better than no elections at all. It is therefore in the interest of the United States to encourage them." In other words, the embassy opposed any of the armed opposition, which Earl Smith viewed as illegitimate.

Election

Despite such information, ambivalence continued to mark the US official attitude toward the bearded rebel. There were, however, more red flags. First, there was Castro’s attitude toward the election. Although  he repeatedly proclaimed himself as a proponent of democracy, during the 1958 election he issued repeated calls for a general strike and death threats against all candidates for political office as well as Cubans who wished to participate. As a result, in regions under the control of the insurrection, voter turnout was negligible. Insisting that the election was a US/Batista farce, the rebels issued the “Total War Against the Tyranny Manifesto.” In the uncompromising language of the fanatic, the Manifesto simply ignored the elections and declared “war” on the Batista regime.

The elections took place on November 3rd with Progressive Action candidate Andrés Rivero Agüero winning 70% of the vote. Within days of his victory he met with the US ambassador and expressed his commitment to restore legitimacy and constitutional government in Cuba. The US was prepared to support him with military aid against insurgents. He would never get the chance. The Batista government was in the process of disintegration at that moment and would collapse within weeks. Agüero’s ambitions to restore the Cuban government were thwarted when Batista threw in the towel and fled Cuba on January 1, 1959, leaving the Island to anti-Batista forces.

When the rebels took Havana, a wave of euphoria swept Cuba. Most were hopeful that Castro and his fellow revolutionaries would establish a liberal democracy as he had stated many times. Castro and his revolution also captured the attention and hopes of many foreign observers. Although some uttered dark warnings about the bearded militant, others, mainly in the American media, helped to sway much American opinion in Castro’s favor. They denied Castro’s communism and actively promoted him as an acceptable leader of Cuba. After Castro’s arrival in Havana, American companies continued to act as if nothing would change. Investment in Cuba hit a record high of $63 million. One corporate executive remarked that the responsibilities of leadership would force Castro to “become conservative.”

Optimism

Everyone was caught up in the excitement. Immediately after Castro's entry into Havana, Ed Sullivan journeyed to the island and met the enigmatic rebel. Arriving at about two in the morning, Sullivan conducted and filmed an interview with Castro lasting about six minutes. Sullivan introduced the filmed interview with the comment “Somebody has said that ‘Freedom is Everybody’s Business.’ In the interview Castro came across as a soft-spoken, freedom-loving, responsible leader. Sullivan expressed great optimism about his subject and what it meant for the future of his suffering nation as well as Cuban-American relations.

Not long after Sullivan’s encounter with Castro, The popular show Face the Nation journeyed to Havana to expand on the entertainer’s brief conversation. Their purpose was to have a more serious and thorough opportunity to find out what this new Latin American hero was all about, and if indeed, the revolution was something to be worried about. Again, Castro emphasized his democratic ideals and opposition to communism. The main wrinkle in the generally hopeful mood was over the on-going executions. Once the anti-Batista forces took control of Havana, Batista followers were rounded up and hastily tried.  Summary executions took a gruesome toll as the revolutionary government took terrible revenge against Batista followers.for “crimes a./m gainst the people.” By the end of February 500 had been executed. The “trials” fell far short of American or European standards of justice. At one trial, a lawyer asked that the case against his defendant be dismissed due to lack of evidence. The prosecutor replied, “He has to be shot anyway as a measure of social health.” Horrified observers reacted with concern. When questioned about the executions, Castro’s responses betrayed a complete lack of understanding or sympathy for Western concepts of justice guaranteeing a fair trial. His closest associates, in fact, dismissed these ideals as “bourgeois concepts of justice.” Castro was actually surprised at the international outcry over the executions. “These men are assassins,” he declared, “We are executing murderers that deserve to be shot.” He justified denying due process of law to Batista men, declaring that the evidence was obvious and that simple accusations were all that was needed.

Anti-Americanism

The Consulate at Santiago continued to advise the State Department about conditions in the immediate aftermath of Castro’s ascension to power. They described a rising tide of anti-Americanism, encouraged, in part, by “the pronouncements of Fidel Castro.” An attempt to show films from the United States Information Service was shut down when a member of the audience rose and lectured them on “United States oppression of Cuba.” The consulate also took the opportunity to report the increasing influence of the communists. They were now accepted as a legal party, communist newspapers began to be reestablished and individuals with PSP backgrounds had been appointed to public office.

Time magazine also issued a frank assessment. The opening lines of an article of the January 26 issue warned; “The executioner’s rifle cracked across Cuba last week, and around the world voices hopefully cheering for a new democracy fell still. The men who had just won a popular revolution for old ideals—for democracy, justice and honest government—themselves picked up the arrogant tools of dictatorship. As its public urged them on, the Cuban rebel army shot more than 200 men, summarily convicted in drumhead courts, as torturers and mass murderers for the fallen Batista dictatorship. The constitution, a humanitarian document forbidding capital punishment, was overridden.” The article went on to luridly describe the executions, sounding more like descriptions of Einsatzgruppen activity rather than tribunals of real justice.

What do you think about Fidel Castro’s early days in power? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

The 1952 Great Smog of London

The Great Fog or Great Smog of London in December 1952 caused widespread issues across the British capital for 5 days. It led to practically zero visibility and led to many health problems and events canceled. Chuck Lyons explains.

Nelson's Column, London in the Great Smog of 1952. Source: geograph.org.uk, available here.

For five days in December 1952, the city of London was paralyzed by what has come to be known as the Great Fog, a smog so dense that people were blinded, driving was all but impossible, and aboveground public transport and ambulance services stopped. Concerts and sporting events were cancelled; motion picture theaters closed. At railroad crossings, percussion caps were placed on the tracks so trains running over them caused explosions to warn passersby of their approach. Roads were littered with abandoned cars. Crime increased as burglars took advantage of the unexpected cover. Animals at the annual Smithfield Animal Show had to be given oxygen, others died. Ducks were killed when they flew blindly into the sides of buildings.

People were disoriented clinging to buildings so they wouldn’t lose their way.

And worse.

Government medical reports later estimated the fog had killed 4,000 people, an estimate that more recent investigators have upped to as many as 12,000. Another 100,000 or more were made ill with respiratory ailments, crowding the city’s hospitals or suffering and dying quietly in their homes. City officials only became aware of the deaths and the full extent of the health crisis when they noticed the city’s supply of coffins had come close to being exhausted.

“You had this swirling like somebody had set a load of car tires on fire," mortician’s assistant Stan Cribb recalled. On Friday Dec. 5, Cribb was driving in the lead of a funeral procession as the smog settled in, the sky darkened, and he realized he was losing sight of the curb beside the road. After a few minutes, Cribb’s employer got out of the car and walked in front with a light, but even that did not help much.

"It's like you were blind," says Cribb.

Nightfall

By nightfall visibility had dropped to a few feet, and it got no better on Saturday. It became even thicker Sunday and again on Monday. Visibility had been reduced in places to one foot, and people reported they could not see their own shoes. In the Isle of Dogs section of the city, visibility was officially recorded as “nil.” People carried lanterns and white clothes to make themselves visible on the sidewalks, and some took to wearing makeshift masks of gauze or fabric to aid their breathing. The smog by then had penetrated theaters that were closed when patrons complained they were unable to see the stage, into homes, churches, and hospitals.

“The air was not simply thick and grey. It was yellow, sulfurous, and impenetrable,” an unnamed London resident later wrote. “I heard the footsteps of a person walking toward me and realized that my own hesitant walking also sounded on the pavement. As we approached each other we both almost stopped for we could not see each other. Then, five feet in front of me a man materialized out of the smog with a mask over his nose and mouth. Wordlessly we passed each other.”

At its peak, the Times of London reported, the fog spread about twenty miles in all directions from the center of the city.

The Great Fog

The Great Fog, like most London smog, had been caused by particles from the smoke of the city’s coal-burning furnaces combining in the atmosphere with particles from the area’s natural fog. But in 1952, a third element was added: a weather inversion, a high-pressure system that trapped cold and polluted air underneath warmer air and held it in place where it grew progressively worse. (Historians have also noted that a cold turn in the weather before December 5 had people burning more coal to keep warm while the coal used in the post-war period had a higher sulfur content, both of which added to the already-existing pollution).

It was not until 2016, however, that science discovered what exactly had caused the deaths, In November of that year the results of a study conducted by scientists from the United Kingdom, China, and the United States and headed by Renyi Zhang, an atmospheric scientist at Texas A&M University, concluded that sulfuric acid particles, formed from the sulfur dioxide in the coal smoke, was the culprit. Breathing them could be—and was—deadly.

By the time the study was published, London residents had been suffering from bad air for eight centuries, since coal was first burned there in the 1200s. Periods of smog, known to the locals as “pea-soupers” had by the 16th century become such a problem that King James I tried unsuccessfully to limit coal burning. By the 19th and 20th centuries these dense, yellowish fogs, made worse by the coal burning factories of the Industrial Revolution, had become regulars on the city’s streets appearing almost as living entities in the London writings of Charles Dickens, swirling around Sherlock Holmes’s Baker Street, and in modern times filling the screens of eerie and suspenseful black-and-white motion pictures.

“Fog everywhere,” Dickens had written in his 1853 novel Bleak House. “Chance people on the bridges peeping over the parapets into a nether sky...as if they were up in a balloon and hanging in the misty clouds.”

The end

By the mid-20th century, though many of the factories had by then moved out of the city, the exhausts of automobiles, trucks, and buses were adding more pollutants to the already polluted air.

Then came December 1952.

The end came to the Great Fog—and at it would turn out to most of London’s fog problem—on Tuesday, Dec. 9, when a fresh wind came in from the west and blew the smog free of the inversion, away from London, and out over the North Sea where it dispersed. But, besides its immediate and disastrous effects, the Great Fog had had another effect. It also made the public aware of the dangers of pollution and led to the Clean Air Act of 1956 that limited the burning of coal in urban areas of the United Kingdom. Some historians have additionally called the public’s reaction to the city’s 1952 fog as the beginning of the environmental movement.

What do you think of the 1952 Great Fog of London? Let us know below.

How the US Misjudged Fidel Castro: Part 1 - Before the Revolution

At the moment of Fidel Castro's triumphant entry into Havana, Cuba on January 9, 1959, the charismatic revolutionary leader was a relatively unknown quantity. Many are surprised to discover that Castro at first enjoyed much popular support in this country. Early reports on the rebel leader featured positive, if sometimes guarded, reactions. Even Ed Sullivan, America’s premier show man, got caught up in the excitement. He journeyed to Cuba himself to interview the victorious rebel leader shortly after the latter’s entry into Havana. He was but one of myriad journalists who descended on Cuba to cover the exciting changes in the island.

In this series, Victor Gamma returns and considers how the US misjudged Fidel Castro. Here, we look at how the US intervened in other places in the 1950s, and its pre-Cuban Revolution attempts to understand Fidel Castro’s beliefs.

Fidel Castro with his in the Sierra Maestra, Cuba. December 1956.

In April 1959, Castro visited the United States itself, where he appeared on popular American TV shows, gave talks at Harvard and was buoyed aloft on the shoulders of an admiring audience. In the US he generally received royal treatment wherever he went. This included children sporting Castro beards and other manifestations of Castro-mania. This is strange considering the fact that his mortal enemy, Batista, enjoyed the full backing of the US but a few months before.

As we all know, this “honeymoon” period did not last. Before the end of that year, relations between the US and Castro deteriorated beyond the point of no return. The point is: if we had a more clear idea of his ideology, if he were a communist or might become one and would become an ally of the Soviet Union, we would have been justified in acting decisively to keep him from power. An operation similar to that carried out in Guatemala in 1954 or Iran in 1952 could have been mounted. In the tense competition with the Soviet Union, it was imperative to prevent a communist government 90 miles from American shores. But without a clear understanding of Castro's ideology and/or future plans no firm policy was formulated. Instead, US policy would evolve in reaction to Castro's moves. The result of that policy was that in less than two years diplomatic ties between the United States and Cuba severed and relations degenerated into clandestine warfare. Subsequently, Cuba under Castro became a disaster for U.S. foreign policy for decades. Why did the US allow such a hostile regime to take hold so close to our shores? Why were US policy makers not clear on what Castro’s motives were or what the nature of his ideology was until too late? How did we miss the warning signs?

The problem began towards the end of the Batista regime. By 1957, after almost two decades of unwavering support of Cuban regimes, the State Department began to have doubts about continued support of Batista. Batista’s efforts to label Castro as a communist and tool of Moscow failed to gain Eisenhower’s continued support. In the corridors of power, criticism of America’s Cuban policy became more vocal. Such sentiments were even becoming a matter of public record. On August, 17, 1958, Henry Wriston, president of the Council on Foreign Relation appeared on the Mike Wallace Interview. He openly uttered such anti-Batista statements as “we don't like Batista'' and “we would be delighted to see Batista and Trujillo (the dictator of Guatemala) overthrown.” The US went beyond mere distaste. In March,1958 Eisenhower stopped sending arms to Batista, “Obviously Castro had won the emotional support of the Cuban people,” he said later in justification. The CIA had even actually begun supporting opposition movements in hopes of getting rid of an increasingly unpopular dictator. 

The US and Castro

The US enjoyed major success in sponsoring overthrows of regimes in places as diverse as Guatemala and Iran. Unlike in those countries, however, the US had no plan about whom to replace Batista with. To complicate matters, the insurrection movements prowling around in the mountains and jungles of eastern Cuba were of uncertain ideology and attitudes toward the US - and time was running out. Castro’s group, called the “26th of July Movement,” which was the most important of the various anti-Batista movements, threatened yet another violent overthrow of a Cuban government. By the summer of 1958 it was becoming clear that his regimes’ days were numbered. What should US policy be? Some feared that if something were not done soon the threat of violent revolution would materialize and replace Batista with an even worse (and leftist) government. Since Castro was likely to be an increasingly dominant force, it was vital to decide whether to support him or keep him from power.

What did the US know of Castro? Much knowledge came not from official government efforts but enterprising journalists. The long struggle by the barbudos (bearded ones) attracted much sympathy from the American press, Chief among these was New York Times reporter Herbert Matthews. Castro had been reported killed by the Batista regime. But Matthews was able to locate him. After some days with Castro, Matthews sent his report to the Times. On February 24, 1957, the world was electrified by the news: “Fidel Castro, the rebel leader of Cuba’s youth, is alive and fighting hard and successfully in the rugged, almost impenetrable fastnesses of the Sierra Maestra, at the southern tip of the island.” Along with the report Matthew provided the rebel leader’s signature as proof. The article gushed with praise, included a description of Castro as an “educated, dedicated fanatic, a man of ideals, of courage and of remarkable qualities of leadership.” He had not only dramatically revealed that Castro was not dead, he successfully portrayed him in a way that garnered widespread interest and sympathy from readers across the country. Even more importantly for US policy, he also denied that Castro was a communist or that communists were a significant force in his movement. Such reporting built a groundswell of support among the American public.

Less supportive of America

But if the US had done a profile on the indefatigable rebel, they would have known that he blamed the US for many of Cuba’s problems. At his trial in 1952 he defended himself and used the courtroom as a platform to promote his views. Included in his diatribe were such statements as “The United Fruit Company owns land the north to the south socast in Orient Province-but two hundred thousand Cuban families there don’t own an inch of land!” His villains were companies and landowners. As it was, the CIA psychological profile on Castro did not appear until December 1961, much too late. 

During this time, the American embassy in Havana was not much help. From the years 1953-57 under Ambassador Arthur Gardner, strict orders to avoid contact with anti-Batista movements were in force, effectively thwarting any chance to learn more about Castro. Not only that, such a policy put the CIA in an awkward position. It could not utilize embassy personnel and interfered with intelligence gathering. To overcome this problem, that spring of 1957 Washington sent an official fact-finding mission to Cuba to find out more about Castro. After obtaining Ambassador Gardner’s cooperation, the mission, led by CIA officer Lyman B. Kirkpatrick, Jr. set out to fill in the gaps of knowledge about the opposition to Batista. The delegation spent most of its time in Santiago de Cuba, the main town of Castro's home province, Oriente. Here they hoped to obtain first-hand information about Castro's character and philosophy. Basically, the mission did not discover anything alarming about Castro. He came from a large, wealthy land-owning family. He had attended parochial schools, gone to college, and enjoyed baseball. His former teachers had nothing but good to say about him, “He was a good Catholic boy,” said one. Others insisted that he could not possibly be a communist. The team felt that the rebel movement simply reflected the desire of Cubans to be rid of dictatorship and restore a functioning democracy. So as of 1958 the fog around Castro’s political leanings had still not cleared. It was known that he had been involved in leftist politics and that his movement included communists but in the words of Kirkpatrick “we were not sure whether he was an avowed Communist.” Castro himself had refused to make common cause with Cuban communists.

What do you think about American intelligence’s attempts to gather information on Fidel Castro in the 1950s? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s series on whether Wernher von Braun was a dangerous Nazi or hero of the space race here.

Why does Vladimir Putin want to Capture Kyiv?

When the Russian Federation, on the orders of President Putin, invaded the territory of independent Ukraine on February 24, 2022, one of the main goals of the Russian troops was to conquer the capital of Ukraine - Kyiv. This attack failed and the Russian Army withdrew to concentrate on eastern Ukraine. Here, Konstant Teleshov explains why Kyiv remains an important target for Vladimir Putin.

The Baptism of Kievans by Klavdy Lebedev.

Thanks to the heroic resistance of the Ukrainian people and the competent actions of the military-political leadership of Ukraine, the Russian army suffered a humiliating defeat near Kyiv and Chernihiv during the Russo-Ukrainian War, after which it was forced to retreat at the end of March 2022.

Historical meaning

In recent years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has made the country's historical past an important element and pillar of his regime, which some political experts call Putinism. He wrote several articles, one of which is called "On the historical unity of Russians and Ukrainians." In this article, the Russian autocrat positions himself as a supporter of the concept of the triune Russian people, which for centuries has formed a single cultural and spiritual space of historical Russia - a large ethnocultural region in Eastern Europe, historically inhabited by three peoples - Russians, Ukrainians and Belarusians.

One of the most important components of the common historical past of these three peoples is a medieval state called Kievan Rus, which existed from 862 to 1240. During its peak, Kievan Rus occupied the territory from the White Sea in the north to the Black Sea region in the south. It consists of many principalities (provinces). One of the provinces of Kievan Rus was the Grand Duchy of Vladimir, one of the parts of which was the Principality of Moscow - the future center of the Russian Empire. The Moscow principality became an independent state only in the 13th century, becoming one of, but not the only successor of Kievan Rus.

The capital of Kievan Rus, located in the north-east of Europe, was Kyiv. The modern Ukrainian capital from the second half of the 9th century has an interesting name - "the mother of Russian cities." Why did such a paradox arise? The fact is that Kyiv was first called the "mother of Russian cities" by the semi-legendary Varangian prince Oleg, who seized power in this city in 882. This is written in the chronicle "The Tale of Bygone Years", which is dated to the 12th century.

Thus, Kyiv was declared the political, cultural, economic and religious center of Kievan Rus. The name "mother of Russian cities" is similar in its meaning to the expression "mother of all cities", which is used to characterize Jerusalem as the religious center of the world. In fact, the “mother of cities” is a calque from the Greek word “metropolis”, which was used to denote a capital city.

It turns out that the real spiritual and cultural center of Russia is located in Kyiv, and not in Moscow, which is about 7 centuries younger than the capital of Ukraine. Thus, the Russian Federation is a unique country that has no control over its spiritual and historical capital. In my opinion, this is fair, since the modern Russian army has nothing to do with the army of Kievan Rus, which was one of the strongest in Europe. Russian soldiers behave like cowardly barbarians, which is also unworthy of the army of the state, which considers itself the successor of Kievan Rus. Whereas the daughters of Yaroslav the Wise (one of the most prominent rulers in the history of Kievan Rus) were more educated than European kings.

Considering all of the above, the desire to capture Kyiv fits into the ideological concept of "gathering Russian lands", which was used by all Russian princes, tsars and emperors to seize new lands since the 13th century. President Putin clearly wants to go down in history as a great ruler of Russia, such as Ivan "The Terrible" IV, Peter I and Catherine II. All of them significantly expanded the territory of Russia, and Putin, using false accusations against Ukraine of Nazism, came up with a pretext for the invasion under the guise of protecting the Russian-speaking population from genocide, also wanting to remain in the history of his country as a brilliant strategist and commander.

However, Russia does not deserve to own Kyiv. This city is used to being the center of one of the most developed European countries, while the Russian Federation is clearly not one of them. Kyiv will never want to be part of the "Russian world", which brings with it only destruction, death and lack of culture.

Strategic importance

The Ukrainian capital is also of great strategic importance. It is located on the banks of the largest river in Ukraine called the Dnieper. During the time of Kievan Rus, it was through Kyiv that the famous trade route "from the Varangians to the Greeks" passed, which connected the Baltic states and the Byzantine Empire.

Today Kyiv is the most important economic, political and military center of Ukraine. Of course, the capture of the capital of a neighboring state would greatly strengthen Russia's position in negotiations with Ukraine, but this did not happen, because Kyiv has long been a quality fortress. For example, the German Army was able to capture Kyiv only after 3 months of siege, having suffered huge losses in 1941.

Psychological factor

The capture of Kyiv, according to the plan of the Russian military-political leadership, was supposed to psychologically break the spirit of Ukrainian resistance to the invaders. For example, they could start spreading fake news that President Zelensky has fled or been assassinated. However, the Russian military failed to understand the psychology of the Ukrainians. They never understood that the city would be defended to the last Ukrainian soldier.

The fact is that in Russia almost all regions are completely subordinated to the capital Moscow. However, in Ukraine, each region is able to independently make decisions and defend itself. That is why, even if the Russian military managed to temporarily capture Kyiv and kill the military-political leadership of Ukraine, they would not be able to break the spirit of the Ukrainian people.

What do you think about President Putin’s motives for wanting to capture Kyiv? Let us know below.

Now read Konstant’s article on the history of confrontation between Russia and Ukraine here.

World War 2: Would Greater Use of Napalm in 1944 have Helped the Allies?

After the Normandy Invasion in June 1944, the Allied Powers had to move across France to reach Germany. However, the terrain was not always easy to cross. Here, Daniel Boustead returns and considers whether greater use of napalm could have helped the Allies as they crossed French hedgerow country in 1944.

Crowds celebrate the liberation of Paris on August 26, 1944.

The Allied campaigns which occurred after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion are often not as well known to the public. In the hedgerow country in France, the Allies encountered alarming casualties from the Nazi German Army. The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were slightly effective but still had fatal flaws. The use of napalm and other explosives in Operation Cobra and other military operations allowed the Allies to break out of Normandy. Napalm was used effectively as weapon in the military campaign in France and the campaign that occurred after that. The Allies should have used napalm early on in the Normandy Campaign which would have prevented many lives being lost in hedgerow country.

The hedgerow country or Bocage, was west of the French City of Caen.(1) For the Germans, the hedgerows were ideally suited for defense. The effects of how deadly the hedgerows were to become quickly became obvious. On June 6, 1944, when German mobile artillery batteries used the hedges to accomplish their mission of camouflaging themselves.(2) This preventing Allied Aviation from either destroying them or defining their position to allow the Allies to destroy them. The hedgerow fighting lasted from June 7, 1944, until the end of August 1944 when the Allies ended up liberating most of the present-day Basse-Normandie.

Issues with hedgerows

The hedgerows consisted of a patchworks of thousands of small fields enclosed by almost impenetrable hedges. The hedges consisted of dense thickets of hawthorn, brambles, vines and trees ranging up to 15 feet in height, growing out of earthen mounds several feet thick and three or four feet  high. The hedges were equipped with a drainage ditch on either side. The walls and hedges together were so formidable that each field took on the character of a small fort. Defenders dug in at the base of a hedgerow and (hidden by vegetation) were all but impervious to rifle and artillery fire. So dense was the vegetation that infantrymen poking around the hedgerows sometimes found themselves eye to eye startled at the Germans. A single machine gun concealed in a hedgerow could mow down attacking troops as they attempted to advance from one hedge to another.  Snipers, mounted on wooden platforms in the treetops and using flashless gunpowder in order to avoid giving away their positions, were a constant threat.

On July 9, 1944, 3rd Armored Division member Belton Cooper was with most of the tank maintenance mechanics when they received fire from German Tree Snipers.(4) Belton Cooper stated that “The Tall pines of Normandy were festooned with larch bunches of mistletoe, which grew as a natural parasite”. Belton Cooper further recollected “There were so many trees and so many bunches of mistletoe that it was difficult to find the snipers who hid there”. Most of the roads were wagon trails, worn into the sunken lanes by centuries of use and turned into cavern-like mazes by overarching hedges. These gloomy passages were tailor made for ambushes and were terrifying places for men on both sides. The sunken lanes were also lethal to Allied Tanks. Confined to narrow channels, they were easy prey for German Panzerfausts (German Anti-Tank Rocket Launchers) camouflaged in the hedgerows. A tank that ventured off the road and attempted to smash through the thicket, was particularly vulnerable. As the tank climbed the mound at the base of the hedgerow, its guns were pointed helpless skyward, and its underbelly was exposed to fire from antitank guns in the next hedgerow.

Fear

The Germans defense of the hedgerows caused much fear, casualties, and losses for the Allies.  Dennis Bunn of the Scottish 15th Reconnaissance Regiment, described hedgerow fighting while driving through them in a heavy armored car. “Inside the car was intense heat and darkness, outside brilliant sunshine. I sweated and gripped the steering wheel with damp hands as I peered through a small aperture at the ground in front, the high hedge on the right, the ground sloping away to the left, at the trees, the bushes, seeing or suspecting danger in every blade of grass”(1).

From June 29 to July 1, 1944, the American Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division captured the French village of Villiers-Fossard in hedgerow country.(3) However, the American Combat Command A lost 31 tanks, 12 other vehicles, and 151 men while trying to capture this French village (3). The losses which the Americans endured in trying to capture Villiers-Fossard were directly caused by German heavy small arms fire, German mortar, anti-tank fire from a German reinforced infantry battalion, and German Panzerfausts (3).

Solutions

The Allied solutions to the hedgerows were effective but had some fatal flaws. The use of Bulldozer Tanks to remove hedgerows proved faulty because they were easily knocked out by German Anti-Tank weapons. This was brutally demonstrated during the military action of Combat Command A of the 29th American Infantry Division at Villiers-Fossard. In this action the Americans lost two bulldozers early in the action to German Anti-Tank Weapons while trying to capture this village. This only left Combat Command A of the American 29th Infantry Division with only explosives to blow through the hedgerows. The American action to capture the Villiers-Fossard also displayed another faulty American tactic. The use of explosives to blow gaps in the hedgerows resulted in warning the Germans where the Americans were coming from. The Germans then directed their fire at the places where the explosives were which resulted in killing more American troops.

A more effective anti-hedgerow device were the “hedgerow cutters” developed by Sergeant Curtis G. Cutlin Jr. of the U.S. 102nd Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron.(5) Cutlin Jr. welded pointed steel blades cut from the German beach obstacles onto American tanks. This allowed them to go through the hedgerows during combat. Cutlin’s innovation was so effective and popular that in General Omar Bradley’s First Army, three of every five tanks were equipped with the “hedgerow cutters”. General Dwight David Eisenhower said about the “hedgerow cutters” they “restored the effectiveness of the tank and gave a tremendous boost to morale throughout the Army”(5).  However, the tanks equipped with the “hedgerow cutters” could be knocked out.(6)

Napalm

The use of napalm along with other explosives helped the Allies break out of Normandy. On July 25, 1944, a total of 4,150+ tons of high explosives and napalm were dropped on the Periers-Saint Lo Road.(7) A total of 125,000 rounds of artillery were also fired at the Periers-Saint Lo Road. The end result of this bombardment was that 1,000 men of the German Panzer Lehr Division had perished, and the survivors were left stunned across the Periers-Saint Lo Road. Panzer Lehr Division Commander Fritz Bayerlein said about the bombardment “My front lines looked like the face of the moon, and at least 70 per cent of my troopers were out of action-dead, wounded, crazed, or numbed. All my forward tanks were knocked out, and the roads were practically impassable”(7). Some survivors of the Panzer Lehr division would be deaf for 24 hours. Three German battalion command posts simply vanished, along with a whole German parachute regiment. Only a dozen German tanks remained operable. As Fritz Bayerlien frantically tried to restore a semblance of order by calling up units from the rear, American P-38s, P-47s, and P-51s Fighter planes and British Typhoons continued to blast his troops and tanks. The July 25, 1944, bombardment helped ignite Operation Cobra.

Operation Cobra was developed by General Omar Bradley.(8) Operation Cobra tore a funnel-shaped hole in the German defenses that was 10 miles wide at Avranches, France and narrowed to a single road and a bridge at Pontaubault. The German forces also faced another threat when Allied Forces landed in Southern France on August 15, 1944, as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon.(11) The French and American forces landed in French Rivera region as part of Operation Anvil-Dragoon. This occurred near the city of Cannes. British Paratroopers participated in this action.(12) Operation Cobra and other such Allied military operations would ultimately liberate the whole of France. The Apex of this liberation was when Allied forces liberated Paris, France on August 25/26, 1944.(9)

There were some effective tactical air uses of napalm by the Allies in France and the military actions that occurred during and after the campaign. In August 1944 American Fighter bombers carrying fire bombs flew frequent missions against the Germans escaping the encirclement at Falaise France.(10) In August, 1944 P-38s and P-47s armed with bombs, rockets, and napalm attacked fleeing concentrations of German trucks and German armor that were retreating from Falaise France. General Dwight David Eisenhower described what he witnessed from the aftermath of the German forces fleeing from Falaise France “As being able to walk hundreds of yards, walking only on dead bodies”.(10)

An example of the effectiveness of napalm was demonstrated on August 25, 1944, on the headquarters of Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge, German Army Group commander at Verzy, France(10). On that day, 15 fighter bombers carrying 24 165-gallon napalm bombs and eight 500 lbs. HE bombs attacked Feldmarschall Guenther Von Kluge’s headquarters at Verzy, France. Twenty-two of the napalm tanks made direct hits on the Verzy headquarters buildings completely destroying eight houses. In the Battle of the Bulge from December 1944 to January 1945, the American Army Air Force fighter bombers used fire bombs effectively against the German motor transportation and German armored concentrations in the wooded sections of the battleground.

The Anglo-Americans faced a “meat-grinder” campaign in the hedgerow country of France against their German adversaries. In retrospect the Anglo-American military forces should have used napalm more frequently against the hedgerows in the time before, during, and after the June 6, 1944, Normandy Invasion. This factor would have resulted in less Allied soldiers being killed, wounded, or captured and ultimately brought about a quicker end to the conflict in Europe.

What do you think of the use of napalm in World War 2 Let us know below.

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

References

1 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia.  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17.

2 Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.dday-overlord.com  of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

3 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 10 to 11.

4 Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of An American Armored Division in World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998. 28.

5 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978. 21.

6 “Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or improved from 2013 -2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022.  https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

7 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time Life-Books, Inc. 1978 . 54 to 56.

8 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 76.

9 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 156 and 162.

10 Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched  Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010. 70.

11 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 102 and 115.

12 Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 107.

Bibliography

Blumenson, Martin. Liberation. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Cooper, Belton Y. Death Traps: The Survival of an American Armored Division In World War II. Novato: California. Presidio Press. 1998.

“Knocked Out M4 Sherman Tank with hedgerow cutters Normandy”. World War Photos. Updated or Improved from 2013-2022. Accessed on May 17th, 2022. https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/usa/tanks/m4_sherman/knocked-out-m4-sherman-tank-with-hedgerow-cutters-normandy/

Laurenceau, Marc. “Hedgerow warfare in Normandy-D-Day Overlord”. Last Modified or Updated 2003 to 2022. Accessed on May 16th, 2022. www.day-overlord.com. Of Encyclopedie du debarquement et de la bataille de Normandie. https://www.dday-overlord.com/en/battle-of-normandy/tactics/hedgerow-warfare.

Wolf, William. U.S. Aerial Armament in World War II: The Ultimate Look Vol. 3: Air-launched Rockets, Mines, Torpedoes, Guided Missiles, and Secret Weapons. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Books of Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2010.

Legendary Musician Robert Johnson: Me and the Devil Blues

It is one of music’s great mysteries that one of the most influential figures of the 20th Century has remained unknown to a vast number of people. The story of this man’s life is one of myth, folklore, and legend. His playing technique and general style have gone on to inspire countless musicians. These include Bob Dylan, Keith Richards, and most notably, Eric Clapton who claimed him be ‘the most important blues singer who ever lived.’ This man is Robert Johnson.

Matt Austin explains.

The crossroads where Robert Johnson supposedly sold his soul to the Devil in exchange for his Blues skills, according to the myth. It is at Clarksdale, Mississippi. Source: Joe Mazzola, available here.

To those who are even slightly aware of Robert Johnson, there is one resounding detail that is synonymous with his name. This is the tale that the legendary blues singer visited a Mississippi crossroads late one night where he sold his soul to the Devil, and in return, was granted exceptional musical talent.(2) This myth lies at the heart of Johnson’s otherwise relatively unknown life and as such it has become impossible to focus on the impact of this great musician without this looming detail.

The legend of the deal with the Devil is nothing new in the music world. This story traditionally derives from Germanic folklore, whereby the fictional character Faust surrendered his soul to an evil spirit in exchange for otherwise unattainable knowledge and power.(3) This phenomenon has therefore become known in Western culture as the ‘Faustian Bargain.’(4) The notion that hugely successful musicians had attained their talent through supernatural means was first explored as a popular theme in the 18th Century. Early examples of this include classical violinists Giuseppe Tartini and Niccolo Paganini, the latter considered by many to be ‘the greatest violin virtuosi to have ever lived.’(5)

This popular music myth exploded in the early 20th century, with numerous individuals earning connections to the Devil. This includes jazz composer Ferdinand ‘Jelly Roll’ Morton and blues musicians Peetie Wheatstraw and namesake of Robert, Tommy Johnson.(6) In addition, this theme is not without its place in slightly more recent music history. Most notably, both Jimi Hendrix and Jim Morrison were thought to have developed ties with the supernatural.(7) Even the Rolling Stones were not immune, as they jumped on the Satanic Bandwagon with their 1968 hit “Sympathy for the Devil”. This, however, was no real surprise given lead guitarist, Keith Richard’s, absolute fascination with the blues and Johnson in particular.

Leading historians on Johnson, Gayle Dean Wardlow and Bruce Conforth, have been determined in their efforts to highlight the real story of the mythical bluesman. They have fervently denied any links to the crossroads or the supernatural, instead shifting their focus onto Johnson’s actual life, which remains ‘obscure, save for a few inaccurate anecdotes.’(8) What we do know for certain about Johnson is that he was born in 1911, and died in 1938 almost without a trace, save for 42 recordings, consisting of 29 original tracks and 13 alternative takes, in addition to a couple of grainy promotional photographs.

Life

From the impressive amount of information that historians have painstakingly managed to piece together about Johnson’s life, it is understood that he split most of his time between his biological family in the Mississippi Delta, and his adopted family in the bustling city of Memphis, Tennessee. While his experiences in 1920s Memphis may have first inspired Johnson to pick up a guitar, it was in the heart of the Delta where he would truly hone his skills, as he travelled along the Mississippi river, stopping wherever he could to perform at small-town juke joints and bars. It was during this time that he realised he could earn more money by playing his guitar than working in the fields.(9) Following his family into a life of sharecropping was not going to cut it for the young Johnson. He wanted to play the Blues. This passion and desire for music led to him becoming a highly renowned bluesman in the Delta region, and as his skills developed, so did his reputation. He was soon more popular than artists he had once looked up to, such as Charley Patton, Son House, and Willie Brown. As a result of this, after several years of performing for local audiences in the Delta, Johnson successfully auditioned and earned his opportunity to become a recorded artist in 1936.(10) This was an unimaginable privilege for an impoverished African American from the Deep South. He would however, only get the chance to record once more following his debut session and no sooner had Johnson achieved his dream, his playing days were over with his untimely death in 1938 at the age of just 27.

The facts surrounding Johnson’s death are largely unclear and much like his life, it has remained a thing of myth and mystery. Wardlow and Conforth, in their efforts to promote the most accurate account of Johnson, refer to the story of fellow bluesman David ‘Honeyboy’ Edwards.(11) His account has been deemed by far the most reliable, lacking any romanticism or falsehoods. In essence, Johnson, a notorious ladies man, began flirting with a married woman at a Delta juke joint in which he was playing.(12) The woman’s husband soon became enraged with jealously and he slipped Johnson a glass of poisoned whiskey, which, following several days of extreme sickness, eventually killed him.(13) In a cruel twist of fait, it was the three things Johnson had held most dear: women, whiskey and the Blues, that ultimately cost him his life.

Legacy

Following his death, popular knowledge of Robert Johnson remained very limited for many years. It wasn’t until 1959 that his music was first made widely accessible. This occurred as a result of historian Samuel Charters’ landmark book The Country Blues, in which he introduced the public to Johnson’s music, claiming that ‘almost nothing is known about his (Johnson’s) life.’(14) This still echoes true today and what exists now is a messy concoction of fact and fiction. It is within the murky waters of Johnson’s story where the myth of the Devil at the crossroads shines most bright. This is due to a number of factors. One of which being the abundance of unreliable recollections from Johnson’s contemporaries, most notably that of Son House, whose accounts of Johnson dramatically altered throughout the years. Blues fans rediscovered House in 1964, as the singer had largely vanished from the public eye during the Second World War. Following his rediscovery, he subsequently released new music and was frequently interviewed about his former life in the Delta. His story about Johnson attested to the fact that the young musician did leave the Delta for a period of several months in his early career. When he left, he was an enthusiastic, yet mediocre guitarist, but when he returned, he was a confident and established bluesman who could outplay his contemporaries with minimal effort.(15) Another key factor that would later fan the flames of the crossroads myth, are the serial misinterpretations of these accounts by historians and folklorists. Many have inserted their own personal beliefs into the story, implying that House’s comments indicated that Johnson had gained his exceptional talent through some supernatural force, which House never alluded to.(16) Nevertheless, the lack of information surrounding his life, combined with the fascinations of historians and fans alike, formed the core building blocks upon which a largely fictionalised portrayal of Johnson has developed.

Additionally, the crossroads story has had a somewhat negative impact on Johnson’s legacy, in that it significantly takes away from his ability as a musician. Whether he met the Devil or not, he was without doubt an exceptionally gifted guitarist, whose technique and style has set the standard for modern Blues. As such, his music has inspired countless musicians and his name has become synonymous with the genre.

Crossroads

Nevertheless, Robert Johnson’s visit to the crossroads is undeniably a watershed moment in music history. This event, albeit a myth shrouded in mystery and scepticism, has gone on to define not only Johnson’s life, but also the Blues as a genre. Many of Johnson’s recordings were highly evocative of his connection to the supernatural; arguably his most famous song, “Cross Road Blues” depicts his infamous deal with the Devil. Meanwhile one listen to the ghostly “Hellhound on My Trail”, is enough to understand that he certainly portrayed a deeply troubled individual. It is easy to observe therefore, how a man whose life left much to the imagination, has become a fascinating subject of mythical proportions. The small collection of eerie recordings left behind by Johnson, several of which made months before his death, only serve as a haunting reminder of the tragic reality of a young, flawed, but highly skilled and ambitious musician.

The Blues and the supernatural have developed an intrinsic connection, to the point of becoming almost inseparable, and it is Robert Johnson, the man who walked side by side with the Devil, whose legacy has evolved into the ultimate embodiment of music’s most captivating legend.

What do you think of Robert Johnson’s life? Let us know below.

1 Stephen LaVere, The Complete Recordings (Box Set Booklet). Robert Johnson. (New York: Columbia Records, 1990), in an essay by Eric Clapton, 23.

2 Patricia R. Schroeder, Robert Johnson, Mythmaking, and Contemporary American Culture (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 2004), 1.

3 “Faustian Bargain,” Britannica, accessed 14/05/2022, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Faustian-bargain.

4 Ibid.

5 Alex James Taylor, “Faustian Pacts: Musicians said to have made deals with the Devil,” 13 May 2019, Satanic Verses, Hero Magazine, accessed 14/05/2022, https://hero-magazine.com/article/148564/faustian-pacts-musicians-said-to-have-made-deals-with-the-devil.

6 Ibid.

7 Ibid.

8 Bruce Conforth and Gayle Dean Wardlow, Up Jumped the Devil: The Real Life of Robert Johnson (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019), 1.

9 Ibid, 65.

10 Ibid, 143-144.

11 Ibid, 253-254

12 Ibid.

13 Ibid.

14 Ibid, 1

15 Ibid, 117-118.

16 Ibid.

The Sinking of the British Ship Lancastria in June 1940: A Personal Tale

Here, Michael Sheldrick explains his personal story about the Lancastria tragedy that took place 82 years ago today on June 17, 1940…

June 1940 was a month that changed the course of the Second World War. It was both Britain’s darkest hour, and witness to a tragedy that remains little known to this day; a tragedy that changed my family, forever.

The sinking of the Lancastria in 1940.

As a child growing up in Britain in the 1990s, my sister and I would every so often be left with my grandmother, Claire. A tiny, frail woman, Claire lived in a terrace house in the oldest part of Swindon (an area locals these days refer to colloquially as “Old Town”).

Owing to Claire’s serial chain smoking ways, a stale cigarette odor lingered in every nook and cranny. To avoid the unpleasant smell, I would usually eat meals in the back garden. I can picture it clearly: me eating tinned meatballs, Claire sipping re-heated coffee while lighting herself yet another cigarette. By that point in her life, Claire rarely had much of an appetite except on the rare occasion she would pour a cup of leftover lukewarm coffee over a bowl of Kellogg's corn flakes, garnished of course with raisins.

With the best of Vera Lynn audible from inside, I would ask Claire all about “The War.” She always referred to the Second World War as “The War”, such was the overbearing impact the conflict had on her, and by extension, our life. Claire would recount to me her experiences as a young woman working with what was then known as the Auxiliary Territorial Service, which tasked women with a range of vital roles during the Second World War. In my Grandmother’s case, she was charged with assisting Anti-Aircraft operations. It was one conversation in particular, long buried in my subconsciousness, that would suddenly return to me decades later.

Claire had told me that she had decided to sign up to the ‘war effort’ following news that her older brother Colin, serving as a soldier in France, was missing in action. I distinctly remember asking Claire what happened to him. Looking in the distance, as if talking more to herself than me, she described how Colin had been aboard a ship that had been bombed by the luftwaffe and his body had never been discovered. She said there was a grave somewhere in France but “of course, there is nothing beneath it.” As far as I recall her saying, no one had visited it.

Decades later

Claire passed away shortly after sharing that story. Decades went by and Colin’s story retreated to the far recesses of my mind. That is until a hot summer's day in August, 2019. I was on the New York subway, traveling to where I now work, listening to an audible book about a journalist trying to recover the remains of an American soldier who had died in Japan during WWII. The journalist was explaining that official US policy holds that the US Government is committed to recovering the remains of any and all American soldiers who died during the course of duty.

Suddenly, my mind lit up. I could hear Claire’s words re-telling Colin’s fate, along with many unanswered questions. How exactly did Colin die? What ship was he on that was bombed? Where is his grave, and the ship, now? And why didn’t anyone in my family seem to know the answers?

I spoke with both my dad and his older brother, my uncle, as a starting point. Unfortunately, they knew little more than what Claire had told me decades ago. My uncle told me that he remembered someone once telling him that Colin had died during the British evacuation at Dunkirk apparently due to the betrayal of a shipmaster who had given the ship’s departure time and location to the Germans. But he admitted, he could not remember correctly if that is exactly what he heard. It's simply the case, they both told me, and in a departure from today’s tendency to overshare, that those who served in The War, such as both their parents, did not discuss these things in too much detail.

My own research quickly hit a dead end. The Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC), generally pretty comprehensive and accessible online, had no trace of a ‘Colin Thomas’ born in 1918 and with recognizable parents. It was like he never existed.

Then finally, one Saturday evening, late into the night, I realized my error. An error based on a very simple oversight, and yet one that remarkably no one else had picked up on either. My mum had sent over scans of a very old black and white photo of a four month old Colin, dated June, 1918, that she found amongst Claire’s old possessions. Only it had “Baby John Colin Lee Thomas' ' written on the back. Aha! Although it seems he went by Colin all his life, his full name had been lost to history. Armed with this new information, I went back to the CWGC archives and just minutes later I was staring at a picture of what appeared to be my Grand Uncle’s name on a memorial plaque at the Commonwealth War Graves section of Dunkirk Town Cemetery.

Uncovering the mystery

“I’ve found him…” I remember murmuring out loud to my housemate as I scrolled down. There he was: Private John Colin Thomas, died 17 June 1940, aged 22, Son of John Weldon Thomas and Amy Thomas, of Hall Green, Birmingham; my great grandparents.

On the surface at least it seemed like my uncle might have been right. Judging by the location of his memorial plaque, had Colin died in the Dunkirk evacuation? Not quite. Some quick googling revealed that the final evacuation from Dunkirk had taken place on June 4th, 13 days prior to when Colin had officially died. Something wasn’t right.

Further digging eventually revealed that Colin had actually ‘died’ some 335 miles south of Dunkirk, off the coast of the small port town of Saint-Nazaire, aboard the SS Lancastria, the sinking of which, as I would soon discover, remains the largest single loss of life in British maritime history. Indeed, more people died in this tragedy than that of the death toll from the sinking of the Titanic and Lusitania combined. Now I had found my uncle, I dove into the Lancastria’s story; a story I ashamedly hadn’t even known the existence of.

Colin at the age of 22, as he would have been in 1940. Courtesy: Michael Sheldrick, shown with full permission.

Lancastria

The SS Lancastria was a 16,243-ton, five decked ship that up until the outbreak of war in 1939 had been a lavish luxury cruise liner. It toured the Norwegian fjords, and across the Mediterranean and West Indies before being hastily requisitioned by the British Government and outfitted as a troop ship. It spent the early months of the war ferrying soldiers back and forth from Canada to the UK, assisted in the evacuation of Norway, before finally being called upon to play a pivotal role in ‘Operation Ariel’; the name of the lesser known campaign that followed the aftermath of the evacuation of Dunkirk. The scenes leading up to it were no less dramatic.

Overwhelmed by the might of the Nazi blitzkrieg, French defenses had quickly collapsed in the days following the last departure from Dunkirk. Countless civilian refugees, French soldiers and the vast remainder of British forces in France - some 150,000 men - hurriedly escaped south. On June 14th, an urgent call went out to the crew of Lancastria, then docked in Liverpool, to make haste for the French port of Saint Nazaire. That very same day, the Nazis occupied Paris. Things were dire.

Colin, I discovered, was by this point based at a weapons and equipment storage base at Nantes, the old historical capital of Brittany located about 40 miles from the sea. Having been an articled clerk prior to the war, Colin was one of many support troops, engineers, repair men, transport and communications staff, wireless operators, air force ground crew, store minders, cooks, bakers, and clerks that supplied the main British Expeditionary Force. Known collectively as “the Grocers,” the vast majority of these personnel were located, at least initially, far behind the main defense lines and most would never have expected to see conflict. Of course, few expected either that France would fall so quickly to the German onslaught.

In the wake of Paris’ capture, General Alan Brooke, the commander of all remaining British forces in France, pleaded with Churchill to issue a general order for evacuation. During an intense thirty minutes call in the early hours of June 15th, a desperate Brooke informed Churchill of the irreversible collapse in French morale saying it “was impossible to make a corpse feel.” Churchill relented and at 10am that same morning, a general evacuation order was given. Later that day, word reached my uncle’s base in Nantes.

As those at the base rushed to depart, numerous reports document a rushed frenzy ensuing to burn and destroy any equipment, vehicles and armaments that could not be carried out to prevent them from falling into German hands. Meanwhile, others helped themselves to remaining food and drink stockpiles. As 19-year-old Henry Harding from Wales would later recount: “Everything was thrown open… you could help yourself to whatever it was you wanted, so we took chocolate.”Then, with German planes already in control of the skies above, they headed out to converge on what author Johanthan Fenby describes as “the last escape hatch left.”

Within the next 24 hours, Saint Nazaire was overcrowded with British soldiers and refugees. Local French citizens cried as the British began clambering aboard requisitioned ocean liners. It was into this scene of chaos that the Lancastria would arrive the next day, June 17th. It was to prove a fateful day.

More than six thousand reportedly boarded the Lancastria with Colin’s corps amongst the very last to board. Those who had boarded first were greeted by men in fancy white uniforms with gold buttons who assigned them all rooms. While they waited for others to board, a lucky few tucked into sausages, bacon and eggs with hot buttered toast for breakfast. It must have been quite the comfort after days after a hurried dash to the coast.

Eventually though, the vessel was so cramped that officers pleaded with Lancastria’s Captain to take no more. He pushed back, saying he had been ordered to take as many as possible without respect to international law. They were all anxious to leave. They had good reason to be. There had been reports of other ships being attacked by the Luftwaffe although fortunately no major disasters had yet struck.

As thousands crammed onto the assembled ships, news was already spreading in the port that France’s newly appointed leader, Marshall Pétain, had that morning agreed to open armistice talks with Germany. Across the English Channel, Churchill was soon meeting France’s soon to be leader in exile, Charles de Gaulle, in the gardens of Number 10 Downing Street. While that same day, up in Belgium, Hitler was said to have hit his thigh in glee upon hearing the news of France’s capitulation. As Churchill would declare later that day, “the Battle for France was over.”

Sinking

After waiting painstakingly for its escort, the Lancastria finally began to pull out of the dock. Yet, any relief those aboard felt was quickly dashed as shortly thereafter six Luftwaffe planes came down from the skies. A minute later siren on the ship sounded. Heard “a chilling banshee scream… howling from the sky.” Initial bombs missed but a series of successive bombs hit their mark, with one payload going straight down the ship’s fennel. It was fatal. The ship went down in 20 minutes. Thousands onboard perished.

To read the survivor accounts is harrowing. Collectively, they portray a scene straight from Dante’s inferno. One 15 year old who helped with the rescue described the scene he saw as “hell… abominable, the height of horror.”

We will never know for sure exactly how Colin died, and perhaps that is for the best. Most of those packed in the ships hold died instantly from the initial bomb explosion. Many others drowned, either because they couldn’t swim or were trapped. Only 2,000 life belts were on board for at least 3 times that many men. Splinters of wood from walls and floors impaled people standing nearby. Oil flowed out of a ripped oil tank. Those who survived the initial sinking choked on the oil that flooded the surrounding waters. But most ghastly and cruelly, the Luftwaffe planes returned to gun down those swimming to shore.

One account stands out from the rest however. A handful of soldiers standing on the Lancastria’s rapidly sinking hull as it descended into the water, proudly and defiantly singing the war time classics of Roll Out The Barrel and There Will Always Be An England.

I have discovered the initial telegram that was issued in the immediate aftermath of the Lancastria’s demise. Colin is listed as ‘Missing In Action.’ It is hard to say exactly when my great grandparents and his two sisters would have been notified. I do know that when they did it left a deep scar on my grandmother, claire, and a burning desire, in her words, “to kill Germans.” A self-described “Tom Boy”, Colin was her hero and in joining the defense forces she was determined to ensure his life was not in vain.

Only in more recent decades has the story of the Lancastria become more known. Despite it, or perhaps because of it, accounting for more than a third of all losses in the war up to that point, and wanting to maintain British morale, Churchill felt justified in putting a censorship notice on the media and even survivors from talking about it. After all, it must not have been hard to imagine England falling next to the Nazi war machine. It was so kept so tightly under wraps that those who survived did not talk to wives and relatives about it until decades later.

75th anniversary

It wasn’t until the 75th anniversary of the Lancastria’s sinking, in 2015, that the British Parliament formally acknowledged it. Standing in for the Prime Minister, George Obsborne said: "It was kept secret at the time for reasons of wartime secrecy, but I think it is appropriate today in this House of Commons to remember all those who died, those who survived, and those who mourn them."

Unfortunately, it is the brutal reality that for most those who died onboard Lancastria is just one of many tragedies during the war. What should make this one stand out from all the rest? Added to this is the fact that unlike Dunkirk’s “victory in defeat”, which continues to provide the source material for so many TV shows and films, a tragedy of Lancastria’s proportions is unlikely to stir British patriotism. The stories of the 150,000 men left behind in France after Dunkirk has been largely forgotten in popular mainstream history books on the Second World War.

Even amongst members of my own extended family I encountered indifference. I remember one of my dad’s cousins, Colin’s own nephew, replying curtly to a message I sent that no one ever spoke to him about Colin and I probably know more than he does.

I could not let the story end there however. I thought about Claire all those years ago telling me about her beloved brother. And I thought of Colin's memorial plaque in Dunkirk. It occurred to me that not one member of his family had visited it in the past eight decades. My dad said it was a shame he did not find this out in Claire’s lifetime. He would have taken her to see it. She couldn’t go, but we could.

So shortly before the 80th anniversary of the Lancastria’s sinking, my sister, dad and mum, took the ferry across. At 8am on a cold, misty, winter day we visited the grave. We had taken with us a small bottle of whiskey. We poured each of us a small cup, and then a fifth one. Then, crouching to the small plaque, we raised a toast.

John Lee Colin Thomas, lost on the Lancastria on June 17, 1940. Lost but not forgotten.

What do you think of Michael’s touching article? Let us know below.

Isolationism in the United States from World War One to Trump

There were many factors behind the United States becoming more isolationist during the 1920s and 1930s. However, here it is argued that the primary factors were the history and mindset of America, the overall ending of the First Word War, and the extreme economic turmoil of the 1930s and the Great Depression.

Alan Cunningham explains - and also adds some more recent context with the Trump years.

A US ‘NO FOREIGN ENTANGLEMENTS’ anti-war sign prior to the US joining World War II.

The attitudes and overall mindset many Americans Margaret MacMillan, a professor of history at Canada’s Ryerson University and a fellow at Oxford, describes America’s disdain of European powers as being ingrained within the country since the American Revolutionary War, writing, “the very act of rebellion by the 13 colonies was a turning away from the old, corrupt European powers”. MacMillan also writes how this sentiment did not end at the turn of the 19th century, but continued with the ever present fear that the British would return and try to reclaim their lost territories (as had occurred in the War of 1812) and was strengthened by a fear of Catholicism, which she asserts was just as reviled in the 19th century as Communism would be in the 20th century, noting, “the fear was the same and helped to fuel isolationism”.

The end of the First World War brought about the desire to improve the domestic standing of the country, with many Americans believing they had performed their global duty and preserved their own safety and should not become involved in the creation of international legal bodies or more ingrained into the European-led system. According to Jeremy Suri, a professor of History at the University of Texas at Austin, “Americans in the 1920s felt betrayed by leaders and allies who had taken them into a long and costly war that ended with the strengthening of Europe's largest empires and a communist revolution in Russia”; certainly engaging in a conflict that many thought would be “over by Christmas” and that resulted in one of the largest countries (in terms of population and outright size) becoming a Communist power was an outcome many disliked. Seeing soldiers who now suffered from what would today be called Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), had ghastly wounds and hearing the media report on victories and losses with horrific death toll numbers also would have moved many to want to cease involvement in similar conflicts.

Domestic focus

What many Americans desired was to focus on their own domestic economy and social issues, this “internal growth and development” coming about through increased tariffs which, “restrict[ed] the influx of imported goods, thereby increasing domestic production”. However, as Suri points out, “Isolationism and intolerance in the 1920s smothered the openness and cooperation necessary for healthy economic growth. Closing markets triggered, in part, the Great Depression, cutting off the country from needed resources, consumers, and allies abroad”. These types of economic policies that are wholly domestic and involve no other outside relationship with foreign markets became a recipe for disaster. They contributed to one of the worst periods in American history, when unemployment was extremely high, food became harder to find, and it seemed democracy could come under strain. The Depression forced Americans to focus on improving their own economic standing which resulted in Americans being left out of decisions that would lead to Hitler’s rise to power, the rise of Fascism in Europe, and the growing threat of Japan as a military power. As the State Department’s Office of the Historian bluntly puts it, “[there were] clear dangers [that] emerged during the Great Depression of the 1930s”.

Because of these reasons, it is apparent why the U.S. did not feel the need to embrace the larger world and Europe in economics and foreign policy, basing this on their own desire for pause and respite and building off centuries old sentiments about their country’s place in the world. However, one of the more intriguing questions is why the U.S. chose isolationism over other solutions that seemed to improve foreign relationships, build strong economic ties, and improve the safety and security of the United States in addition to the globe (something that is often mentioned in U.S. politics)? Suri again provides an explanation to this, writing, “Americans embraced isolationism and intolerance because they were false solutions to deeper structural problems. Technological innovations like the assembly line and the automobile displaced millions of people, but instead of adjusting, citizens turned to leaders who promised to halt change. As demographics were re-defining ethnic, racial and religious identities, politicians pledged to keep America white, Anglo-Saxon and protestant”. In the end, the meaning behind why Americans voluntarily chose to isolate was built upon the fact that it seemed to be the easiest and fastest option, not because it was the most beneficial (though those who supported it certainly found reasons to justify the measure) to improving America’s place in the world.

Modern day

There are many similarities to American sentiments in the 1920s to current, modern-day public sentiments. Suri also discusses this, writing, “Trump has identified some serious problems within American society: economic inequality, social displacement and deep distrust in established institutions. Millions of Americans feel they have been cheated, and they blame political elites. They are looking for changes that will restore hope and dignity to their lives. In response, Trump is recycling the repertoire of the early 20th century because it appears to address these contemporary concerns”.

Simply put, Trump capitalized on fear throughout the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections, fear of the other, fear of the establishment, and fear of the upper and lower classes. This can easily be seen in the rhetoric he utilizes in which he made note through his 2016 campaign that he would build a wall and keep illegal immigrants out of the country (fear of the other), he attacked other Republicans on their stances (fear of the establishment), and capitalized on a large amount of American’s distaste of the Affordable Care Act and the fact that the Obama administration seemingly allowed the Wall Street bankers to continue their business without repercussion. While many economists (Paul Krugman for instance) and journalists (like Andrew Ross Sorkin and Bethany McLean) agree that the 2008 bailing out of the banks was the best course of action to save America’s economy and preventing another Great Depression, members of both the left and right political ideologies disliked this action and resented the bailout. Much like how the Great Depression prevented the U.S. from becoming more entrenched in foreign policy actions around the world, the 2008 financial crisis left many Americans desiring to recoup their lost income and benefits and focus on their own domestic issues instead of turning an eye to the rest of the world. The president’s remarks about Muslims and immigrants also capitalizes on the American public’s fears surrounding those groups (going back to Islamophobia); there are quite obvious similarities to public fears of Irish and Chinese immigrants and Catholicism in earlier periods. 

I believe that the factors that influence Trump and those who support him are very similar to those non-internationalist policies we saw in the 1920s. They are built upon the same biases of hatred and fear along with desires for fairness and improvement in the economic system. Also, it is interesting to think about how the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq play into this. Many Americans now are tired of being involved in foreign military operations and nearly every president since 2001 has run on the platform of removing troops from Afghanistan, the longest war in U.S. history. The forces that propelled the U.S. into an isolationist stance in the 1920s also propelled Trump to the White House in the 2016 election and will absolutely be a factor in the 2024 U.S. presidential elections.

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

Now read Alan’s article on how public opinion impacts foreign policy in America here.

Western Relations with Russia from 1900 to Today

The West has had a long and complicated relationship with Russia since 1900. From Britain, France, and America being allies with Russia and the USSR during the world wars to deep distrust in the Cold War, Stephen Prout explains how the relationship has evolved to the present day.

Stalin, Roosevelt, and Churchill at the 1943 Tehran Conference.

Throughout the last century and certainly in current times the impression of Russia from a western perspective has been of a menacing spectre. Previous decades have seen imperial rivalry with Britain over the Far and the Middle East, the threat of communist expansion resulting in the Cold War, the tyranny of Stalin during the great purges, the arms race with all its hostile rhetoric, and threats of nuclear escalations. In recent times we have evidence of accusations of meddling in US elections, assassinations in the UK of Russian dissidents and alleged cyber-attacks on Western governmental and commercial organisations. In fact, it is hard not to pick any decade where Russia has been regarded in a favourable light.

Winston Churchill once quoted of Russia “I cannot forecast you the action of Russia. It is a riddle wrapped inside a mystery inside an enigma, but there is a key. That key is Russian national interest.”  This summed up well the feelings of the time concerning the Soviet Union and this quote continues to be relevant in modern times. To try and understand this we must track Russia’s journey from the beginning of the twentieth century to the present day. What events have created this hostility, mistrust even paranoia?

A New Century and the First World War

At the beginning of the twentieth century the Russian Empire amongst all the main European powers was the most reviled in Europe. It was less than half a century since when Britain and France had clashed with Russia in the Crimea.

Despite the relationships and direct family connections of Britain and Russia’s royal families, Britain had been wary of Russia and had been making endeavors to contain Russia’s influence in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

By 1904 Russia had embarked on a short and disastrous war with Japan and the result was defeat and international humiliation that highlighted military weakness. More humiliation ensued as her ally France reneged from treaty obligations with Russia to avoid antagonizing Great Britain. The world it seemed did not trust Russia and the feeling would be reciprocal - and as time went on irreconcilable. All this would shortly be put aside when the three powers formed the triple entente in the face of German militarism. Unity against a common enemy did not necessarily mean they would be lasting allies though.

Russia had ambitions for a sphere of influence in the Middle East. This time Britain and France found it expedient to offer such a prospect at the expense of the Ottomans as an incentive to her contributing to an alliance against Germany. None of this would come to fruition as the events of World War One unfolded and the promises to Russia were not honored.

Like the war with Japan the war went in an adverse direction. The Russian forces were partially capable of containing the Austrians, but no match for the Germans who rolled her forces back through Belorussia and Ukraine. The combined effects of economic devastation, hatred of the Tsar and the war itself drove the discontent that created the Russian Revolution. That would be the first foothold of communism and would unsettle the world. Russia would find herself friendless, ostracized, bitter, and mistrustful at the war’s end.

The Russians needed peace and time to augment their new regime and make good on the revolution's promises to its people. This stability came in the form of the Brest-Litovsk peace settlement and it came at an extremely high price. Russia lost large chunks of European land and her many coal mines. It was a loss that for the time being she would have to bear but opportunity would later come to reclaim it.

At this time, her former allies occupied various ports in Russia and supported the anti-revolutionary movements much to the new government’s chagrin. The west it seemed was no more to be trusted than the very nations she fought against so in 1922 Russia signed the Treaty of Rapallo with Germany, another outcast. This treaty had secret clauses that allowed Germany to develop her military machine out of sight of Western eyes, a violation of the Versailles Treaty. Had Western actions and meddling created a future unnecessary hostile force?

The Interwar Years and World War Two

As the first world war was ending the newly established USSR was at war with Poland. Poland was formerly incorporated into former Imperial Russia, but the post war settlement created a new Polish state that would not be satisfied with the boundaries established by Lord Curzon as they took large expanses of Ukraine and Belorussia. The Soviets lost even more territory and received little support.

However, the USSR did little to improve the perception of themselves in their formative years to reassure the West. The USSR was finally recognized by the international community and admitted to the League in 1934. The remaining interwar years were overshadowed with the ruthless actions of its leader, Stalin. A totalitarian shadow had been cast over Russia and the world feared it would expand as the USSR intervened in the Spanish Civil War. Internally, very public trials during the purges and long incarcerations in the labor camps gave a glimpse of what Soviet rule would bring.

Despite this the USSR had its external supporters. The socialists in Britain, enamored with Soviet achievements, overlooked or condoned any controversy that slipped out of the USSR. Major industrial corporations from the US and Britain such as Rolls Royce and Ford clamored to do business with a vibrant economy.

For the unemployed, desperate, and needy, the Soviet Union was seen as a utopia as the capitalist nations such Britain and the USA struggled in the Great Depression. The USSR boasted of full employment, affordable housing and free education and health services so much so that thousands from the USA emigrated, something that these people would later regret when they found themselves abandoned. There were reports of desperate messages reaching the US embassies from US expatriates, but political expediency allowed such things to be conveniently ignored. It did not mean that the West fully trusted the USSR and they were given good reason as the Second World War loomed.

By 1939 the USSR had signed two pacts, one with Germany and one with Japan. That meant the three main militaristic powers were aligned in a state of co-operation and were threatening British, US and other interests around the world. The USSR in two treaties had derailed any collective security and in turn allowed the full might of Japan and Germany to be unleashed on the rest of the world.

The pacts at face value were very strange and politically incongruous considering the ideological differences. In 1936 Germany and Japan had signed The Anti-Comintern Pact aimed specifically at the USSR and the advance of communism. Hitler’s speeches left no room for doubt how he felt about the USSR even in his early writings in Mein Kampf. As the democracies were in retreat, Germany and the USSR invaded and divided up Poland. The USSR added Baltic states and ten percent of Finland’s territory to her spoils.

Following Operation Barbarossa Russia joined the allies to defeat Nazi Germany but would leave the outcome of Europe and future international relations in an equally parlous state. As the war ended so the question of Soviet reliability raised its head again. Once again, a unity against a common enemy did not necessarily mean a long-term friendship.

The Cold War to Glasnost and Perestroika

The war ended with Eastern Europe remaining under a new totalitarian rule. Poland had found itself liberated from one dictator only to be ruled by a no less brutal Soviet version along with East Germany, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and the former Czechoslovakia.

The uneasy wartime alliance had dissolved by the end of the war. Hostile actions by the USSR with the Berlin Blockade and the establishment of the “Iron Curtain” led to NATO’s formation in 1949 as communism now appeared to be the new enemy. In 1955 the USSR, viewing NATO as a threat, formed their own defensive alliance with its satellite states. Security was the underlying motive certainly in Europe, but the following decades would have the USSR supporting various insurrectionist organisations and proxy wars against the west.

From the point of view of the USSR they had without debate experienced the most savagery in the war. Allied actions did little to give assurances such as the delays to opening a second front in 1943. The USSR it seemed was left to bear the full force of the Wehrmacht alone. Too many times had she been betrayed so the future security and the buffer states of Eastern Europe provided a bulwark against future aggression they perceived would come again from the West. However, the USSR’s perspectives are veiled by secrecy, their intentions will never fully be clear, and this makes it difficult to offer any counterarguments. We are left with her actions that seem to speak louder than anything else.

The next four decades saw the Soviet military machine brutally suppressed its own satellites in Hungary 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968. The Soviets were keeping their vassal states under a tight reign. In 1979 the world watched a Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to shore up a failing communist government. Her presence behind the scenes of revolutionary regimes in Palestine, Libya, Syria, and Iraq would have their own limited but destructive impacts.

For a short while there appeared to be optimism after the fall in Communism in 1989, the unification of Germany and the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact - but this was to be short lived as history moved into the twenty first century. As the USSR broke up into separate autonomous nations it created an unstable base for peace and security for the future.

Russia – back to a New Cold War?

There is a quote from a source Putin’s People, “The Soviet Empire might have been lost…for them, the end of the communist empire did not mean an end of hostilities, but an opportunity to eventually continue them under new auspices.” The events of the twenty first century support this.

The twenty first century saw the East-West rapprochement disintegrate. In eight months in 2014 Russia conducted thirty-nine violations into NATO airspace. In that same year, the world saw her annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine. Russian dissidents were poisoned allegedly by Russian agents on British soil in the infamous Salisbury incidents. There followed allegations of tampering in US elections and in 2022 Russia began an invasion of Ukraine after false reassurances of military exercises.

In March 2014, US President Barack Obama, in a speaking engagement at the Nuclear Security Summit in the Hague, stated that Russia was a regional power as opposed to a superpower, which is what she believed. In the speech he implied that NATO would support non-member countries with non-military means to counter Russia but at the same time stating that Russia was not the principle geographical threat. It was a slap in the face.

Russian pride was hurting, and they needed to reinstate their status as a world power on the same level as the USA who it seemed could cherry pick the international rules by which they could play. Already in 2008 Russia had taken military action in a breakaway region of Georgia to international disdain and the rest Ukraine was soon to follow.

Putin authored an essay in 2020 titled On the Historical Unity of Russia and Ukraine. In that essay he references Ukraine and reveals a motive. It quotes “modern Ukraine was entirely invented by Russia” and goes on “Ukraine is not just a neighbouring country for us” but “an inalienable part of our own culture and space.” Was Russia lamenting its lost territories from the collapse of the USSR? Is Ukraine an omen that these are losses they will not be prepared to let go and will bring back into a new unified Russia?

It appears history repeats with a new cold war and Russia is now internationally isolated again, with few allies and harsh economic sanctions. Nevertheless, there is no acceptable defence for her current actions in Ukraine or any displays of her aggression. The argument of Russia entering her own backyard is reminiscent of the one used to condone Nazi actions in the Rhineland occupation. It is as legitimate as say Britain or France seizing her former colonial possessions by force. The excuse of needing security is risible and although NATO has without doubt expanded easterly it has not threatened Russian or attempted any sovereign violations. Those new nations joined out of fear of Russia and the conditions they endured as former satellites.

There is a pattern of deep mistrust, secrecy and paranoia that has always been and always will be firmly rooted in Russia and this is also projected inward as well as externally as leaders fear lost privilege, power and sometimes safety. No matter the leader, no matter when the decade and no matter the type of regime. It is true to say that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

What do you think of Western relations with Russia since 1900? Let us know below.

Now, read about Britain’s relations with the Soviet Union and France in World War 2 here.

Bibliography

Who Lost Russia? – Peter Conradi – One World Publications - 2017

Armageddon – Max Hastings – Pan Macmillan 2004

Putin’s People – Catherine Belton – William Collins - 2020

Creeds of the Devil Churchill Between the Two Totalitarianisms 1917-45 – Antoine Capet Universite De Rouen

We Need to Talk about Putin- How the West Gets him Wrong – Mark Galeolli – Ebury Digital - 2019

The Forsaken: From the Great Depression to the Gulags: Hope and Betrayal in Stalin's Russia - Tim Tzouliadus – Abacus 2011

Mein Kampf – Adolf Hitler – Kindle edition

BBC Archives – reference Obama quote