What was it like for Women in Edwardian Britain?

The end of the nineteenth century ushered in a new era, not just of social change but a new monarch, with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Edward VII (1901 – 1910) ascended the throne and the Edwardian era began. The twentieth century soon became plunged into war that marked a period of turmoil for Britain and Europe. Britain controlled a vast empire dominating globally and advancements in technology opened up new opportunities within domestic life, such as widespread use of electricity and in the speed of travel. This period of history underwent an acceleration of technological change with the conveniences of telegrams, telephones and the automobile.  The Edwardian era also experienced a fierce rise of female suffrage and the call for equality between the classes. This article explores the social changes that occurred in Britain during the Edwardian era and how the role of women shifted that contributed to a call for female suffrage.

Amy Chandler returns to the site and explains.

A 1909 poster Votes for Women. By Hilda Dallas.

After the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, her funeral was the picture of elegance, popularity and decadence that symbolized the end of the Victorian era of strict moral values and the rise of Edward VII and the golden age of decadence. Edward VII was seen as a socialite and a popular royal figure, but this image angered Queen Victoria, as she disliked the negative impact this would have on the crown. Under his short reign, Edward was able to strengthen ties with many nations in Europe as a ‘peacemaker’. (1) Edward also sought to modernize the monarchy and saw the value in the ceremonial role of the crown within society and Parliament. His deep bond with his wife Queen Alexandra was perceived as the symbol of unity and stability during a time of change. Due to the short length of his reign, the Edwardian era is seen as a golden age of development before the darkness of The Great War in 1914. For the middle and upper classes the Edwardian era experienced the steady incline in adopting an extravagant lifestyle with 25% of the population categorized as middle class.

The new woman

By the end of the nineteenth century, the role of middle-class women underwent radical changes with the emergence of the ‘New Woman’. Historically, wealthy women were often seen as second-class citizens without much independence, and their place in society remained firmly in the domestic sphere as the ‘Angel in the house’. In comparison, working class women had no choice but to work, and still look after their children.

This new image of women became a significant cultural icon coined by writer and public speaker Sarah Grand in 1894. (2) The stereotypical Victorian woman as a homemaker and child bearer was directly challenged by this radical image of an intelligent, educated, emancipated, independent and self-supporting woman. This was a movement that was not just confined to the select few of middle class, but also factory and office workers. (2) This new gender ideology played an integral role in influencing complex social change and the redefinition of gender roles within society. This was a significant factor in consolidating women’s rights and overcoming what many deemed as masculine supremacy. Other factors that propelled the success of the new woman included, developments of women entering the labor force, divorce legislation and education for women. (2) The turn of the century offered new opportunities for women that only gained in momentum for female suffrage. Statistics show that by 1901, 14% of women under the age of 45 did not marry and often became ostracized from society with their only options to continue living with family or become a companion to an older woman or widow.

The new woman was a popular figure for public ridicule by the press and satirist magazine Punch magazine that undermined the movement. One cartoon entitled, ‘The new woman’ published in 1895 by George du Maurier, depicted two women wearing androgynous clothing, smoking and lounging in two armchairs talking to a man hastily leaving the room. These actions in themselves were unladylike by Victorian standards.

The dialogue reads:

"You're not leaving us, Jack? Tea will be here directly!"

"Oh, I'm going for a cup of tea in the servants' hall. I can't get on without female society, you know!" (3)

George du Maurier’s cartoon emphasizes the growing uneasiness that some men experienced in this radical new woman and the growing confidence these women gained by challenging society’s views of what a woman should do and how to dress. Not all women left their husbands to become a new woman and many in the Edwardian era used their fine clothing to compound their femininity and status through how they dressed, acted and what events they attended. But this was just the start of new opportunities for women as technology offered another form of freedom for middle class women – employment.

The introduction of the typewriter to offices across Britain in the Edwardian era offered a new opportunity and freedom for women in the middle class through office work. An office clerk was traditionally a male profession and many documents were created by hand. However, the introduction of the typewriter and the increased demand for quick creation of documents birthed the role of the typist. Society saw typists as a suitable occupation for women as the power and roles of men were unaffected in the workplace. Typist roles appealed to middle-class women who were traditionally homebound and unemployed. This provided many women with the potential for financial independence and opened the doors for female entrepreneurs.

The number of female typists varied throughout the country, for example in Scotland, 99% of typists were women. (4) Like with any new occupation the new employees needed training, which led to the emergence of typing schools offering lessons in typing, shorthand and bookkeeping. Typists became a skilled profession that required a depth and breadth of knowledge and language skills. Society overlooked typing as a skilled profession in general as it was seen as easy for women to perform. This meant that the profession and offices became female dominated. Furthermore, the introduction of the bicycle in the 1890s offered social mobility for women as they could travel without a chaperone, which created a greater sense of independence. The Edwardian era and the end of the nineteenth century opened up discussion for equality and challenging gender norms in society. These changes in society also paved the way for women to join the workforce during the war effort and take charge of traditionally male dominated roles. The call of female suffrage after 1918 only grew in numbers and the government couldn’t deny that women played a vital role in running the country through industry, while men were conscripted to fight in the war. Gender roles were shifting whether Parliament liked it or not and change was on the horizon.

The call for equal suffrage

Britain’s class structure dominated the social, political and economic landscape throughout history and resulted in many protests, clashes of ideas and the rise of radical groups. 1848 was titled the Year of Revolution as many countries across Europe called for political and social change. Despite the complaints to Parliament for change, Britain never truly experienced an overrule of its government nor violence to the extent that Europe experienced. The campaigns for change from the perspective of the working class were often received with violence and disappointment. Social and political change was a slow process that took years to benefit those involved. The idyllic lifestyle of the middle and upper classes dominating the social and political scene did not last long as this new age of the Edwardian era ushered in the start of social unrest and power to the working class.

The desire for equality between the classes began to take shape with The Chartist Movement in 1848 where the working class demanded the vote for all men in Parliament, not just the wealthy. The Great Reform Act of 1832 proclaimed that middle class men were allowed to participate in parliamentary voting. Women were seen as even less important to the political sphere irrespective of their social standing. Similarly, wealthy men dictated the course of British politics, despite the working class’s contribution to British economy. By April 1848, the group organized a rally in South East London where they marched towards Parliament with a petition signed by two million men. (5) The Chartists included fake signatures on their petitions to gain more support, these names included Queen Victoria. This movement did not achieve their goals of votes for all men, but did gain an increased interest throughout the working class. It was not until the Second Great Reform Act of 1867 that the eligibility to vote was extended further, but still excluded working class men and all women the right to vote. The representation of the wide population was uneven and dictated by property ownership, money and gender. By 1868, only 300,000 men were registered to vote that made up only 10% of the population that was not representative of the diverse population. (5)

By 1900 the number of names registered to vote on the electoral role were approximately 58% of men over the age of 21 (6731,000). (6) Despite the increase of men on the electoral role, Parliament still created barriers under the People Act of 1867 and 1885, the Registration Act of 1885 and required voters to have residency over 12 months and occupancy of a property worth £10 a year in rent. (6) This excluded the working class and continued to uphold a barrier to democracy and Parliamentary equality. The inequality also meant that some men had the opportunity to vote in more than one constituency through owning a business premise, university qualifications or a second residence. By the outbreak of war in 1914, those who could vote and those who couldn’t were fighting side-by-side strengthening the outcry for electoral equality. The twentieth century was an era of radical and social change across Britain and the stuffy morals were a thought of the past as the world began to change. However, women were still barred from any democratic authority that consolidated their powerlessness in society, despite the long history of upper-class women using their status and money in an attempt to influence prominent figures. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft published, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), which challenged the educational system of the time and argued that education should allow equal opportunity for both sexes. In the nineteenth century, there was several groups headed by women that campaigned for female suffrage, but these lacked progress or impact. In 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women’s social and political union (WSPU) and understood that the group needed a radical approach to the movement, with disruptive tactics that challenged civil order. The Edwardian era was the beginning of change towards all women achieving the right to vote, but progress was interrupted by the war and the death of Edward VII in 1910 welcomed a new monarch that marked the start of the modern monarchy and society. Despite the wheels of change in the Edwardian era, it was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over the age of 21 achieved the same voting right as men, increasing the female eligibility to vote to 15 million in Britain. (7)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Edwardian era not only witnessed a shift in monarchy that stepped away from the long reign of Queen Victoria and the high morals associated with the Victorians, but also a change in socio-political structures that destabilized the divide between the working class and the wealthy aristocratic circles. The shift from all men achieving the electoral authority created an even greater schism between the genders that was only emphasized after women joined the war effort. Social unrest became common with many members of the working class publicly addressing their disgruntlement for their lack of equality and the poor working conditions. The turmoil in Europe consolidated the changing world that made Victorian ideals a distant memory. The new woman also helped strengthen the radical idea of female independence that departed from male authority.  Therefore, when coupled with opportunities of employment and other advancement in technology the call for female suffrage was undeniable. Middle class women joining the workforce had a greater significance than initially thought, as women had a new space to develop their skills away from the dominating male gaze and the stiflingly rigid aristocratic social circles. This created the opportunity for momentous changes to take place. These changes altered the engrained stereotypes of classes and gender that had dominated within society. Society took a different shape and built the foundations for equality for future generations.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

(1)   RMG, ‘The death of Queen Victoria’, 2024, Royal Museums Greenwich < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/death-queen-victoria#:~:text=This%20persona%20caused%20much%20upset,well%20for%20World%20War%20I >[accessed 17 January 2024].

(2)   A. Diniejko, ‘The New Woman Fiction’, 2011, Victorian Web < https://www.victorianweb.org/gender/diniejko1.html >[accessed 17 January 2024].   

(3)   G. Du Maurier, ‘The New Woman’, 1895, Punch Magazine <https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000rc87lkkUS5Y >[accessed 19 January 2024].

(4)   National Museums Scotland, ‘Women and the Typewriter’, 2024, National Museums Scotland <https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/the-typewriter/typewriter-chapters/women-and-typewriters/#:~:text=The%20role%20of%20the%20typist%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20suitable,had%20done%20well%20at%20school>[accessed 19 January 2024].

(5)   Museum of London, ‘Pocket Histories: The Political Protest in London, 1750 – 1900’, 2011, Museum of London <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/3614/5580/1573/political-protest-london.pdf >[accessed 15 January 2024].

(6)   D. Butler, ‘Electors and Elected’ in A. H Halsey and Josephine Webb, eds., Twentieth Century British Social Trends (Hampshire, Macmillan Press,2000),p.385.

(7)   UK Parliament, ‘Women get the vote’, 2024, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/ >[accessed 29 January 2024].

Britain’s Failure in the Indian Subcontinent: Events that led to the Partition of India

The Partition of India in 1947 led to major implications took place after the British ended their rule of India. It had huge impacts, including the creation of two countries, around one million deaths, and the displacement of over ten million people (estimates vary on the exact amount). Romaan Anwar explains the events that led up to the Partition.

A refugee train on a journey to the Punjab, Pakistan in 1947.

Imagine this: two brothers are prisoners shackled in a cell in 1947. Now, they are free, and chains are broken. However, instead of enjoying their freedom, they are practically fighting each other to the death! This is the case for partition between India and Pakistan.

Prior to the independence of both nations in 1947, the fight for self-determination dominated the minds of the inhabitants within the Subcontinent. Possibly, the independence of both countries is the most defining moment for both since their freedom. Manifest in conflicts such as that in Kashmir, as well as the most recent major war known as the Bangladeshi Liberation War of 1971, the effects of partition are clearly still felt to this day. Not only did self-determination shape the future of those residing in the Subcontinent, but it also struck a huge blow to British prestige. Many speak of the partition and its consequences; however, many also do not fully grasp the events which led to the partition. From Gandhi’s Quit India movement in 1942, to Direct Action Day in 1946, I will shed light on key events which occurred shortly before Indian and Pakistani independence. I believe these events were the most pivotal in shaping how the partition played out.

Quit India Movement and the Cripps Mission, 1942

Before the climax of the Second World War in 1945, Indian demands for independence were very much in full swing. In a meeting with Congress in 1942, Gandhi instructed other Indian leaders that it was the perfect time to seize power.He demanded that Britain departs from India and grants independence to the country. Congress would then agree on a peaceful mass movement and passed the “Quit India Resolution”, thus giving birth to the Quit India movement.[1]This was done in response to a failed mission by Sir Stafford Cripps, the British Chancellor at the time. Within the same year, Cripps was sent by Churchill to make terms with the Indian Congress. He offered that if India gives full support for the war effort, Britain will grant India complete independence once the war concluded. Congress overestimated British desperation in the war and rejected. They countered with the demand that India gains instant independence, which Churchill and Lord Linlithgow would not grant.[2] The Cripps mission completely broke down, and this event shows how stern Congress was in demanding immediate independence. By this point, the Indian people were exhausted, and had enough of fighting in the war for the British. This sentiment only intensified when the Japanese were gaining traction during their Southeast Asian conquests and were beginning to encroach on Burma.

Furthermore, Gandhi’s arrest by British authorities increased dissent within the population of the Subcontinent. Particularly in regions such as Bengal, there was a significant upsurge in anti-British sentiment within the rural areas especially. The Quit India Movement of 1942 has been compared by historians to the Great Revolt of 1857 in terms of sheer scale.[3] The arrest of Gandhi and other Congress leaders had also given the more extreme nationalists less restraint. Bolstering their confidence, a violent offensive was launched in what is known as the ‘August Revolution’. Telephone wires were cut, train rails were destroyed, police stations were stormed, and Congress flags were planted on key government offices. Multiple districts were seized and were occupied by the nationalist rebels. An ever-increasing number of peasants had also joined the fray, and uproar against British rule was surging. The government was rapidly losing control of the situation. However, the allies were gaining traction in the war against Japan, and the revolution gradually dwindled up until the end of August.[4]

Failure of the Simla Conference, 1945

Transitioning over to June 1945, the Simla conference was another example of the British failure to maintain their authority over India, and a contributor to their eventual departure. Viceroy Lord Wavell was eager to solve India’s communal and political problems due to World War Two almost concluding. He wanted representatives of India to agree on a national government to resolve disputes particularly between Jinnah’s Muslim League and the Congress. Yet another example of British failure in India, the conference proved unsuccessful. Jinnah had demands for nominations exclusively for members of the Muslim League as ministers. However, when Wavell tried to create a government, himself mainly consisting of Muslim league members, Jinnah rejected this proposal. In response, Wavell created the ‘Breakdown Plan’ which threatened to restrict Pakistan just to Punjab and the Bengal. However, British policy regarding India was indecisive and unclear seeing as Clement Atlee was unhappy with Wavell’s proposals in the Simla conference. He sent a cabinet mission to remedy the situation in India, but due to the unclear decision from Britain’s end, the conference negotiations broke down.[5] The rejection from Jinnah shows that political leaders in India were less willing to entertain British proposals, and aimed to manifest their own ideas of how an independent India should be structured. Therefore, it is evident that increased movements toward independence contributed toward British decolonisation between 1945 and 1970, especially in context of Indian independence.

Increase of Communal Violence: Direct Action Day, 1946

Additionally, the sheer intensity of communal violence within British India had escalated, adding pressure on the British government to decide regarding partition. Under the leadership of Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League called for the ‘Direct Action Day’ in August 1946. Initially meant to be a peaceful demonstration to affirm the demand for a separate Muslim state, it transformed into a massacre in Calcutta in the form of looting, arson and fighting between Muslim and Hindu mobs. Many ordinary people going about their daily lives were killed, beaten, or robbed. This solidified the idea that Muslims and Hindus cannot possibly co-exist in a single state, and potentially unintentionally aided Jinnah’s efforts to create Pakistan. It was a prelude to the partition massacres that would unfold later.[6] Overall, the increase in communal hostility between Muslims and Hindus highlighted Britain’s inability to control the situation in India. It was clear that Britain had been losing authority as was manifested through its ineffective response to the killings.

Mountbatten Plan and Partition, 1947

By 1947, tensions had reached an absolute boiling point. Major cities in Punjab were practically on fire. Gangs walked the streets of various major cities in the region and continuously fired weapons, threw rocks, and set shops on fire. In Bombay, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities became increasingly paranoid regarding approaching each other’s ‘zones’, even when there was a delay in episodic stabbings. Most families had to acquire basic arms and barricade their houses to protect themselves from the raging violence. On the political scale, Jinnah and the Muslim League were still vocal about their demands for a separate state for Muslims, known as Pakistan. Louis Mountbatten was sent to India as the next and final Viceroy to attempt a partition plan.[7] The British administration could barely manage the Indian political situation at the time, and Clement Atlee (Who was then the Prime Minister) famously remarked that British rule would end there “a date not later than June 1948”. Considered to be the champion of Muslim minority rights in India, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was renowned for demanding extra political rights for the Muslims. Hence, this would evolve into a demand for an entirely new state.[8] Mountbatten knew that partition had to occur, as by this point, the idea that Muslims and Hindus could co-exist in one state had long been thrown out due to the sheer intensity of communal violence. Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer who had never even visited India, was commissioned with the arduous task of drawing the borders between India and Pakistan. This was to be done purely on religious grounds.[9]Once this was done on August 17, 1947 (two days after the independence of both countries), a massive diaspora would occur. Many refugees and locals would struggle due to this change, and they had to take the perilous journey of migrating to a completely new homeland based on their faith.[10] Thus, the modern states of India and Pakistan were born through bloodshed, diaspora and political turmoil.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1] Boissoneault, Lorraine. “The Speech That Brought India to the Brink of Independence”. Smithsonian Magazine. 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speech-brought-india-brink-independence-180964366/

[2] McLeod, John. “The History of India. Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations.” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group: 2002.) p 122

[3] Chatterjee, Pranab Kumar. “QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT OF 1942 AND THE NATURE OF URBAN RESPONSE IN BENGAL.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 43, 1982: 687–94. pp 687-688

[4] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). p 251.

[5] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). pp 256-257

[6] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 63-66

[7] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 83-87

[8] Philips, Sean. “Why was British India Partitioned in 1947? Considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah” University of Oxford. https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/why-was-british-india-partitioned-in-1947-considering-the-role-of-muhammad-ali-0

[9] Menon, Jisha. “The Performance of Nationalism : India, Pakistan, and the Memory of Partition”. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). p 29

[10] Singh, Amritjit, Iyer, Nalini, and Gairola, Rahul K., editors. “Revisiting India's Partition : New Essays on Memory, Culture, and Politics.” (Blue Ridge Summit: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2016). pp 165-166

US Relations with Latin America at the Start of the 20th Century

The conventional argument by scholars is that the relationship between the United States and Latin America was acrimonious in the late nineteenth century. Here, scholar Paul Parobek seeks to present an alternative view – that the relationship between the United States and Latin America in the nineteenth century was not acrimonious, but rather, was harmonious.

Elihu Root in 1902.

‘Pan-Americanism’ refers to the sense of solidarity between the United States and Latin America. It is often overlooked in the scholarship, however, there is a plethora of archival evidence that can attest to it as this scholar found during his research. Pan-Americanism became a policy of Secretary of State James G. Blaine (March to December 1881, and 1889-1892) sought to solidify American relations with Latin America by using trade.

Secretary of State from 1905-09 Elihu Root was aware of the growing distrust of the United States by certain segments of Latin American. This can be attributed to a sense of cultural superiority known as American Exceptionalism among certain segments of American society and Secretary of State Richard Olney’s reinterpretation of the Monroe Doctrine that made the United States fiat in the hemisphere. Secretary Root explains in a letter to Senator Tillman why Latin Americans were distrustful of the United States:

The South Americans now hate us, largely because they think we despise them and try to bully them. I really like them and intend to show it. I think their friendship is really important to the United States, and that the best way to secure it is by treating them like gentlemen (Jessup, 1938, p. 469).

A tour of Latin America

Secretary Root took a tour of Latin America that covered a large part of coastal South America (see footnote [1]) that was previously neglected by American policymakers but had numerous American corporations after carefully examined the situation in Latin America in 1906. The opening session of the Pan-American Conference started off in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Secretary Root gave his interpretation of Pan-Americanism in a long speech where he pronounces the equality and solidarity of all the nations of the western hemisphere and international security while in Brazil:

No nation can live unto itself alone and continue to live. Each nation’s growth is a part of the development of the race…It is with nations as it is with individual men: intercourse, association, correction of egotism by the influence of other’s judgement, broadening of views by the experience and thought of equals, acceptance of the moral standards of a community the desire for whose good opinion lends a sanction to the rules of right conduct - these are conditions of growth in civilization… To promote this mutual interchange and assistance between the American Republics, engaged in the same great task, inspired by the same purpose, and professing the same principals, I understand to be the function of the American Conference now in session. There is not one of all our countries that cannot benefit the others; there is not one that cannot receive benefit from the others; there is not one that will not gain by the prosperity, the peace, the happiness of all… (Peter Myers, 1916, pp. 3-4).

Secretary Root used the Third Pan-American Conference to further rectify any misunderstandings the Latin Americans had towards the United States:

We wish for no victories but those of peace; for no territory except our own; for no sovereignty except the sovereignty over ourselves. We deem the independence and equal rights of the smallest and weakest member of the family of nations entitled to as much respect as those of the greatest empire, and we deem the observance of that respect the chief guaranty of the weak against the oppression of the strong. We neither claim nor desire any rights or privileges or powers that we do not freely concede to every American republic (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xv).

Significance

The trip was significant as it was meant to clear up any perceived misunderstandings and to restore relations between the United States and Latin America. Further, Bacon and Scott point out that the trip was “it was intended to be a matter of international importance” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii). They further explain that the trip had two objectives:

And by personal contact, to learn the aims and views of our southern friends, and to show also, by personal intercourse, the kindly consideration and the sense of honorable obligation which the Government of the United States cherishes for its neighbors to the south without discriminating among them, and to make clear the destiny common to the peoples of the western world (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii). 

Finally according to Bacon and Scott, the trip “was the first time that a Secretary of State had visited South America during the tenure of his office, and the visit was designed to show the importance which the United States attaches to the Pan American conferences…” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. xiii).

The election of President McKinley appeared to have affected Latin American perceptions of the United States as the solidarity was not one-sided. The Brazilian ambassador to the United States expressed his gratitude to Secretary Root for stating that “in nothing else since you came to your high post you have taken a more direct and personal interest. You seem to divine in the spirit that animates you with regard to our continent the mark that your name will leave in history” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. 4).  Dr. Luis M. Drago of Argentina welcomed Secretary Root, stating in his opening speech that “…the traditional policy of the United States, without accentuating superiority or seeking preponderance, condemned the oppression of the nations of this part of the world and the control of their destinies by the great powers of Europe” (Bacon and Scott, 1917, p. 96). Similar sentiments were found throughout his tour of Latin America.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1]. According to Bacon and Scott,  Root travelled to Sio Paulo and Santos in Brazil followed by Montevideo, Uruguay; Buenos Ayres, Argentina; Santiago, Chile; Lima and University of San Marcos, Peru; Panama; Cartagena, Columbia; and San Antonio, Nuevo Laredo, City of Mexico, Puebla, Orizaba, and Guadalajara all in Mexico Bacon, R. and Scott, J. B. (eds.) (1917) Latin America and the United States: Addresses by Elihu Root. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

No Cold War? What If Harry Truman Had Not Become Roosevelt’s Vice President in 1945?

Among the most fascinating counterfactual narratives in 20th century American political history revolves around the 1944 Democratic Convention.  On the second ballot of a wild open vote for vice president, Harry Truman came from behind and defeated incumbent Henry Wallace to join Franklin Roosevelt on his 4th-term ticket.  Truman went on to become president on FDR’s death the following April.  Books and films—most notably Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of the United States—and even plays, have since popularized the notion that delegates were bribed by a corrupt coterie of reactionary party leaders, and that if Wallace had kept his rightful place as FDR’s number two the Cold War would never have happened.  Peace and friendship between the United States and the Soviet Union would have reigned - or so Stone believes.

Benn Steil explains.

Henry A. Wallace.

My new biography of Wallace, The World That Wasn’t, grounded in masses of new primary-source material, argues that this narrative is nonsense.  I investigated the subsequent careers of the 1,176 delegates, and found that at most one of the delegates (New York’s Richard Patterson, whose vote is unrecorded) backed Truman and subsequently became an ambassador under him—ambassadorships having supposedly been the primary bribe currency. Moreover, Russian archival documents make clear that Stalin never considered Wallace more than a useful idiot who could aid his territorial ambitions in Europe and Asia.

Given the popularity of the counterfactual narrative, however, it is worth delving creatively into a pivotal episode of the early Cold War, and imagining how it might have played out if Wallace had been president instead of Truman.

On April 15, 1947, Truman’s secretary of state George C. Marshall met with Soviet leader Josef Stalin at the Kremlin to discuss the breakdown in U.S.-Soviet relations.  The meeting was historically consequential, leading Marshall to conclude that Stalin was determined to stoke unrest and undermine recovery in Western Europe.  The result was the creation of the Marshall Plan and NATO, both of which Wallace staunchly opposed.

What follows immediately below is a narrative of the meeting based on primary accounts, condensed from the longer narrative in my book The Marshall Plan, followed in turn by a counterfactual narrative of how the encounter with Stalin might have gone had a President Wallace represented the United States, instead of Secretary Marshall.  It will then be left to the reader’s imagination how history might have played out from there.

 

Marshall and Stalin: April 15, 1947

On the night of April 15, 1947, accompanied by Ambassador Walter Bedell Smith and Chip Bohlen, who would act as translator, George Marshall made his way to the Kremlin through what appeared to Smith to be the most heavily policed street on earth.  Ushered through a series of antechambers, the Americans arrived in a wood-paneled conference room where the Generalissimo, in his mustard-colored military uniform, stood waiting.  Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov, Ambassador to Washington Nikolai Novikov, and a translator were present.  Portraits of Russian Napoleonic war heroes stared down from the walls.

It was 10PM.  Stalin welcomed Marshall, complimenting him for having aged much better than he had.  He, Stalin—at sixty-eight, two years older than Marshall—was now, in contrast, “just an old man.”

Bohlen agreed.  He was surprised to see how the Soviet leader had aged. Five foot five, pock-faced, with a coarse, streaked mustache, yellowed teeth matching his eyes, his physical figure seemed to betray his legend.

George Marshall, never at ease with small talk, briefly returned Stalin’s pleasantries, recalling “with great interest” their previous meeting at the Tehran Conference in 1943, where “amphibious and cross-river operations” had been discussed.

“Yes,” Stalin interjected, “the second front.”

Marshall had wished to remind Stalin of the two countries’ recent historic collaboration, but the “second front” held different meanings for the two men.  From Stalin’s perspective, it had been deliberately, devastatingly, and unforgivably late.  America and Britain, he believed, delayed launching it for years in order that Germany and the Soviet Union might first grind each other into rubble and impotence.  Stalin, of course, had also used this tactic—letting Germans slaughter the Warsaw Poles in August 1944.

Marshall steered the meeting toward business.

He would, he advised Stalin, speak frankly—not as a diplomat, but as he had been trained, as a soldier.  He explained that he was “very concerned,” even “somewhat depressed at the extent and depth of misunderstandings and differences . . . revealed at this conference.” The Soviet Union, he said, had been held in high esteem among the American people at the end of the war.  But since that time, the Soviet government had not kept faith with agreements and was hindering progress on new ones.

The American Lend-Lease arrangement with the Soviet Union, Marshall reminded Stalin, “had been the most generous of all,” and the unwillingness of the Soviets to settle their obligations—such as the return of merchant ships and war vessels—was having “a very bad effect on the United States Congress and on public opinion.” Now, here in Moscow, an atmosphere of “suspicion and distrust [was making] agreement virtually impossible.”

Marshall was indeed speaking frankly; even brutally, as he later termed it.

Impassive, Stalin puffed a cigarette; looking down, to the side, occasionally into Marshall’s eyes as he listened to the American and his translator.  A red pen in his right hand throughout, he doodled wolves’ heads on a notepad, in plain sight of his guests—a practice he was known to have cultivated some time ago for the purpose of disconcerting them.  Harriman had experienced it in his first audience with him at the beginning of the war.

Marshall turned to the main issue dividing Washington and Moscow: Germany.  They were not making progress on any of the central matters: demilitarization, reparations, or the country’s future economic and political architecture.

Germany had brought the Soviet Union and the United States together in a common cause, from 1941 to 1945, but now that it was caged between the eastern and western halves of the continent, each under the effective control of their respective militaries, it served only to magnify the consequences of their clashing ideologies and geostrategic interests.  Little of substance, or even of clear meaning, regarding Germany’s future had been decided among FDR, Churchill, and Stalin at Yalta two years prior, in spite—or because—of it being by far the most consequential issue the three governments would have to resolve.  Stalin had at the time been content to wait; he expected “the correlation of forces” to move in his favor, as they did when the Red Army beat General Eisenhower to Berlin.

Now, here in Moscow, Marshall said, there was a misconception that the United States “intended to dismember Germany.” But his government “did not have any such intention”; it “in fact desired the opposite.” It wanted the country unified economically, allowing the more industrial west to exchange goods freely with the agricultural east.  But it also believed that a powerful central German government “would constitute a real danger for the peace of the world.” Marshall further believed, yet did not say, that the main source of this danger was the Kremlin-controlled KPD (Kommunistische Partei Deutschlands) German Communist Party, which had held power in the east since forcibly absorbing and dismantling the SPD Social Democratic Party in 1946.

Marshall now directed his frustration at his interlocutor for the past six weeks.  “Mr. Molotov,” he said, “had charged that the British-American bi-zonal arrangement was in violation of Potsdam.” But it “was as plain as this table that the United States and Great Britain had been forced to take this action”—merging the two zones—"in defense of their own taxpayers, by reason of the failure to establish economic unity in Germany.”

As for reparations, Marshall continued, Molotov was exaggerating what the United States had received from the American zone, while refusing himself even to provide any figures as to what the Soviet Union had received.  The two delegations had, further, reached “an impasse on the demilitarization treaty.”

There was also the wider context, Marshall added: Europe.  “We are,” he said, “frankly determined to do what we can to assist those countries which are suffering from economic deterioration.” If “unchecked, [this] might lead to economic collapse and the consequent elimination of any chance of democratic survival.”

Trying to close on a positive note, Marshall reiterated his “desire to rebuild the basis of cooperation that had existed during the war.” He had, he said, “come to Generalissimo Stalin with that hope, feeling that if they cleared away some of the suspicion it would be a good beginning for the restoration of that understanding.”

Stalin nodded.  Marshall, he said, was “quite right, that only on the basis of frankness and sincerity could cooperation and friendship be developed.”

“As to lend lease,” he confessed, “there was occasional sloppiness in the operation of the Soviet Government.” It was “very busy here because [we] suffered such great losses in the war. . . . This might be the reason for the delays.” But “there was another side to the lend lease question,” he told Marshall: “namely the credits which had been linked to lend lease.”

Two years ago, Stalin explained, in response to Ambassador Harriman’s question regarding what orders the Soviet government was prepared to place in the United States, and what credits it needed to settle them, his government had submitted a memorandum requesting three to six billion dollars.  Six billion, Stalin said, had been “long promised.” Now, after two years had passed, “no reply [had yet] been received.” This was, he suggested pointedly, “possibly due to sloppiness on the part of the United States.”

Novikov was stunned.  Six billion?  “I only knew of a promise of a one billion dollar loan,” he later recorded.  And “I was not the only one struck by Stalin’s bitter reproach.” Marshall was whispering in Smith’s ear as Stalin spoke; Smith scribbled furiously.  He reached across the table and handed Novikov a note.

“Mr. Novikov!” it read, “you know too well that it’s not so.  Six billion have never been promised.  Please, explain it to Mr. Stalin.” Novikov translated and handed the message to Molotov.  “Without moving a brow,” Molotov “put the sheet into a folder.” He “did not say a word” to Stalin, whose “strange memory lapse . . . haunted me,” Novikov noted. “[W]hat I saw was an elderly, very elderly, tired man, who, likely, was carrying his great burden of responsibility with great difficulty.” Stalin would correct himself, but only to the extent of conceding that “one year” had passed rather than two.

Stalin moved on to Germany.  “The [Council of Foreign Ministers],” he said, “had no authorization to repeal . . . the agreements entered into by the three governments.” He looked at Bohlen.

“Mr. Bohlen must remember those conversations” at Yalta, where he translated for FDR, when “all the Americans, including President Roosevelt, [Secretary of State Edward] Stettinius and [Harry] Hopkins had said they thought [the Soviet demand for $10 billion in reparations] was very small.” And spread “over twenty years this would not be hard for the Germans.” But “now there was apparently a different point of view,” that despite the Soviet Union having removed “barely two billion dollars” worth of assets no more reparations would be permitted—not even from current production.  “This the Soviet Union could not accept.” The Soviet people, Stalin said, had suffered terribly at the hands of the Germans.  He had “no pity, sympathy, or love for them.” Reparations were right and necessary.

As for “the subject of German unity,” the Soviet Union “stood like the British and Americans for economic unity.” But that was not enough, Stalin said; economic unity was not “feasible without political unity.”

“[We] are against a strong centralized German government,” Stalin clarified; we want only one that “should stand above and not below the Länder [state] governments.” But “[we] must not repeat the same mistakes as Napoleon, who set up scattered German governments.” He thereby gained “a tactical advantage from a temporarily weakened Germany,” but strengthened the hand of “German militarists” who dreamed of reuniting Germany.  “Napoleon’s action in effect gave birth to Bismarck and the Franco-Prussian war.”

If these errors were now repeated, the Soviet Union risked “losing control of the instrument of German unity and handing it over to the militarists and chauvinists.” The German people would then soon follow another dangerous and bellicose leader down the path of reconsolidation.

§

However incoherent its elements, the contours of Soviet policy toward Germany had been largely settled for a year now.  Stalin had no inclination to reopen it.

In May 1946, thirty-eight top Soviet officials, including General Georgy Zhukov and Deputy Foreign Minister Solomon Lozovsky, had submitted their conclusions on Secretary of State James Byrnes’ proposal for German demilitarization and great-power security guarantees in Europe.  They were unequivocal: Moscow must reject it.  The United States, they argued, was trying to drive the Soviet Union out of Germany to secure its “economic domination of that country” and “to preserve [its] military potential [in Europe] as a necessary base for carrying out their aggressive aims in the future.” Stalin concluded that Washington was reneging on Roosevelt’s Tehran commitment to withdraw U.S. troops within two years of the war’s end, seeking instead Soviet “sanction for the U.S. playing the same role in European affairs as the U.S.S.R.” And once Soviet troops were out of Germany, Zhukov warned, the Americans would “demand a withdrawal . . . from Poland”—a critical military corridor with Germany—“and ultimately from the Balkans.” Within a few years, there will be “a German-Anglo-American war against the USSR.”

In this light, Marshall’s calls to rebuild Germany and to end reparations were two sides of the same coin.  America intended to take over Germany, rearm it, and turn it against Russia.  Marshall might as well have been pushing on a closed door from the inside; Stalin would oppose any plan that precluded Soviet control over the western half of Germany.  “All of Germany must be ours,” Stalin told Bulgarian and Yugoslav leaders in 1946.  “That is, Soviet, Communist.” Stalin kept talking to Marshall only because he wanted Washington “to shoulder the responsibility for Germany’s division,” if such could not be avoided.

As for Washington’s policy on Germany, it had lurched radically since 1945.  The Truman administration was now in revolt against the mind-set that had held sway, however tenuously, in Washington a mere two and a half years prior, which viewed a united, industrially revived Germany as a continued threat to Europe.  FDR’s State Department never supported Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau’s plan for deindustrialization and dismembership, believing it “would provide a ready-made program for nationalistic agitators”; instead it supported only decentralization, or federalization, as a means of containing German nationalism and militarism.  Once Truman became president, he condemned Morgenthau’s “meddling” and put the State Department back in control of foreign policy.

Europe’s economic crisis now made Morgenthau’s ideas for German pastoralization look reckless.  Real gross domestic product (GDP) in Britain was tumbling (down 2.6 percent for the year), while inflation in the United States was soaring (14.4 percent for the year), pushing up British import costs.  “Production,” concluded a widely circulated report by former president Herbert Hoover, following a European trip in February, was “the one path to recovery in Europe.” And “the whole economy of Europe,” he insisted, “is interlinked with the German economy.” His ally Senator Vandenberg called Germany “the core of the whole European problem.”

Despite the massive wartime damage Germany sustained, reflected in the destruction of 40 percent of its housing stock, a remarkable 80 percent of the country’s industrial plant capacity remained intact.  Germany exited the war with a greater functioning machine tool stock than it had on entering it—much of it new (one third of industrial equipment was less than five years old, up from one tenth in 1939).  Only raw material shortages and political uncertainty held back its recovery—and Europe’s.  The United States could, therefore, Hoover concluded, “keep Germany in these economic chains, but it will also keep Europe in rags.”

U.S. military governor in Germany General Lucius Clay and John Foster Dulles, foreign policy adviser to Republican presidential hopeful Thomas Dewey, agreed with Hoover, although the two disagreed bitterly over how to manage Germany.  Clay, who considered Dulles overly indulgent of the French, wanted to maintain the territorial integrity of the country and avoid rupture with the Soviets; Dulles wanted to put the Ruhr under international control and use the resources of the Rhine basin to jump-start a new federated “western Europe.” This idea was beginning to capture the imagination of a State Department in search of ways to give substance to the Truman Doctrine.  For his part, Stalin naturally opposed German reindustrialization, particularly when its object was to bolster European capitalism.

§

Six weeks of talks in Moscow had not even begun to close the gap between Soviet and American visions for Germany.  Yet Stalin had one final proposal.

“If our views on this subject cannot be reconciled,” he put to Marshall, “there was a way out,” a compromise.  “Let the German people decide through a plebiscite what they wished.”

Marshall recoiled.  He knew full well where a “plebiscite” would lead.  He had seen the results in Poland, last July, in a baldly manipulated referendum that cleared the way for Communist control.  General elections followed in January 1947, in the run-up to which anti-Communist Peasant Party supporters were arrested by the thousands and their candidates stricken from electoral lists.  Yet in order to prevail, the Communists still had to resort to mass ballot stuffing.  Churchill had fought a lonely last-ditch diplomatic offensive against Stalin at Yalta to preserve an independent Poland as a barricade against Soviet westward expansion.  But FDR, more concerned with securing Soviet UN membership and entry into the Pacific war, capitulated to Stalin’s insistence on Allied recognition of the Soviet-backed provisional Polish government and toothless Western monitoring of future elections. Now, in Moscow, Marshall was determined to defend another such barricade a few hundred miles to the west, in Germany.

All Marshall and Stalin could agree on was that neither the United States nor the Soviet Union could risk the possibility of Germany becoming an ally of the other.  “We must insist on keeping Western Germany free of communistic control,” Kennan would later urge. Marshall would call “domination of all Germany by [the] Soviets . . . the greatest threat to the security of all Western Nations.”

Thus, after ninety minutes of serial monologue, the two men resolved nothing.  Marshall was grim.  Yet Stalin remained disconcertingly calm, almost detached.

“It is wrong to give so tragic an interpretation to our present disagreements,” he told Marshall.  They were, he said, like quarrels between family members.  Differences over Germany were, he added, pointedly replacing the familial analogy with a martial one, “only the first skirmishes and brushes of reconnaissance forces.”

Agreement might come in time, he assured Marshall.  “When people had exhausted themselves in dispute,” Stalin said, “they recognized the necessity for compromise.  We may agree the next time,” he added encouragingly.  “Or, if not then, the time after that.” His manner suggested what researchers would later identify as signs of hostile diplomatic intent.  Unwarranted “positive sentiment” and a “focus on future” possibilities, as opposed to present circumstances, suggest imminent betrayal.

Marshall was now alarmed—not that Stalin continued to disagree with the American position, but that he was content to let disagreement drag on while Germany and Europe convulsed.  “The worse, the better”—a phrase famously attributed to the nineteenth-century radical Russian writer Nikolai Chernyshevsky, and later to Lenin—appeared to be the Soviet leader’s view. Marshall now saw that Molotov’s mulishness could not be explained away by his character.  The foreign minister had been carrying out his boss’s orders.  The Soviets, Marshall concluded, were “not negotiating in good faith.” They “were doing everything possible to achieve a complete breakdown in Europe.”

“It was the Moscow Conference,” said Ambassador Robert Murphy, General Clay’s political adviser and the top U.S. diplomat in Germany, “which really rang down the Iron Curtain.” Skeptical of prospects for cooperation with the Soviets before the conference, Murphy would thereafter see them as wholly untrustworthy and decry anything resembling American appeasement.

 

“President Wallace” and Stalin, counterfactual: April 15, 1947

President Wallace, under enormous pressure in Washington to halt and reverse Soviet expansion in Europe and Asia, led off the discussion.

“The Generalissimo must know,” Wallace said, “that fascist voices are growing louder in America.  They have been called ‘Cold Warriors,’ but some of them want hot war.  They say that Soviet peacekeepers in northern Iran and the Turkish straits are an offensive force.  That you are set on world domination.  That I should have sent battleships and air support.  That I should have confronted the Soviet Union in the United Nations.  These are lies and provocations, of course.  But Americans need your reassurance.”

Stalin lit a cigarette.  “The Soviet Union suffered far worse than any nation in the last war.  That is why I, like you, am trying to keep the peace.  It is only the imperialists and warmongers who will not see this.”

“I agree, of course,” Wallace said.  “But the American people need clearer signals of your nation’s peaceful intentions.  Otherwise, too many are inclined to see the worst.  They think our two systems cannot coexist.  Together, we must show them this is not so.”

Stalin nodded.  “We can show them in Germany.  This means keeping to what was agreed at Yalta and Potsdam.  For the Soviet people, ten billions in reparations is the least they can accept.  They cannot understand when they hear that the American military in Germany is not meeting the solemn commitments made by President Roosevelt and President Wallace.”

“As I have said, and Marshal Stalin knows well, the Morgenthau Plan remains the basis of American policy in Germany.  Germany must become a peaceable agricultural nation.  The Ruhr Valley must be placed under international control.  Its industry, the foundation of the Nazi aggression, must be put to the use of its victims.”

“Does your General Clay in Berlin understand this?,” Stalin asked.

“The general understands and is committed to the policy of his government.  It is necessary, though, that our people see that it is Germany paying reparations, and not the United States.  Right now, it is our resources keeping German workers, German women and children, alive.  General Sokolovsky, understandably, says he does not have the food resources in the east to meet the Soviet Union’s reciprocal obligations to the west.  We therefore need to work together so that the Soviet and western zones can be unified economically.”

“And politically,” Stalin interrupted.  “Otherwise, the German people will follow new demagogues into unification and war.  This is why we need a referendum in the country.”

“I will support a referendum,” Wallace said.  “But our two governments must be clear and open about what question will be put before the German people, and how the vote will be carried out.  The American people believe the Polish vote was not entirely free and fair.  They appreciate and respect that the Soviet people want—they expect—good neighbors, friendly neighbors, but believe that Soviet-German relations must be transformed in a transparent fashion such that there can be no question as to the legitimacy of the exercise.”

“The Soviet people are unified,” Stalin said, “and they want the same unity among peace-loving anti-fascists across Germany.  It is the only basis for future friendship between the Soviet and German peoples.”

“I believe this,” Wallace assured him.  “My government is concerned, though, that if business enterprises in eastern Germany continue to be transformed into Soviet corporations it will not be possible for German anti-fascists to choose freely the economic organization of their society.  We believe that progressive capitalism and socialism can co-exist harmoniously, just as capitalist and communist parties work in coalition in the Czechoslovak government.”

“It is a model for a unified Germany,” Stalin agreed, “and for cooperation between our two countries.  There are no longer American or Soviet forces in Czechoslovakia.  It can be done.”

“Then we agree.  I will ask Secretary of State Duggan to continue these discussions with Mr. Molotov.  We must show the world that the United States and the Soviet Union can resolve their differences with goodwill and dialogue.  This is why I am working for the immediate abolition of atomic weapons, and complete civilian control of our atomic energy resources in the service of universal abundance.  Why I am working for $50 billion in U.S. funding for a United Nations Reconstruction Fund, to aid the victims of fascist aggression—first and foremost in the Soviet Union.  And why I urge the Generalissimo to join me in signing a ‘peace pledge’ before my departure from Moscow.  Nothing is more important than peace between our two great nations.”

Stalin nodded.  “Peace is possible, yes.  And desirable, of course.  But let us not put the cart before the horse.  The Soviet people will not understand words of peace without actions of peace.  Elimination of your atomic bombs, of course, and your air bases abroad.  $10 billion from Germany, and at least as much from the United Nations, for the rebuilding of our industry.  And unification of Germany under true anti-fascists.  So we will keep talking, then, until we find words to dignify deeds.”

With some effort, Wallace smiled.

Peace would come, he was sure; the Common Man would not abide less.  Still, it was not easy to overcome the legacy of Bolshevik mistrust; imperialists in London and Washington had much to atone for.  He would need to do everything in his power to tamp down reactionary calls for a new Western military alliance and the division of Germany.

Benn Steil is senior fellow and director of international economics at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author, most recently, of The World That Wasn’t: Henry Wallace and the Fate of the American Century.

Hans Kammler: A Forgotten Nazi Henchman

Hans Kammler was a high-ranking SS officer who by the end of the Second World War had elevated to the highest ranks of Hitler’s Third Reich. Unlike most of his peers the war crimes he committed were unmentioned in the trials that followed the war, but he played a significant role in the running of the Nazi war effort and in facilitating the final solution.

Kammler was equally as ruthless as his other Nazi peers. He was a driven, ambitious career Nazi and ranks amongst one of the worst of Hitlers henchmen. Kammler’s committed suicide in 1945 which meant he avoided capture and justice.

Steve Prout explains.

A 1930s photo of Hans Kammler.

Who was Hans Kammler?

Hans Kammler was born in 1901 in Stettin, Germany. He was too young to serve during World War One but shortly after the war he saw limited action serving in the Rossbach Freikorps in 1919 during the post war chaos that spread in Germany. This was an extreme right wing anti-communist organisation led by Gerhard Rossbach which was active in the Baltic. Between 1919 and 1923, he studied civil engineering at the Technische Hochschule der Freien Stadt in Danzig and Munich. In November 1932 he was awarded a doctorate in engineering (Dr. Ing.). It was his association with the Nazis would take his career down a dark path and earn him a more dubious notoriety.

Joining the Nazi Party and Military Career

Kammler joined the Nazi Party in its initial stages in 1931 already being a firm believer in Nazi ideology and its doctrines. He saw the party as a vehicle to further his career which eventually elevated him to the very top of the Third Reich hierarchy. He started in a position as head of the Aviation Ministry's building department where he oversaw construction projects.

A year later, in 1933, he joined the SS, and his first assignment was to lead an innocuous department titledReichsbund der Kleingärtner und Kleinsiedler (The Third Reich's federation of allotment gardeners and small homeowners). He would be trusted with other roles later in same that year when he was also appointed to the Board of Directors for Homeland Building and Housing Co-operative and simultaneously serving as an advisor in SS Main Economic and Administrative Office (WVHA), where is role was to act as a consultant for the SS Race and Settlement Office. The later position was a strange fit for a civil engineer, but it was ideologically compatible for Kammler.

In 1941 Kammler was moved the Waffen SS after being identified by Henrich Himmler as the driving force to implement the ambitious construction plans of the SS. His role involved the construction and design of the concentration camps to facilitate the Nazi’s extermination program for their policy of racial cleansing. Kammler was unperturbed by his new role and in fact applied himself with his blend of cruelty, barbarity, and lack of empathy when he applied these to his assignments. These were character traits that made some the most prominent and notorious Nazi’s wary if not frightened of him. By his own admission Albert Speer who was Hitler’s alleged closest confidant was one of those senior party members wary of Kammler and his ambition. Speer himself was no innocent party in utilizing slave labour for his own and his party’s needs.

The Concentration Camps and the Final Solution

Although Hans Kammler was not the architect of the final solution, he was according to historian Nikolaus Wachsmann "intimately involved in all the major building projects in Auschwitz". He was as equally culpable as his peers for the war crimes and assisting the mass exterminations in those camps. In September 1941 Kammler oversaw the expansion of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He had in recent months built a similar facility at Majdanek which eventually morphed from a labour camp to an extermination camp much like others. It is estimated eighty thousand people were murdered there at Majdanek but far worse was to come at Auschwitz.

Kammler’s redesign of the camps crematoriums made it possible to dispose of one hundred and twenty thousand bodies a month enabling the Nazi’s to accelerate their genocidal policies and in vain attempts later to try and disguise their war crimes. Over one million people would be exterminated in Auschwitz alone and doubt Kammler was undeniably complicit in all of this if only as a cold Nazi facilitator.

He would participate in further atrocities when in 1943 he was assigned the task of building the Warschau concentration camp after the Warsaw Ghetto was demolished. The Ghetto was an area that the Nazi’s designated to contain over four hundred thousand Polish Jews under crowded and insanitary conditions. The Germans planned to liquidate this area but the inhabitants, after learning of these plans, began an unsuccessful uprising. The Polish inhabitants were poorly equipped and no match for the opposing German forces and they were spared no mercy as the army crushed the small resistance.

Himmler then instructed that the territory had to be raised and flattened. The entire Jewish presence was to be erased as Himmler wanted to conceal the atrocities the Germans committed during the massacre and plunder the valuables he believed that the Jewish population kept concealed. The operation was expedited with ruthless zeal for Kammler’s to then clear the ghetto, flatten the former part of the city and construct a new prison camp where the Ghetto once existed. Although this new facility was not on the same scale as Auschwitz, nevertheless over twenty-five thousand people would die there before the war ended.

Kammler also constructed the prison camp at Mittelbau-Dora which supplied him with the slave labour resources that he required for his assignments. It is estimated that twenty thousand inmates from this camp met their deaths due to the conditions Kammler forced them to work under. Kammler's attitude towards the prisoners was one of utter indifference and cruel expediency. In one instance he once said, "Don't worry about the victims. The work must proceed ahead in the shortest time possible". His contribution to the murderous Nazi death toll certainly ranks one of the worst and cruelest. The claims that “the Holocaust would not been as efficient were it not for Kammler “and that he was “integral to the evolution of mass murder” seem fair assessments. As stated he was not the architect of the Holocaust he did play an undeniably significant role in the in the brutality of the Nazi regime.

Another reference to Kammler perfectly summed him up was that he recognized “no contradiction between notions of blood and soil and the methods of modern organization and technology.”  Or to put it another way, human life was cheap, expedient and its only value was to serve the interests of himself and the Third Reich.

The Secret Weapons Projects

Kammler was assigned later the task of overseeing the Germans special weapons project. This was primarily focused on the construction and development of the V1, V2 and ME-262 jet aircraft. This was Hitlers last hope as the tide of the war was turning against the Germans and the allied air force was dominating the Nazi occupied airspace. The frequency and intensity of the Allied bombings were severely disrupting German war production. Albert Speer suggested that German production be moved to safe underground facilities over Europe. This task was given to Kammler, and he achieved this using slave labour from the concentration camps. Over twenty thousand slaves would work and die in the most horrific of conditions.

The Myths

There have been many outlandish stories concerning the activities about the Nazi regime that were cultivated in the post-war period. Kammler’s involvement in the special weapons projects attracts its own bizarre tales, although most are implausible, taking his role in the special weapons project and blowing it out of all proportion. These stories, that are far from historical fact, have been repeated in various horror and science fiction films, yet some take them seriously. Such examples are outlandish stories related to a captured UFO that was reverse engineered to create a gravity defying atomic weapon known as the Glocke (otherwise known as the Bell). Naturally, this unlikely device also came complete with a Secret Nazi Society that protected its existence. This article will not be distracted by such inanities, but any reader can explore this the two books found in the sources (hopefully just for amusement only). The real horror story lies in the truth not fiction and that can be measured in the number of prison inmates who died because of Kammler.

Kammler’s Fate

We can be certain that Kammler died by committing suicide in May 1945 despite what alternative and tenuous theories suggest. There are slight variations to the exact date and place from the few witnesses, but they do not vary significantly and only by a few days, but this appears to have created the uncertainty as to his true fate. These slight variations would be easily explained by the panic and confusion caused during the Nazi retreat from the advancing allied armies. There are, however, other fanciful theories.

There are some accounts that claim Kammler did not commit suicide and survived. In this version of events, he was identified as an important asset purposefully sought by the Americans, then to be located and transported back to the United States where he could trade his knowledge concerning the special weapons facilities in return for a new identity and immunity from prosecution. Two historians in a documentary on this story both use unverified secondhand sources. One of these sources is an account from the son of a Donald Richardson who was a counterintelligence officer and close confident of President Eisenhower. What he had to offer exactly or what was the extent and value of his technological knowledge was unclear.

Other versions of this story get vague and veer off into conspiracy theory circles which this article will not get wrapped up in. Operation Paperclip as we know was the extraction of selected German scientists who could promote the USA efforts in technology and weapons advancement. Kammler was no physicist and nor was he a scientist. To lend weight to this a British Intelligence report compiled at the time the allies were identifying Nazi assets recognized that Kammler’s knowledge was secondhand and of limited value unlike the other scientists that they extracted. This statement makes more sense and makes this alternative version of events implausible.

His involvement in the development of modern technology however would have been limited to no more than his construction projects, supply of slave labour and administrative supervision. Had he have been captured he would have more likely been interrogated and handed over for trial which would have made more sense.

Conclusion

Kammler had all the prerequisites and mindset required to climb the Nazi ranks successfully. His cold impassionate attitude was perfectly summed up in the following quote in that he recognized “no contradiction between notions of blood and soil and the methods of modern organization and technology.” In other words, he regarded human life as cheap and expendable in serving the interests of himself and the Third Reich.

As a Civil Engineer Kammler was no more exceptional than any other within his profession. The only thing that was exceptional was his cruelty and his fanatical dedication to Nazi ideals. He knew his criminal deeds would catch up with him as the Third Reich’s control on the continent was disintegrating. The Allies were closing in on all fronts and he knew that he could not escape justice so rather than face the justice he deserved he committed suicide. In Nuremburg he was barely referenced; however thanks to the efforts of a few investigators his murderous role in the history of the Third Reich and the Holocaust will never be entirely forgotten or lost.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Brotherhood of the Bell – Joesph P Farrell – Adventures Unlimited Press 2006

Reich of The Black Sun - Joesph P Farrell – Adventures Unlimited Press 2004

The Hidden Nazi: The Untold Story of America's Deal with the Devil (World War II Collection) – Dean Reuter, Colm Lowry, and Keith Chester - Regnery History; Reprint edition (25 Nov. 2021)

Satan’s Henchmen: Whatever became of SS General Hans Kammler 0- Robert Huddleston – self-published.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum Encyclopaedia of Camps and Ghettos, 1933-1945, Volume I

Gender-Affirming Care from the 1950s in Britain through the lens of Roberta Cowell

Roberta Elizabeth Marshall Cowell (1918-2011) was the frist known British trans woman to undergo gender-affirming surgery in 1951. Sammie Casper-Mensing looks at Roberta Cowell and what has happened since the 1950s.

Roberta Cowell in France, 1954. Source: Digital Transgender Archive, available here.

Being trans in Britain is not easy. A university student in 2018 shared that they were “laughed at, ridiculed, and became the butt of jokes that normally gender me as a woman. This has been constant since day one.”[1] Today trans people in Britain deal with social stigma and difficulty navigating and receiving gender-affirming care. But, as highlighted by the life and experiences of Roberta Cowell, the first known British trans woman to have gender-affirming surgery, being trans in the United Kingdom has never been easy. Writing in 1954, Cowell noted that “Many people were extremely kind and pleasant to me, but an equal number would go out of their way to treat me as though I were an unpleasant, perverted freak. They had no hesitation in making their attitude abundantly clear, perhaps because they considered that I had no feelings at all, perhaps because they wanted to hurt me as much as possible.”[2] Roberta Cowell transitioned more than 70 years ago, and despite her fame and improvements in the broader National Health System, trans people in Britain still experience harassment from the public and barriers to accessing gender-affirming care.

In 2018, Chaka Bachmann and Becca Gooch published the results of their survey of over 5,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals in Britain. The study produced by Stonewall, a UK-based charity that advocates for LGBTQ+ rights, aimed to assess the quality of life for LGBTQ+ British people. The Stonewall research study, which I will be referencing throughout this analysis, surveyed over 5,000 lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals about their lives in Britain.[3]

In comparing Roberta Cowell’s life as a trans woman to the transgender individuals surveyed in the 2018 Stonewall trans report, it becomes clear that the barriers to gender-affirming care in Roberta Cowell’s life are still prevalent amongst transgender people today. These barriers transcend time and result in emotional distress for many in the trans community due to financial hurdles, social expectations, and mental health concerns.

Financial burden

One obstacle Cowell faced was the financial burden of gender-affirming care. Roberta Cowell underwent a variety of physical changes during the process of her transition, including hormone treatment, sex reassignment surgery, and plastic surgery to modify her facial features.[4] It took several years to complete these changes, and Roberta expressed her concern about the financial toll of the process, describing that “I would have to have money enough to pay for surgery and treatment, and also to start over again in a different environment when I finally made the changeover from trousers to skirts. I would also have to allow for an indefinite period during which I would be unable to work.”[5] This illustrates the financial complexity of receiving gender-affirming care as the medical treatment is only one of many factors that contribute to the cost of this process.

These financial concerns continue today, even as the majority of countries in Europe have universal healthcare. The Stonewall report found that nearly half of the trans respondents indicated that they don’t have the financial means to afford medical intervention, either because of the cost of treatment or travel expenses associated with reaching the medical facilities.[6]

Availability

The respondents of the Stonewall study also noted the difficulties that arose when attempting to find availability for gender-affirming care. Almost half of the respondents reported wanting to undergo some sort of medical intervention but were unable to because long wait times prevented them from accessing treatment.[7] One of the respondents in the Stonewall study explained “I am currently on the waiting list to start hormones and so far, my first appointment has been pushed back by nine months, added onto the nine months I have already waited. They have given me false hope and told me that my appointment would be in the next month, then continued to say the same thing month after month.”[8]

Although Roberta Cowell did not explicitly regard wait times as being an obstacle to her gender-affirming care, she did remark that she did not have an appointment for her gender-affirming surgery until nine months after she was legally registered as a woman on her birth certificate.[9] Whether this waiting period was a choice or not is hard to say, as Roberta does not reveal the purpose of this timing. The decision may have been hers or could have been the result of other obstacles, such as cost or an inability to immediately move to a new environment post-surgery.

In her memoir, Cowell admitted that she was hesitant to make the transition. She understood the social challenges this could bring to her life. There was the possibility of being labeled an outcast, or not being able to successfully present as a woman. This apprehension is apparent in her writing, as Cowell admits that “I had no desire to become a freak…There was the possibility that when it was all over I might not be socially acceptable as a woman. There was the possibility that I might become an invalid.”[10] Roberta never mentioned discrimination in her autobiography, but her fear of being labeled as a “freak”[11] illustrates the implicit doubt that loomed in her mind surrounding being accepted by society. Many of the participants in the Stonewall study faced similar concerns, although these concerns oftentimes revolved around a fear of discrimination or familial rejection. In the 2018 study, two in five trans people in Britain reported that they altered the way they dressed because they feared discrimination or harassment.[12] One of these respondents described the hostility he has faced as a trans man, sharing that “I get shouted at every single time I leave my house and threatened at least once a week. I try to closet myself from my family because I’m so close to getting kicked out. I can’t access hormone replacement therapy without going private. I’m disabled. It’s a lot to deal with and I’m crumbling under the stress but I consider myself a warrior. But really, something needs to change.”[13]Additionally, two in five trans who wanted to utilize medical interventions reported that they have not done so for fear of disrupting their family life.[14]

Necessary

Though “coming out” as trans and seeking gender-affirming care has been and can be challenging, a common experience among trans folks–from Cowell to the participants of the Stonewall study–is how necessary the transition is. Cowell described her pre-transition life as an “inky-black depression”[15] and went as far as to write that if she did not seem to be getting better, “then I considered I should be justified in taking my own life.”[16] Lack of support from family and the inability to access gender-affirming care puts trans people in a difficult position regarding their mental health and well-being. According to HPCLive, transgender youth who were able to receive gender-affirming care were 73% less likely to experience suicidality in comparison to youths who did not receive gender-affirming interventions.[17] A Stonewall study respondent emphasized this point, affirming that “We need more services available for trans people, so it gets easier to get hormones and surgery. Not sure I'd even be alive right now if I hadn't transitioned.”[18]Additionally, 1 in 5 transgender and non-binary youth attempted suicide between 2021 and 2022.[19] Another participant in the Stonewall study shared his struggles with suicidal ideation, revealing that“Coming out as transgender was the hardest thing I've ever done, and having to explain it over and over again to medical professionals that were supposed to be helping me, almost made me end my life. There needs to be better support for us.”[20] Accessing gender-affirming care is not a want, but a need for transgender individuals, yet these services are still a luxury reserved for those who have the time and money to jump through the hoops of the medical care system. 

Despite the overwhelming evidence showing that gender-affirming care saves lives, anti-trans legislation and rhetoric have become commonplace in the United Kingdom. During an annual conference of the Conservative Party, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak expressed various anti-transgender ideologies. Sunak stated, “We shouldn't get bullied into believing that people can be any sex they want to be — they can't” and went on to say “A man is a man and a woman is a woman. That's just common sense.”[21] Many of these anti-trans ideas are also being translated into policies. One such policy prohibits minors and non-binary people from changing their gender in official government documents.[22] Additionally, the U.K. government has begun drafting guidelines that would require transgender students to use gendered facilities that align with their sex assigned at birth, as well as encouraging teachers to out transgender students to their parents.[23] The National Health Service also issued an advisory in September of 2023, saying that schools should not allow students to socially transition without parental consent.[24] It’s ironic that the National Health Service would advise schools to police a student's gender expression when research and survey studies clearly show that forcing trans people to present as their sex assigned at birth can lead to severe depression and suicidal ideation. This increase in public rhetoric against transgender people is certainly disheartening for many transgender folks in the U.K. One respondent from the Stonewall study acknowledged that “Even just five years ago it was not safe for me to come out as trans, the pace of change has been amazing. Unfortunately, there now appears to be a backlash against that progress in the last year with hate from the media against trans increasing disturbingly in the last six months. This increasing transphobia is accelerating and is causing acute anxiety in my daily life.”[25] As anti-trans speech and agendas push their way back into mainstream media, transgender people in the U.K. face uncertainty about their rights being upheld and confront the additional challenge of deciding if, and when it is safe to be open about their identity.

Conclusion

After comparing the individuals in the Stonewall study to Roberta Cowell, it becomes clear that many of the obstacles faced by Roberta Cowell in the 1950s are still prevalent today for trans people in Britain. Barriers to gender-affirming care, including financial constraints, accessibility of care, long wait times, and fear of discrimination continue to make necessary life changes unavailable to trans people. These barriers lead to extreme mental health concerns for many transgender individuals, putting countless lives at stake. In analyzing the historical and current-day issues regarding gender-affirming care, it is clear that national legislation must be implemented to preserve and provide access to transgender healthcare. We cannot continue to be at a standstill for transgender rights, and we certainly cannot afford to go backward. Let's make this world into a place where all trans people can live as their true selves, one step at a time.

Bibliography

Bachmann, Chaka L, and Becca Gooch. “LGBT in Britain - Trans Report.” Stonewall, April 24, 2020. https://www.stonewall.org.uk/lgbt-britain-trans-report.

Cowell, Alan. “Overlooked No More: Roberta Cowell, Trans Trailblazer, Pilot and Auto Racer.” The New York Times, June 5, 2020. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/obituaries/roberta-cowell-overlooked.html.

Factora, James. “The U.K. Is One of the Worst Places in Europe to Be Trans, New Report Finds.” Them, November 2, 2023. https://www.them.us/story/uk-worst-places-in-europe-trans-new-report-finds#intcid=_them-bottom-recirc_5697e6aa-ecd3-4488-a8d2-36086042aa7c_text2vec1.

Factora, James. “U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Platforms Anti-Trans Talking Points in a Speech to Tories.” Them, October 5, 2023. https://www.them.us/story/uk-prime-minister-anti-trans-comments.

Fisher, John Hayes. Sex Changes that Made History. Academic Video Online. no. 1009, British

Broadcasting Corporation, 2015. https://bridge.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/permalink/01BRC_INST/es0tl/cdi_alexanderstreet_marcxml_AcademicVideoOnlinePremiumUnitedStatesASP3366432_marc

Grossi, Giuliana. “Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care.” HCP Live, August 23, 2022. https://www.hcplive.com/view/suicide-risk-reduces-73-transgender-nonbinary-youths-gender-affirming-care.

Paley, Amit. “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health.” The Trevor Project, 2022. https://www.thetrevorproject.org/survey-2022/.

Roberta, Cowell E. Roberta Cowell’s Story: An Autobiography. British Book Centre, Inc., New York, 1954

Staveley-Wadham, Rose. “‘The Most Talked of Woman in England’ – Roberta Cowell in Our Newspapers.” The British Newspaper Archive Blog | Amazing finds and news from over 300 years of historical newspapers, June 13, 2022. https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2022/06/13/roberta-cowell-in-our-newspapers.

[1] Taylor, qtd. in Chaka Bachmann, Becca Gooch, “LGBT in Britain - Trans Report,” Stonewall (2020), 12.

[2] Roberta Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story: An Autobiography,” British Book Centre, Inc. (1954), 52.

[3] Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 5.

[4] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story.”

[5] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 45.

[6] Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 16.

[7] Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 16.

[8] Jo, qtd. in Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 17.

[9] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 54.

[10] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 45.

[11] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 44.

[12] Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 7.

[13] Stevie, qtd. In Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 14.

[14] Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 14.

[15] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 59.

[16] Cowell, “Roberta Cowell’s Story,” 41.

[17] Giuliana Grossi, “Suicide Risk Reduces 73% in Transgender, Nonbinary Youths with Gender-Affirming Care,” HCP Live (2022).

[18] Sebatstain, qtd. in Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 16.

[19] Amit Paley, “2022 National Survey on LGBTQ Youth Mental Health,” The Trevor Project (2022).

[20] Henry, qtd. in Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 13.

[21] James Factora, “U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak Platforms Anti-Trans Talking Points in a Speech to Tories,” Them (2023).

[22] James Factora, “The U.K. Is One of the Worst Places in Europe to Be Trans, New Report Finds.” Them (2023).

[23] Factora, “One of the Worst Places”

[24] Factora, “One of the Worst Places”

[25] Willow, qtd. in Bachmann, Gooch, “LGBT In Britain,” 22.

Disaster in New York City: Triangle Shirtwaist Factory Fire

The Triangle Shortwaist Factory Fire took place in New York City in March 1911. It is one of the deadliest industrial disasters in U.S. history, resulting in 146 deaths. Richard Bluttal explains.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on March, 25, 1911.

“My name is Sadie Frowne. I work in Allen Street (Manhattan) in what they call a sweatshop. I am new at the work and the foreman scolds me a great deal. I get up at half past five every morning and make myself a cup of coffee on the oil stove. I eat a bit of bread and perhaps some fruit and then go to work. Often, I get there soon after six o'clock so as to be in good time, though the factory does not open till seven.

At seven o'clock we all sit down to our machines and the boss brings to each one the pile of work that he or she is to finish during the day--what they call in English their "stint." This pile is put down beside the machine and as soon as a garment is done it is laid on the other side of the machine. Sometimes the work is not all finished by six o'clock, and then the one who is behind must work overtime.’’

The Life of a Shirtwaist Maker in New York City early 20th Century

The shirtwaist makers, as young as age 15, worked seven days a week, from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. with a half-hour lunch break. During the busy season, the work was nearly non-stop. They were paid about $6 per week. In some cases, they were required to use their own needles, thread, irons and occasionally their own sewing machines. The factories also were unsanitary, or as a young striker explained, “unsanitary—that’s the word that is generally used, but there ought to be a worse one used.” At the Triangle factory, women had to leave the building to use the bathroom, so management began locking the steel exit doors to prevent the “interruption of work” and only the foreman had the key.

The “shirtwaist”—a woman’s blouse—was one of the country’s first fashion statements that crossed class lines. The booming ready-made clothing industry made the stylish shirtwaist affordable even for working women. Worn with an ankle-length skirt, the shirtwaist was appropriate for any occasion—from work to play—and was more comfortable and practical than fashion that preceded it, like corsets and hoops.

The Fire

It was a warm spring Saturday in New York City, March 25, 1911. On the top three floors of the ten-story Asch Building just off of Washington Square, employees of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory in New York City began putting away their work as the 4:45 p.m. quitting time approached. Most of the several hundred Triangle Shirtwaist employees were teenage girls. Most were recent immigrants. Many spoke only a little English. Just then somebody on the eighth floor shouted, "Fire!" Flames leapt from discarded rags between the first and second rows of cutting tables on the hundred-foot-by-hundred-foot floor. Triangle employee William Bernstein grabbed pails of water and vainly attempted to put the fire out. As a line of hanging patterns began to burn, cries of "fire" erupted from all over the floor. In the thickening smoke, as several men continued to fling water at the fire, the fire spread everywhere--to the tables, the wooden floor trim, the partitions, the ceiling. A shipping clerk dragged a hose in the stairwell into the rapidly heating room, but nothing came--no pressure. Terrified and screaming, girls streamed down the narrow fire escape and Washington Place stairway or jammed into the single passenger elevator.

In the hell of the ninth-floor, 145 employees, mostly young women, would die. Those that acted quickly made it through the Greene Street stairs, climbed down a rickety fire escape before it collapsed, or squeezed into the small Washington Place elevators before they stopped running. The last person on the last elevator to leave the ninth floor was Katie Weiner, who grabbed a cable that ran through the elevator and swung in, landing on the heads of other girls. A few other girls survived by jumping into the elevator shaft, and landing on the roof of the elevator compartment as it made its final descent. The weight of the girls caused the car to sink to the bottom of the shaft, leaving it immobile. For those left on the ninth floor, forced to choose between an advancing inferno and jumping to the sidewalks below, many would jump. Others, according to survivor Ethel Monick, became "frozen with fear" and "never moved."

It took only eighteen minutes to bring the fire under control, and in ten minutes more it was practically "all over." Water soaked a pile of thirty or more bodies on the Greene Street sidewalk. Doctors pawed through heaps of humanity looking for signs of life. Police tried desperately to keep crowds of hysterical relatives from overrunning the disaster scene. Officers filled coffins and loaded them into patrol wagons and ambulances. The bodies were taken to a temporary morgue set up on a covered pier at the foot of East Twenty-sixth Street. Firemen searched the burned-out floors of the Asch building, hoping to find survivors. What they mostly found were, according to Chief Edward Croker, "bodies burned to bare bones, skeletons bending over sewing machines." Four hours after the fire, workers discovered a lone survivor trapped in rising water at the bottom of the elevator shaft.

Suzanne Pred Bass, Executive Board Member at the Remember the Triangle Fire Coalition, located in New York City, to discussed how the legacy of the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire of 1911, which took the lives of 123 women and girls and 23 men, has inspired future movements to protect workers’ rights – particularly for vulnerable populations such as immigrants and women. 

‘’ Immigrants struggling to make a life for themselves, without the language and educational skills necessary to protect and guide them, become extremely vulnerable in the workplace. As they struggle to 

help their families survive, they end up working wherever they can. Many don’t have the necessary papers to legally work and therefore are prey to greedy bosses who will exploit them and see them as nothing but tools to make money. Without unions to protect them they are forced to accept low wages, unsafe workplaces, sexual harassment, and unfair conditions over which they have no say. “

This is what was happening in 1911 when the fire occurred and is still happening here and around the world. The International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union (ILGWU) had been fighting for the creation of unions since 1900. The union’s first major strike – comprised of 20,000 female workers – occurred in 1909, followed by an even larger one in 1910. Led by Clara Lemlich, women sweatshop workers went on strike to protest their unsafe, unfair workplace environments. The strike succeeded in getting many sweatshops to become union shops. Unfortunately, the Triangle Factory owners – Max Blank and Isaac Harris – refused to be unionized. They made promises to workers that were never fulfilled. The Triangle Factory fire galvanized New Yorkers and people across the country as well as in other countries, particularly those from Russia and Italy; countries that claimed the most victims. 

Building Structure of the Brown ( Asch ) Building

The Brown (then called the Asch) Building, constructed in 1901 of steel and iron, was advertised as “fireproof” and, hence, attracted several garment factories. The Triangle firm occupied the 8th, 9th and 10th floors, at the top of the building. The building offered few working bathrooms, faulty ventilation, and outmoded heating and cooling systems. The stairwells were poorly lit and hazardous. More egregious, it had no overhead sprinklers and only a single fire escape, which was neither durable nor big enough to accommodate all of the people working in the building in the event of a fire.

Added to these risks, the Triangle Company stored flammable products and chemicals on its production floors. Working cheek by jowl, the seamstresses sat at tightly arranged rows of sewing machines and cutting tables. All over the floor were clippings of flammable fabric. Under one of the work bins, where 120 layers of fabric were once stored, a spark turned into a flame and spread to the tissue paper shirt patterns, or templates, hanging from the ceiling.

The fire soon spread from worktable to worktable, gaining speed, heat, and venom with each passing second. Many died of smoke inhalation. Others, who could not find a means of escape, burned to death. And there also were the indelibly horrific images of the young women who jumped out of windows to their deaths, because the stairwell doors were locked shut and the elevators were out of order.

The New York City Department arrived but their ladders reached only as high as the 6th floor of the building, two entire floors below the fire. The mounting dead—covered in tarps— were arranged in rows along the sidewalk by the city coroners for the newspaper photographers.

Below were the laws of the Department of Buildings at time of the fire and the specific structure of Ashe building of these laws.

 New York State Labor Laws (Article 6, Section 80):

“All doors leading in or to any such factory shall be constructed as to open outwardly, where practicable, and shall not be locked, bolted, or fastened during working hours.”

Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:

Whether Section 80 was violated was the key issue in the trial of Harris and Blanck. The case turned on whether the ninth-floor staircase door on the Washington Place side was locked at the time of trial.

The prosecution contended the door was locked and introduced a witness who testified that at the time of the fire she tried the door “in and out, all ways” and was unable to open the door. The prosecution also showed that many of the victims of the fire died in front of the door. The prosecution argued that Harris and Blanck kept the door locked, especially near quitting time, to force exiting workers to pass through the only other exit, where they could be inspected if they were suspected of trying to pilfer waistcoats.

The defense contended that the door was open, but that the fleeing workers were unable to exit through the door because of fire in the stairwell. The defense introduced a witness who said that on the day of the fire a key was tied to the lock with the string and that she used the key to open the door. (The prosecution claimed the witness lied.)

It was also shown that the ninth-floor staircase door did not “open outwardly,” but inspectors failed to note a violation because only the width of a stair separated the door from the stairs, making it not “practicable” for the door to open outwardly.

Staircases
New York Law:
Buildings with more than 2,500 square feet per floor–but less than 5,000 square feet per floor–require two staircases. Each additional 5,000 square feet per floor requires an additional staircase.
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The Triangle Shirtwaist Company floors had 10,000 square feet of space. Any additional floor space would have required a third staircase. As it was, two staircases–the number the Triangle factory had–sufficed.

Fire Escapes
New York Law:
New York law left the matter of fire escapes to the discretion of building inspectors. The building inspector for the Asch building insisted that the fire escape proposed for the building “must lead down to something more substantial than a skylight.” (The architect’s plans showed a rear fire escape leading to a skylight.)
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The Asch building architect promised “the fire escape will lead to the yard and an additional balcony will be put in.” In the final construction, however, the fire escape still ended at a second-floor skylight. During the fire, the fire escape collapsed under the weight of the fleeing workers.

Non-Wood Surfaces
New York Law:
Buildings over 150 feet high must have metal trim, metal window frames, and stone or concrete floors. Buildings under 150 feet high have no such requirements.
Triangle Shirtwaist Company Compliance:
The ten-story Asch building was 135 feet high. If it had one more floor, it would have required non-wood surfaces.

Consequences and Conclusion

More than 350,000 people marched in the funeral procession for the Triangle victims. Activists kept their memory alive by lobbying their local and state leaders to do something in the name of building and worker safety and health. Three months later, John Alden Dix, then the governor of New York, signed a law empowering the Factory Investigating Committee, which resulted in eight more laws covering fire safety, factory inspection, and sanitation and employment rules for women and children. The following year, 1912, activists and legislators in New York State enacted another 25 laws that transformed its labor protections among the most progressive in the nation. Many of these reforms—all proposed to protect the health and safety of the American worker—were swept into federal law during the New Deal. Years later, in 1970, the Occupational Safety and Health Act was passed and created, “whose primary mission is to ensure that employees carry out their tasks under safe working conditions.” It remains a critically important agency in the lives of working Americans.

The Triangle Fire of March 25, 1911, destroyed hundreds of lives — both those who died and their families. Sadly, it required the ashes of 146 people to redesign and reimagine the workplace of the early 20th century. Once a dirty and unsafe place, filled with dangerous machines and, before child labor laws, small children, American factories and offices are now far safer than they once were only a century ago. Nonetheless, as new technology and manufacturing processes develop, we must remain vigilant in ferreting out and preventing the health risks they impose to workers and consumers. Now, as then, we must always remember the horrific flames of the Triangle.

The company's owners, Max Blanck and Isaac Harris – both Jewish immigrants – who survived the fire by fleeing to the building's roof when it began, were indicted on charges of first- and second-degree manslaughter in mid-April; the pair's trial began on December 4, 1911.Max Steuer, counsel for the defendants, managed to destroy the credibility of one of the survivors, Kate Alterman, by asking her to repeat her testimony a number of times, which she did without altering key phrases. Steuer argued to the jury that Alterman and possibly other witnesses had memorized their statements and might even have been told what to say by the prosecutors. The prosecution charged that the owners knew the exit doors were locked at the time in question. The investigation found that the locks were intended to be locked during working hours based on the findings from the fire, but the defense stressed that the prosecution failed to prove that the owners knew that the jury acquitted the two men of first- and second-degree manslaughter, but they were found liable of wrongful death during a subsequent civil suit in 1913 in which plaintiffs were awarded compensation in the amount of $75 per deceased victim. The insurance company paid Blanck and Harris about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

1963: A Third, Very Different Funeral

It has been 60 years since an assassin’s bullet cut down President John F. Kennedy in Dallas, Texas. The horrific event for America was immediately probed from all angles for any signs of a conspiracy right after the event outside the Texas School Book Depository in Dallas. 

Michael Thomas Leibrandt explains.

Jack Ruby shooting Lee Harvey Oswald. Photograph by Robert H. Jackson. The photograph won the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for Photography.

Three days following John F. Kennedy’s assassination, on November 25, the country mourned his death. We have all seen the incredible images of JFK’s funeral. The Horseless Rider in the procession, Jackie Kennedy walking with RFK and Ted behind the casket. John John saluting his father one last time.

Just over 1,300 miles away also on November 25, the Dallas Police Department was on display in their Dress Uniforms to honor Officer J.D. Tippit’s at his funeral. Tippit was gunned down in a Dallas residential area not long after the assassination of President Kennedy.

Across town in Fort Worth, a very different type of funeral was taking place. Twenty-four-year-old Lee Harvey Oswald, the killer of J.D. Tippit and suspected killer of JFK was being laid to rest in Rose Hill Cemetery. The logistics of this funeral turned out to be the most difficult.

When Oswald’s body was collected in the middle of the night from Parkland Hospital, Miller Funeral Home was surrounded by authorities. Next was the obstacle of getting a clergyman to provide a sermon for Oswald. With a possible concern of sniper fire during the outdoor service, several clergy members backed out.

The 4:00 P.M. funeral had no mourners except for Oswald’s immediate family, who attended as well as authorities and the press. When the time came to carry Oswald from the hearse to the gravesite, local reporters were the only pallbearers who were available to carry the casket.

Then suspicions arose that Oswald was not actually in the casket, that it was instead a spy who was hired to assassinate Kennedy. The casket was opened briefly so that the family could see the body.

Exhumation

With suspicions continuing about a spy in Oswald’s casket for years after the funeral, the body was exhumed in 1981 despite Robert Oswald’s objections. When the casket was damaged during the exhumation, and a Texas Funeral Home attempted to sell the original for more than $87,000, Robert Oswald did sue and was able to stop the transaction as well as winning a court ruling.

Shannon Funerals Chapels was originally founded in 1906. The 84-acre cemetery was founded in 1928 and the two united in 1986.

If you visit Oswald’s grave today at Shannon Rose Hill, you’ll no doubt notice the headstone in the next plot that simply reads NICK BEEF.

Since 1996, the headstone has occupied the plot next to Oswald’s. The plot is owned by writer Patric Abedin, who traveled to Fort Worth to see the Kennedys during the 1963 visit. He was propped up on the shoulders of a marine serviceman to see the Kennedys, and this made an impression on Abedin as did his visits to Oswald’s grave as a child.

In 1975, he bought the plot for a $17.50 deposit, and then made monthly payments of $10. In 1996, the headstone appeared with Abedin’s alias.

In November 1967, two teenagers stole Lee Harvey Oswald’s headstone from the cemetery. When it was recovered by authorities, it was returned to Oswald’s mother and stored in a crawlspace under her home, where it remained and changed ownership after Mrs. Oswald’s home was sold after her 1981 death and was finally sold to the Historic Auto Attractions Museum.

Perhaps ending all of the sad, strange events around the final arrangements for Lee Harvey Oswald.

Find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington, PA.

Was a World War 2 Japanese Offensive in 1944 a Master Stroke?

The 1944 Japanese offensive of “Operation Ichigo” is one of the more under reported offensives of World War Two. However, this offensive would have an important effect on the outcome of the Pacific theater. This operation took place in China and accomplished some important Japanese military objectives. It would have a direct consequence on the U.S. bombings over Japan, and was a major Japanese military victory.

Daniel Boustead returns to the site and explains.

Japanese forces invading Henan, China in 1944.

In April 1944, the Japanese launched their first major offensive in China since they captured Hankow in 1938 ([1]). The operation was code named Ichigo meaning “Number One”. The plan involved Japanese forces in north China who were ordered southward to take the main north-south rail lines and the capture the U.S. Army Air Force’s east China Air bases. At the same time, other forces holding an enclave in the far south around (Canton and Hong Kong) were instructed to drive to the west and clear a line to the French Indochina border. This separate action was designed to open a direct line of communication between the Japanese in China and those Japanese forces in Southeast Asia.

The principal objectives for Operation Ichigo were as follows: seize the north-south rail line, a series of key towns, and the air bases. These were built by General Claire Chenault in 1938 and 1939. Chenault built these air bases for the Chinese Air Force and would be subsequently expanded to accommodate his Fourteenth Army Air Force.

This Japanese force consisted of 15 Imperial Japanese Army Divisions, plus five independent Imperial Japanese Army brigades. This force was commanded by General Shunroku Hata.

Early success

The Japanese achieved one of their first goals early in the operation. As the Japanese advanced the Chinese Army of 300,000 men simply capitulated to them ([2]). Japanese units consisting of only 500 men routed thousands of Chinese. In the resulting panic, Chinese officers commandeered most of the available trucks to escape with their families and possessions. It took only three weeks from April to May, 1944, for the Japanese to capture their first important objectives of the Yellow and the Yangtze Rivers. It was soon after the Japanese captured the Yangtze River in May 1944, that they pushed forward to General Chennault’s air bases. The Chinese city of Changsa barred the Japanese from Chenault’s air bases.

Changsha was defended by Chinese General Hsueh Yueh, who would soon make a fatal mistake that sealed the fate of the city. Right before the attack, General Yueh moved his headquarters 100 miles to the south to prepare the defense of Hengyang, China, where General Chenault’s northernmost air bases were located ([3]). This resulted in no one being able to coordinate the defense of Changsha. When the Chinese army artillery commander of Changsha asked General Yueh for infantry to protect his artillery, General Yueh refused. The outcome of these fatal decisions was apparent. The Japanese quickly destroyed the unprotected artillery and then swept away the unprotected infantry as Changsha fell to Japanese control in May 1944.

Advances

The Japanese Army then turned their attention to capturing Hengyang, China ([4]). It surrounded Hengyang by June 1944 and captured it by August, 1944(5).  On August 26, 1944 6,000 Japanese counterattacked at Lungling, China and the Chinese Y-Force was forced to retreat (22). In September 1944, the Imperial Japanese Army captured the Fourteenth Air Force base at Lingling, 80 miles southwest of Hengyang, China (6). By October 1944, Imperial Japanese Army forces were threatening Kweilin, China, home of the largest of General Chennault’s air bases. On November 10, 1944 the Imperial Japanese Army captured Kweilin, China (7).  In the aftermath of the fall of Kweilin in November 1944, Imperial Japanese forces began advancing towards Kunming, China (13). The Kunming advance further threatened General Chennault’s Fourteenth Air Force bases. The Japanese forces then moved to take over Chennault’s base at Liuchow, some 100 miles to the southwest of Kweilin. It was soon after this they pushed southward to take four bases around Nanning. They then drove southwest for a link up with other Japanese forces in French Indochina.

The Imperial Japanese Army had succeeded in their twin objectives: capturing the east China airfields and securing the main railway line to the south. As part of this Ichigo advance the IJA’s Eleventh Army (under the command of Lieutenant Isamu Yokoyama), began operating under his own his initiative, and quickly captured the American Chinese air base. This air base was located on the northwest trail towards the Chinese city of Kweiyang. The Chinese who were defending this air base quickly capitulated to the Japanese. This was due to their lack of supplies and weapons.

By early December 1944, the only thing that stood in the way of the Japanese Eleventh Army and the Ichigo offensive were Chennault’s air force. The Japanese forces also were facing the Chinese Army forces in their drive towards Kunming and Chunking China. Chennault’s air force was operating east of the Ichigo advance. The Japanese 11thArmy stopped its advance towards Kunming in December 1944. They had outrun their supply lines and retreated back slightly to garrison for the winter.

Operation Ichigo was such a success that American General Wedemeyer estimated that it would result in the Japanese Army releasing 25 divisions to fight elsewhere. General Wedemeyer also estimated that if the Japanese captured all of China, they could hold out for years, long after the Americans invaded the Japanese Home Islands.

Allied air strikes

On February 15, 1944 at an Allied meeting in New Delhi, General Wolf presented General Order No.16 (14). In General Order No.16, it stated that General Chennault and his Fourteenth Army Air Forces would be responsible for fighter defense of B-29 bases in China. The Japanese knew it was only a matter of time before the B-29 Bombers would be using the Fourteenth Army Air Force bases. The first B-29 Bombers took off from Chengtu, China, to bomb the Coke Ovens at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata, Japan (8). The first B-29 Yawata raid lasted from the nights of June 15 to June 16, 1944. The photoreconnaissance results of the raid were disappointing. Only a single bomb wrecked a small building about three quarters of a mile away from the Coke Ovens. On July 7 to July 8, 1944, B-29 Bombers took off from a base near Chengtu, China to strike the Japanese Naval base at Sasebo, Japan (9). The raid was a failure because the bombs had missed the port facility by as much as 12 miles. This was due to mechanical problems with the radar bombing system. On August 10, 1944, 24 B-29 Bombers flew from Chengtu, China to Nagasaki and dropped 63 tons of incendiaries and fragmentation bombs on the city’s shipyards (10). On August 20, 1944, B-29 Bombers launched from Chengtu China caused little damage to the coke ovens at the Imperial Iron and Steel Works at Yawata Japan (11). On October 25, 1944, 78 B-29 Bombers took off from Chengtu, China and bombed Omura, Japan (12). According to strike photos and later reconnaissance on November 6, 1944, the Omura raid did a considerable amount of damage on the target, especially in the aluminum fabrication industry of the city. B-29 raids based out of China and India would end in early 1945 (21).

The early B-29 raids from the Mariana Islands on Japan produced varied results. On November 24, 1944, a group of B-29 bombers took off from Saipan island (15). The group of 111 B-29 Bomber’s target was the Nakajima Musashino aircraft-engine plant in northwest, Tokyo (16). This raid resulted in only 24 B-29 Bombers who managed to make a hit on the Nakajima Musashino aircraft engine plant. This bombing raid was severely weakened by the 130 MPH Jet Stream wind that blew the bombs off course. On November 27, 1944, a group of B-29 bombers took off from Isley Field Saipan and tried to hit the same target again (17). The results of this second raid were not very good due to poor aiming over the target, and that was only slightly mitigated by radar (18). On December 3, 1944, 86 B-29 Bombers took off from the Marianas Islands to hit the same target (19). The results of this raid were that only 26 bombs hit the target area and the damage to the factory was negligible. On December 13, 1944, a group of B-29 Bombers (based out of the Mariana Islands) struck at the Mitsubishi Aircraft Engine Works at Nagoya, Japan (20). The results of this raid (according to strike photographs) were one-fifth of the plant’s huge roof was blown in. Furthermore, the plant’s engine production was cut from 1,600 engines per month to 1,2000 engines per month and some vital parts of the factory were completely destroyed (20).

Conclusion

The Japanese capture of the American air bases severely reduced the damage to Japanese cities. The early B-29 raids from China and the Mariana Islands produced sparse results. They would have devastated Japan if they had been better coordinated, lasted longer, and had better weather intelligence. Even if the Japanese did not capture the air bases that directly house the B-29 Bombers, the Japanese military offensive along with America’s decision to concentrate on bombing missions from the Mariana Islands, made the Americans realize that bombing from China was no longer a viable option.

“Operation Ichigo” is an often-overlooked military operation. However, it had a strategic and tactical impact on the course of the war.  The operation captured key air bases, railways, and allowed for a link up with forces in Indochina. In addition, it drove the Allies to use nuclear weapons and Operation August Storm to negate the effects of this operation. “Operation Ichigo” was a very successful Japanese offensive.

In Loving memory of my Grandfather Richard Strayer Shue, a World War II veteran, a published Historian, and my inspiration. Born March 9, 1923 and died July 23, 2023.

[1] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 179.

[2] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 180.

[3] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 180 to 181.

[4] Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 181.

5 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 172.

22 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 183.

6 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 188.

7 Moser, Don. China-Burma-India. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 190.

13 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982.71.

14 US Air Force, Office of Air Force History. The Army Air Forces In World War II: The Pacific: Matternhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945., Volume No.5. Edited  Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. 1983. 46.

8 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 57 to 59.

9 Dorr, Robert F. Osprey Combat Aircraft .33 : B-29 Superfortress Units of World War 2. Edited by Tony Holmes. Oxford,  Osprey Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, 2002, (2003 reprint). 20.

10 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 61 to 63.

11 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 63 to 64.

12 US Air Force, Office of Air Force History. The Army Air Forces In World War II: The Pacific: Matternhorn to Nagasaki June 1944 to August 1945., Volume No.5. Edited  Wesley Frank Craven and James Lea Cate. 1983. 140.

21 Dorr, Robert F. Osprey Combat Aircraft .33 : B-29 Superfortress Units of World War 2. Edited by Tony Holmes. Oxford,  Osprey Publishing Limited, United Kingdom, 2002, (2003 reprint). 31.

15 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 101.

16 Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 53.

17 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 103.

18  Frank, Richard B. Downfall: The End of the Japanese Empire. New York: New York. Random House. 1999. 54.

19 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 105.

20 Wheeler, Keith. Bombers Over Japan. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1982. 105 to 106.

Was Hungary Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War Two?

Hungary became involved in World War Two largely due to circumstances that were present at the end of World War One. Hungary underwent a variety of governments, leaders, and economic structures that created a difficult political situation – ripe for the embrace of a totalitarian regime. An embrace that they accepted with gritted teeth, but one they accepted none-the-less. Weak leadership, incongruent leadership, and radical ideology all guided Hungary into the arms of the Nazis, an embrace they spent the remainder of the war attempting to loosen.

Avery Scott explains.

Hungarian Arrow Cross forces and a German tank in Budapest, October 1944. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-680-8283A-12A / Faupel / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

From 1919 to 1921, the White Terror (led by a counter-revolutionist group) occurred in Hungary. The terror was an attempted purge of those the country found undesirable – largely Jews. Archduke Joseph August stepped forward as regent to maintain power within the Hapsburg line. However, allied powers did not recognize August, and therefore he held no authority – requiring abdication. Eventually, the turmoil was cooled slightly in the establishment of the Kingdom of Hungary and with Parliament’s selection of Miklós Horthy de Nagybánya to serve as the regent of the Kingdom in March of 1920. Horthy’s power was slightly more limited than a king, but only slightly in that he had free will to appoint ministers and influence legislation. One major goal of Horthy’s rule was to reverse Hungarian losses sustained as a result of the Treaty of Trianon. The Treaty ended World War One but diminished Hungarian landholdings. The loss of land resulted in Hungary struggling economically, just as much of the world was struggling at the time. In 1927, Prime Minister István Bethlen signed a Treaty of Friendship with Benito Mussolini, thus bringing the two nations closely together both politically and economically. A few years later, Prime Minister Gyula Gömbös signed a similar treaty with Adolf Hitler of Nazi Germany, acquiescing to many demands of Hitler to spur an economic relationship between the two nations. One major selling point to the Kingdom of Hungary was the promise that Hitler would return land lost in the Treaty of Trianon. This land would be valuable to Hungary in its aim to climb out of the current depression that was wreaking havoc on the nation.

Tilt to the Axis

Gömbös soon died and was replaced by Prime Minister Kálmán Darányi who was forced to step down to be replaced by Béla Imrédy. Both Darányi and Imrédy began their tenure as Prime Minister by trying to court both their fascist neighbors, and the allied powers. This two-faced style worked for neither minister, and ultimately, they were forced to choose a side, typically doubling down on the side of their neighbors. Both passed anti-Semitic laws, and installed members of their cabinet that were pro-German in policy (despite Imrédy’s own Jewish heritage). After Imrédy stepped down, he was replaced by former Prime Minister Pál Teleki. Teleki was more moderate in his stance on involvement with the Nazi regime, and despite being complicit in anti-semitism, was more accommodating in his approach to Jews than other prime minsters had been. Teleki hoped to keep Hungary out of any wars but felt pressure from both the allied and axis powers to pick a side. Teleki hoped that a small war involving Germany could restore more land to Hungary, but he did not want a drawn-out struggle. Despite his moderate stance, Hungary signed the Tripartite Pact which would likely embroil them in the upcoming struggle, as it allied them with the axis powers. However, Teleki also signed a Treaty of Friendship with Yugoslavia in which the two countries would not be aggressive toward each other. As a result of the Tripartite Pact, Hitler felt that Hungary should assist him in is war efforts. Specifically, Hitler’s Nazi regime was adamant that Hungary should allow German troops to march through Hungary to attack Yugoslavia. Teleki wanted Hungary to remain neutral in this, but British pressure was going to force him to pick a side. Unfortunately, before Teleki was able to do so, private arrangements were made for Germany to march through Hungary. As a result, on April 3, 1941, Teleki committed suicide as he could not stand the thought of Hungary being complicit in the war.

War

After the death of Teleki, László Bárdossy became prime minister, and supported a pro-German policy. This was amplified after a bombing raid by Yugoslavia and then another raid allegedly by the Soviet Union. The raid by the Soviet Union was the catalyst that led Hungary to declare war on the Soviet Union. The allied powers warned Hungary that if they did not end their involvement in the war, they would also declare war on Hungary. Bárdossy did not comply (even though he could not even if he had wanted to). Because of this, Hungary was soon fully engulfed in World War Two. In an attempt to distance the country from Germany, Horthy asked for László Bárdossy to resign. Horthy hoped that by doing so, there would be less reliance on Germany thus allowing them to avert any additional consequences. Dr. Miklós Kállay took control as Prime Minister. Kállay was far more moderate than his predecessors and was less willing to work with Germans or follow their commands. Under Kállay, Jews were not treated well; however they were not persecuted to the extent they had been previously. Most importantly, they were not being turned over to the Germans. Kállay, despite still maintaining a relationship with Germany, was attempting to negotiate with the United States and Britain. The Germans found out about this relationship and were infuriated. Germany followed through on their promise to occupy Hungary if support for Germany ended. Thus, when German forces invaded Hungary, Kállay was removed from his post and replaced with Döme Sztójay. Kállay fled but was eventually captured and remained in the custody of the Germans for the remainder of the war. Sztójay only served for a few months as prime minster and was effectively a German puppet during that time. Horthy was very unhappy with many of his decisions, including the deportation of Jews, and was eventually successful in ousting him for Géza Lakatos. Lakatos, similarly, only served for a few months but attempted to end Hungarian involvement in the war with a peace treaty with the allies. However, this was unsuccessful. After Horthy’s son was kidnapped, Horthy surrendered to the Germans, and Lakatos was imprisoned. Ferenc Szálasi was made the leader of the Government of National Unity, essentially a Nazi puppet government. Under his control, Jews were deported, funds sent to Germany, a draft occurred, and Hungary increased overall military presence with the Germans. During this time, Béla Miklós de Dálnok attempted a provisional government with which to fight back against a Szálasi government. This was eventually successful, and he became prime minister from March to November 1945.

Conclusion

Hungary is a tale of a country that was falling into the perfect storm of struggle leading them to accept the dictates of an oppressive government. Hungary courted the Nazis too closely early on and became reliant upon them for trade and commerce. Because of this connection, they were unable to move away from Germany when they no longer agreed with its policies. John Adams once stated that, in the American Revolution, France assisted America in putting their hand “above our chin to prevent us from drowning, but not to lift our heads out of water.” There are many times in history this statement has been true, but possibly none more perfectly than in the relationship of Hungary and Germany. Germany needed a struggling Hungary, as it gave them power over their government.

Additionally, Hungary attempted to be on the allied side, axis side, and neutral all within the same conflict, sometimes within a matter of days of each other. This position was untenable and the direct result of poor leadership. The prime minister was replaced so frequently that it is difficult to understand who was really in power all too often. This greatly reduced continuity of government and did not allow for any one policy to take root. Hungary was led based upon the current leader’s agenda. Horthy did a poor job of vetting ministers and did not exert control over them to effect positive policies for Hungary. This weak leadership allowed for Hitler to come into Hungary and dictate what they would do, and how they would govern. Thus, Hungary became an ally, an unenthusiastic one, but an ally still to Nazi Germany and the Nazi regime that terrorized the world.

Did you find that article of interest? If so, get more by joining us for free - click here.