Adolf Hitler and the Build-up to World War 2 - The Rhineland and Austria

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Here, Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter look at Hitler’s actions in the build-up to World War II. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here, and part 2 on Hitler taking power in the 1930s here.

Seyss-Inquart and Hitler with (on the right) Himmler and Heydrich. Vienna, March 1938. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 119-5243 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

After World War I, Germany was subjected to economic sanctions, lost territory, and was prohibited from having more than 100,000 soldiers in its army, or arming itself in any way that might pose a threat to another country. The German army did not even have an air force.

Hitler portrayed himself in all his speeches and international meetings as a peace-loving man, but at the same time he was working to rearm Germany and strengthen its army as quickly as possible. The truth is that the rearmament plan was initiated by some officers in the German army before Hitler even came to power. For example, in 1920, General Hans von Seekt, one of the generals who was responsible for building the army, decided to train soldiers as officers to overcome the shortage of soldiers, because if there was an opportunity to increase the number, it would be easier for these officers to lead the new recruits.

The German army was also not allowed to have tanks, so the same General Hans von Seekt used tanks called tractors. As for the air force, the leaders of the civil aviation industry were studying designs for fighter aircraft, in anticipation of the time of implementing these designs, but this was impossible as long as Germany was committed to the Treaty of Versailles.

Rhineland

In 1935, Hitler ended the Treaty of Versailles, and made a law reorganizing the armed forces, establishing the Air Force, and returning compulsory conscription from the age of 20. Even children were included in an organization called the Hitler Youth, and the League of German Girls. This would over time implicitly help to increase the size of the army, which in 1937 had 5 million members in service and 8 million in the reserves.

In 1936, France signed a peace treaty with the Soviet Union, which Hitler considered a violation of the Locarno Treaty of 1925, in which five treaties were then signed: a Rhine Pact which guaranteed the western borders of Germany, and four other arbitration treaties (Germany-France, Germany-Belgium, Germany-Poland, and Germany-Czechoslovakia).

Hitler ordered the redeployment of troops to the Rhineland, a strip between Germany and France that had been demilitarized, consisting of the western bank of the Rhine River to France, and 25 miles from the eastern bank.

The army leaders opposed the German entry into this area because it would provoke France, especially since the German army was not ready because the rearmament process was not yet complete, but Hitler was determined to put the army to the French border because he thought that any move without military action was evidence of weakness for him.

Hitler also believed that France would not respond militarily, and would not exacerbate the issue for two reasons: the first reason is that it could not enter a second war after World War I, and the second reason is that the British government was pursuing a policy of appeasement in dealing with Nazi Germany.

On February 12, 1936, Hitler authorized the ‘Operation Winter Exercise’ to remilitarize the Rhineland.

On March 7, 1936, 19 German battalions crossed the Rhine River; fearing war with France, Hitler ordered them to withdraw if they opposed it.  In fact, the French had already proposed a joint attack on 11 March 1936, but when Britain refused to participate, France decided it could not do it alone.

As a result, Germany occupied the Rhineland and its military fortifications, which only increased his ambitions.

Austria

In his book Mein Kampf in 1925, Hitler wrote: ‘Germany-Austria must return to the great German motherland, and not because of economic considerations of any sort. No, no, even if from the economic point of view this union were unimportant, indeed, if it were harmful, it ought nevertheless to be brought about. Common blood belongs in a common Reich. As long as the German nation is unable even to band together its own children in one common state, it has no moral right to think of colonization as one of its political aims. Only when the boundaries of the Reich include even the last German, only when it is no longer possible to assure him of daily bread inside them, does there arise, out of the distress of the nation, the moral right to acquire foreign soil and territory.’

Hitler saw the need to unite the Germans in Europe under one rule, and the largest place where there were Germans outside of Germany was Austria, where he was born.

To move safely, Hitler decided that there should be no country on the borders of Austria that would move against him.

Italy was internationally isolated and needed allies, so Mussolini sent his son-in-law and his foreign minister to Berlin, and then signed a secret agreement in which Italy agreed to Germany's invasion of Austria, but on the condition that it would not violate the Italian borders. Hitler also promised Mussolini his support, and that he would let him do what he wanted in the Mediterranean region, in exchange for Mussolini letting Hitler do what he wanted in Europe north of the Alps.

Hitler only had to find a pretext to invade Austria, for the sake of the international community, and in 1938, Hitler hosted the ruler of Austria, and threatened him that if he did not do what he wanted, he would invade him militarily. At the end of the same day, the members of the Nazi Party who were arrested in 1934 when they carried out a failed coup in Austria were released. The ruler of Austria also agreed to appoint Nazi ministers in the government, including the Minister of the Interior, Arthur Seyss-Inquart.

After that, the Nazis in Austria rioted and demonstrated, the result of which was that the Minister of the Interior asked Hitler to intervene and send the German army into Austria to maintain security and safety, so Hitler ordered the invasion of Austria. The invasion happened without a single drop of blood and Hitler then organized a referendum to legitimize their military action.

On April 10, 1938, more than 99% of Austrians voted to join Germany - in a sham referendum.

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

The History of the Female Power Suit

The female power suit is more than just a fashion statement; it is a symbol of women's evolving role in society and the workforce. From its origins in the early 20th century to its status as an iconic representation of female empowerment today, the power suit has undergone significant transformations, reflecting broader social changes and the ongoing struggle for gender equality. Women’s fashion has long been a source of contention and argument, as it reflects the role of women within the larger society.

Dr. Shelby Robert explains.

Coco Chanel in 1928.

Early Beginnings: The 1920s and 1930s

The concept of women wearing tailored suits dates back to the early 20th century, particularly during the 1920s and 1930s. During this time, women began to enter the workforce in greater numbers, driven by economic necessity and the aftermath of World War I. Designers like Coco Chanel revolutionized women's fashion by introducing more practical and comfortable clothing, including tailored suits. Chanel's designs featured simple lines and a more masculine silhouette, which allowed women greater freedom of movement and a break from traditional, restrictive female attire.

The 1940s: War and Utility

The 1940s, marked by World War II, saw women taking on roles traditionally held by men, including in factories and offices. The need for practical and functional clothing led to the popularization of utility suits. These were often characterized by broad shoulders, nipped-in waists, and knee-length skirts, embodying a mix of femininity and practicality. The suit became a uniform of sorts for working women, signifying their contribution to the war effort and their increasing presence in public life.

The 1960s and 1970s: Breaking Boundaries

The 1960s and 1970s were decades of significant social upheaval and change, particularly in terms of gender roles. The feminist movement gained momentum, and women began to challenge traditional norms more vocally. During the 1960s, women began to reject traditional, restrictive clothing in favor of more comfortable and practical attire. The introduction of the miniskirt by designer Mary Quant epitomized this shift, symbolizing freedom and rebellion against conservative norms. Women embraced trousers and jeans, which were previously considered male garments, as a statement of equality and practicality.

The 1970s saw the continuation of these trends, with the rise of the women's liberation movement further influencing fashion. Feminists adopted androgynous styles, favoring unisex clothing that blurred gender distinctions. The era also saw the popularity of the "power suit," which allowed women to assert their presence in the professional world. These suits, often characterized by tailored jackets and trousers, became a symbol of women's empowerment and their increasing participation in the workforce. This period's fashion was not just about aesthetics; it was a statement of identity and a tool for challenging and changing societal norms.

This era saw the emergence of the power suit, a radical departure from the skirted suits of previous decades. Designers like André Courrèges and Yves Saint Laurent pioneered this look, with Saint Laurent's "Le Smoking" tuxedo becoming an iconic piece. The pantsuit was not just a fashion statement but a bold assertion of women's right to dress as they pleased and occupy spaces traditionally dominated by men.

The 1980s: The Power Suit Era

The 1980s is often regarded as the golden age of the power suit. This decade was characterized by a culture of excess and ambition, and the fashion of the time reflected these values. Power suits featured bold, exaggerated shoulders, wide lapels, and tailored lines, often paired with blouses that had equally dramatic details like large bows or ruffles. Designers such as Giorgio Armani and Donna Karan became synonymous with the power suit, which became a staple for women climbing the corporate ladder. The suit symbolized confidence, authority, and a break from traditional gender roles in the workplace.

The 1990s and Beyond: Evolving Styles

In the 1990s, the style of power suits began to evolve. The exaggerated features of the 1980s were toned down, giving way to more minimalist and streamlined designs. This decade saw the rise of business casual attire, but the power suit remained a key element of professional wardrobes. Designers like Calvin Klein and Ralph Lauren offered suits that were both sophisticated and versatile, suitable for a variety of professional settings.

The 21st Century: Diversity and Empowerment

In the 21st century, the power suit continues to be a symbol of empowerment, but its interpretation has become more diverse. Modern power suits come in a wide range of styles, cuts, and colors, reflecting the individuality and personal style of the wearer. The rise of women in leadership positions across various industries has kept the power suit relevant, and designers continue to innovate with bold patterns, luxurious fabrics, and unconventional silhouettes.

The modern power suit is not just confined to the corporate world; it has also found its place in politics, entertainment, and beyond. High-profile figures like Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, and celebrities like Lady Gaga and Zendaya have all donned power suits, each bringing their own flair to this iconic garment. Most recently, Vice President Kamala Harris has been pictured frequently wearing a power suit with converse. Her campaign for the presidency of the United States of America is a perfect example of the evolving roles that women are seeking in the modern era. Her modern interpretation of the powersuit is a mark of her mission to embrace female power through the clothing that she CHOOSES to wear.

Conclusion

The history of the female power suit is a testament to the ongoing struggle for gender equality and the changing roles of women in society. From the early 20th century to the present day, the power suit has evolved to reflect broader social changes and the empowerment of women. As women continue to break barriers and assert their presence in all spheres of life, the power suit remains a powerful symbol of strength, confidence, and independence.

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

Sources

Craik, Jennifer. Uniforms Exposed: From Conformity to Transgression. Berg, 2005.

Friedman, Vanessa. "How Fashion Became a Feminist Issue." The New York Times, March 5, 2018.

Steele, Valerie. Paris Fashion: A Cultural History. Bloomsbury Publishing, 2017.

Steele, Valerie. Women of Fashion: Twentieth-Century Designers. Rizzoli International Publications, 1991. 3.

Tulloch, Carol. The Birth of Cool: Style Narratives of the African Diaspora. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016.

Warwick, Alexandra. "The Power of the Suit: A History of Female Authority Dressing." Fashion Theory, vol. 10, no. 3, 2006, pp. 271-292.

Adolf Hitler: After He Took Power in 1930s Germany

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Here, Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain how Adolf Hitler took power. Read part 1 on Hitler’s early years here.

Reich Chancellor Adolf Hitler and Reich President Paul V. Hindenburg in March 1933. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S38324 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Taking advantage of Germany’s financial and social instability, Hitler’s party became the largest in the Reichstag in 1932. Later then President of Germany, Paul Von Hindenburg, appointed Hitler Chancellor. Meanwhile, Hitler also hadarmed paramilitary troops known as “Storm Troops” or more commonly known as Brownshirts, because of their brown uniforms. The Storm Troops were under Hitler's command, and the number of soldiers reached in the region of some 400,000 in 1932. The goal of these forces was to control the streets, because; Hitler saw that controlling the streets was the key to controlling the state. Despite his growing military force and political power, Hitler did not yet have theabsolute power, which would enable him to achieve his expansionist dreams. In order to achieve full power, he would need a majority in parliament; the support of the German people; and the support of the German army. Seeing the growing militia power on the streets, however, the military had begun to fear the influence of the Brownshirts.

Taking power

Hitler systematically and strategically overcame these obstacles. The German parliament contained left-wing parties who strongly opposed to the Nazi Party. On February 27, 1933, the opposition became violent when  Dutch communist Marinus van der Lubbe set fire to the German parliament in protest against the spread of Nazism. Hitlerrecognized this as an opportunity in his interest, as this was an opportunity to get rid of his opponents in parliament.Combined with his growing power on the streets, this was a brutal stab against democracy. The next day, Hitler issued a decision to suspend civil and political freedoms under the guise of bringing safety and order to the chaos.The result was a successful declaration of emergency law.

On March 5, 1933, the government organized new elections, in which Hitler won 44%, 17 million votes. Because Hitler still did not have a majority,  he proposed and persuaded parliament to vote legislation called The Enabling Act. This legislation allowed Hitler to issue laws without the approval of  parliament. With this power, any known communists in parliament were arrested, beaten and prevented from entering parliament. With legislative and executive power in hand, Hitler issued a decision to dissolve all parties and unions except the Nazi Party. With control over the leadership an electoral body, Hitler's target now became the German army.

1934

In 1934, Hitler’s paramilitary Storm Troops numbered roughly 2 million soldiers, many times more the number of soldiers in the German army. Ernst Röhm, who had socialist political beliefs, was also the commander of the Storm Troops. He demanded that Hitler carry out their original plans to lead a revolution and implement socialism. The original party values had been to support the German workers, and in fact they had been known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party. Hitler’s goals had changed however, and he knew that in order to achieve control, he would need the support of businessmen. When Ernst Röhm asked Hitler to join the German army with his Storm Troops under his command as one entity, Hitler had a decision to make. He knew that this combined army would carry out the promised Socialist revolution. The army leaders, however, opposed this therefore Hitler had two options: either  take control of the army leaders who might betray him, or give the power of the military to his friend Ernst Röhm. He chose the army over his friend.

Heinrich Himmler, the leader of the Nazi SS, an elite Nazi security force separate from the Storm Troops, informed Hitler that Ernst Röhm was planning a coup against him. In response Hitler ordered the killing of Ernst Röhm and other Storm Troops Leaders without trial. On June 27, in what became known as the Night of the Long Knives, more than 800 people were liquidated in cold blood. This once again showed Hitler to be a bloody and violent ruler. The German president thanked him and told him that he had saved the German nation.

Hitler knew that a massacre of German citizens could have dangerous repercussions. In order to get control of the media and message, he ordered Joseph Goebbels, the Reich Minister of Propaganda, to spread the word that there was a plot to overthrow him by Ernst Röhm. If he could justify in the minds of the people that what happened was simply law and order, and for their safety, then fewer people would question his actions. In addition, he bribed terrified wives and children of those who were killed that night to keep silent about anything that might harm his image.

Greater power

Shortly after the Night of Long Knives, German President Paul von Hindenburg died, and the position of presidentmerges with that of Chancellor. A referendum was held in August 1934, where the German people voted for Hitler to be the Supreme Leader or "Führer." Then, as the Reich Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels already controlled all film production companies, and newspapers, helping to consolidate power. Another factor for Hitler’s success was the Autobahn - work began in 17 cities at the same time, and would ultimately be a giant highway network linking German cities together. This project was so important to Hitler, that he himself opened the excavation works in his first year in power. This project aimed to eliminate unemployment, giving jobs to at least 600,000 Germans, Promises of employment and spending on a huge project, combined with the propaganda, inevitably increased  his popularity and he won easily.

Scapegoat

The economic improvement did not last long. The Autobahn only employed approximately 125,000 people and old problems such as unemployment and inflation reappeared. Clutching at power, Hitler used a people he considered to be an enemy, a scapegoat on which to hang all the problems.

The Jews, whom Hitler blamed for everything, from economic difficulties to the decision to surrender in the war, were influenced by Hitler's anti-Jewish ideology since he was in Austria, and also the communists who were carrying out strikes that were one of the reasons for the surrender in 1918, most of whom Hitler said were Jews.

In 1935, in a celebration at the Berlin Opera House, Hitler issued a set of laws called the Nuremberg Laws, which divided the German people into: Germans and Jews. They would mean that Jews were stripped of their German citizenship, were forbidden to marry non-Jewish Germans, were barred from entering universities and schools, and were required to wear visible badges that would identify them on the street.

These laws established the legal persecution of Jews before they were systematically exterminated.

This continued until November 1938, when a German Jew living in France, Herschel Grynszpan, shot a German diplomat in France, Ernst Vom Rath, and a major campaign of incitement against the Jews began. On November 9, 1938, this resulted in  the Jews being subjected to a wave of severe violence in which about 100 Jews died, and the synagogue, homes, and shops of Jews were destroyed. This night is known as the Night of Broken Glass, and a collective fine was also imposed on the Jews, and about 30,000 Jews were arrested.

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

Was this 1975 Indian Agreement a Betrayal of Naga Sovereignty?

By late 1975, in the quiet hill station of Shillong, many high ranking officials from the Indian government gathered to sign a document that was meant to end one of the longest-running insurgencies in Asia. This Accord, however, simply meant as a ceasefire agreement between the Government of India and the Naga National Council (NNC), and is indeed celebrated by some as the first step toward lasting peace in the turbulent Naga Hills on the border of India and Myanmar. But for many others, particularly the more radical factions within the Naga leadership, it was a treacherous deal that betrayed the very core of Naga aspirations—sovereignty.

Asena Imchen and Luke Rimmo Lego explain.

Naga tribesmen, circa 1905.

The agreement reached in 1975 became a flashpoint for division and militarization within the Naga National Movement. Key leaders rejected the Accord outright, arguing that accepting the Indian Constitution and laying down arms amounted to surrendering Naga independence- anyone who did sign this meant he or she was a traitor. This fallout from the Accord was almost immediate, culminating in the rise of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), a faction that would go on to spearhead a renewed armed struggle for Naga self-determination. So how did this Accord deepen the fractures within Naga society, leading to decades of conflict and reshaping Naga demands in ways that continue to influence the region’s political landscape today?

I. The Road to Shillong: Pre-Accord Context and Negotiations

The origins of the Naga National Movement can be traced back to the formation of the Naga National Council (NNC) in the early 1940s, which then emerged as a significant political body advocating for the distinct identity and rights of the Naga people. By 1947, under the leadership of Angami Zapu Phizo, the NNC had already declared Naga independence from British India, just a day before India’s own independence. This bold proclamation thus inadvertently set the stage for decades of insurgency that eventually led to a fallout in the entire Wesean (Western South-East Asian region). This conflict escalated through the 1950s and 1960s, with the Indian government deploying military forces to suppress the Naga rebellion, leading to widespread violence and human rights abuses in the Naga Hills. Initial attempts at ceasefires and negotiations, such as the 1964 ceasefire, offered brief respites but eventually failed to produce a lasting solution. Additionally, the Indian military's targeting and abuse of “Naga children” fueled deep resentment and mistrust towards India among ordinary Nagas, leaving the conflict unresolved.

By the mid-1970s, the Indian government, facing growing unrest in the Wesean region and mounting international pressure to stabilize the conflict, saw an opportunity to push for peace with the Nagas. After several decades of conflict, the Indian state was motivated by the desire to restore stability and integrate Nagaland more firmly within the Indian Union. The NNC, weakened by internal divisions and exhausted from years of war, also saw the potential for peace, particularly among its moderate factions. Key Naga leaders such as Phizo's deputy, Kevi Yalie, were involved in the push for dialogue, believing that a negotiated settlement was the best path forward to avoid further bloodshed. Shillong, the capital of the erstwhile Northeastern Presidency under British India, was chosen as the site for these negotiations due to its strategic and symbolic importance—it was a neutral location yet close enough to the Naga heartland to facilitate talks. The Indian government had to frame the upcoming accord as a significant concession, a step toward bringing Nagaland into the constitutional fold while preserving some degree of Naga autonomy.

The Accord, signed in November 1975, outlined a series of conditions aimed at ending hostilities. The most critical clause was the requirement for the Naga rebel groups to accept the Indian Constitution, effectively renouncing their claim to sovereignty. Additionally, the Accord mandated the surrender of arms by insurgent groups, symbolizing the cessation of the armed struggle. In return the Indian state was to give the Nagas the state of Nagaland- which however further fractured Naga identity, as the Nagas were now separated into 4 administrative divisions within India and into 2 countries (Myanmar and India). From the Indian government’s perspective, this was a major victory—a diplomatic success that would finally integrate Nagas and end years of insurgency. There was no doubt that for India, it was a decisive step toward peace, for it would bring the region into the national mainstream and resolve the long-standing demand for sovereignty. However, as subsequent developments would show, this optimism was short-lived as many factions within the Naga leadership, especially the radical elements, perceived the Accord as a betrayal, setting the stage for further conflict- beyond just the Nagas.

II. Reception of the Shillong Accord: Compromise or Betrayal? Initial Reception Among Naga Leaders

The Accord was met with mixed reactions among Naga leaders, sharply dividing opinions. For some, particularly the moderates within the NNC, the Accord represented a necessary compromise after decades of armed struggle, loss of life, and unrelenting hardship. These leaders, many in their 50s, exhausted by the unending conflict and the toll it had taken on their people, saw the acceptance of the Indian Constitution as a step toward achieving a measure of peace and regional autonomy. While full sovereignty remained their ultimate goal, they believed that concessions at this juncture could lead to greater opportunities for dialogue with India and possibly more autonomy in the future. They thus viewed the Accord as a strategic pause, a chance to regroup and rebuild the Naga political movement under less hostile circumstances.

However, for the radical factions, particularly the younger leaders of the NNC, this was nothing short of a betrayal. Personalities like Thuingaleng Muivah and Isak Chishi Swu, who would go on to play crucial roles in the insurgency, saw the Accord as a complete sellout to the Indian state. To them, the agreement represented the Naga leadership’s capitulation to Indian hegemony, undermining the very foundation of their struggle for independence. The acceptance of the Indian Constitution was thus viewed as a fatal compromise that negated the Naga people’s right to self-determination. Most of these youngsters refused to recognize any agreement that did not affirm full sovereignty, and they quickly rejected the Accord, marking a decisive break with the NNC’s leadership.

This rejection culminated in the formation of the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) in 1980. With Muivah and Swu at the helm, the NSCN became the torchbearer of a more radicalized insurgency, driven by a pan-Naga agenda that sought to unite all Nagas under one sovereign entity, including those residing outside the boundaries of Nagaland. The NSCN’s establishment signaled the beginning of a new chapter in the Naga insurgency—one characterized by a more militant and uncompromising stance. The faction's formation also laid bare the deep divisions within the Naga nationalist movement, with the NSCN openly condemning the moderate leaders of the NNC for having surrendered the cause of independence.

The Shillong Accord’s fallout eventually did lead to significant political and military consequences for both the Naga movement and the Indian government. The NSCN's emergence reinvigorated the insurgency, with the group launching a series of militant operations to resist what they viewed as the ongoing Indian occupation. The intensity of their actions, combined with their more expansive vision of Naga sovereignty, escalated the conflict beyond the boundaries of Nagaland, drawing in other Naga-dominated areas in the Northeast and Myanmar.

III. Long-Term Impact of the Shillong Accord on Naga Nationalism Reshaping of Naga Political Demands

This accord had fundamentally reshaped Naga political aspirations, polarizing the movement between moderates who sought greater autonomy within India and radicals, like the NSCN, who pursued full sovereignty and the unification of all Naga-inhabited areas across India and Myanmar. While the NNC, having signed the Accord, leaned toward negotiating for regional autonomy within the Indian constitutional framework, it lost credibility among the younger generation of Nagas who saw the agreement as a betrayal. The NSCN, in contrast, gained prominence by championing a vision of Nagalim, a sovereign Naga homeland, appealing to the more radicalized segments of Naga society.

The Accord also later came to intensify internal divisions within Naga society, not just between the NNC and the NSCN but also within the NSCN itself, which eventually splintered into factions such as NSCN-IM and NSCN-K. This factionalism fractured the Naga movement, complicating the struggle for sovereignty as different groups pursued varying objectives and approaches. The splintering weakened the movement's unity but did not diminish its underlying goal of independence.

The failure of the Shillong Accord also marked a significant setback for the Indian government’s attempts at pacifying the Naga movement through political compromise. Instead, the government’s militarized response, aimed at suppressing the NSCN, exacerbated the situation, deepening the alienation of the Naga people and escalating the cycle of violence. This hardline approach failed to address the fundamental political demand for sovereignty, which had been at the heart of the Naga struggle, reigniting the conflict and emboldening other ethnic groups in the Northeast to also pursue autonomy. Thereby, it inadvertently broadened the insurgency into a wider struggle. Inspired by the Naga resistance, other ethnic groups across the Wesean region began to assert their own demands for autonomy and sovereignty, coalescing around the broader concept of an independent "Wesea."

Thus despite divisions, the NSCN—particularly the NSCN-IM—sustained the armed struggle well into the 1990s and beyond, keeping the demand for Naga and later “Wesean” sovereignty at the center of its agenda. Although the Indian government attempted to broker new peace deals, the sovereignty question remained unresolved.

IV. Contemporary Perspectives on the Shillong Accord Revisiting the Accord in Light of Modern Peace Talks

In contemporary times, the accord continues to cast a long shadow over modern peace talks between the Indian government and the NSCN-IM. The 2015 Framework Agreement, viewed by the Government of India as an evolved effort to integrate Nagaland while respecting Naga autonomy, drew heavily from the lessons of Shillong. However, for the NSCN-IM, the Accord remains a symbol of betrayal, a moment when Naga sovereignty was compromised, shaping their ongoing insistence on full rights and territorial integration. This historical distrust has made the current talks more delicate, with the NSCN-IM remaining wary of repeating the mistakes of 1975.

Within Naga society too, opinions on the Shillong Accord remain divided. Some moderates now see the Accord as a missed opportunity for peace, arguing that rejecting it led to further conflict. However, for many Nagas, particularly the younger generation and those aligned with more radical factions, the sense of betrayal still lingers. The Accord in many parts, especially in Naga regions outside Nagaland, is still remembered as a moment when Naga aspirations were undermined.

Naga civil society, including churches and youth groups, has played a key role in shaping views on the Accord’s legacy. The Church calls for reconciliation, while youth organizations often reflect a deep skepticism of any agreement that resembles Shillong. The Accord’s legacy has shaped ongoing peace efforts, with both sides trying to navigate the challenge of securing a just peace without repeating the perceived capitulations of 1975.

V. Concluding Remarks

The rise of a regional movement encompassing multiple ethnicities was a direct result of the state’s inability to acknowledge the region’s unique identity and political aspirations. It also highlighted the complexity of the Northeast’s insurgencies: they were not merely about independence but about identity, autonomy, and the recognition of the region’s distinctiveness within the Indian political fabric. The Shillong Accord, was thus far from resolving the conflict, underscored the limits of imposing peace without genuine political reconciliation.

Has the Naga struggle for sovereignty been irreparably fractured by this agreement, or can a more inclusive peace be forged in its aftermath? As ongoing peace talks attempt to navigate these historical wounds, the lessons of the Shillong Accord remain critical. Avoiding the mistakes of the past—acknowledging the unique identity and aspirations of the Naga people—will be essential if the future is to hold the lasting peace that the Shillong Accord ultimately failed to achieve.

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

Suggested Reading

●      Baruah, Sanjib. Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of Northeast India. Oxford University Press, 2005.

●      Hazarika, Sanjoy. Strangers of the Mist: Tales of War and Peace from India's Northeast. Penguin Books, 1994.

●      Kikon, Dolly. Living with Oil and Coal: Resource Politics and Militarization in Northeast India. University of Washington Press, 2019.

●      Horam, M. Naga Insurgency: The Last Thirty Years. Cosmo Publications, 1988.

●      Baruah, Sanjib. India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality. University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999.

●      Haksar, Nandita. Nagaland File: A Question of Human Rights. Lancer International, 1984.

●      Iralu, Kaka D. The Naga Saga. Published by the author, 2000.

●      Mizoram University, Department of Political Science. Naga Peace Process and the Shillong Accord. International Journal of Scientific Research and Education, Vol. 2, Issue 3, 2014.

The Scientist who Outsmarted the Luftwaffe

Reginald Victor Jones, known as R.V. Jones, was one of Britain's most brilliant scientific minds during the Second World War. His unparalleled contributions to intelligence, particularly in countering the Luftwaffe's technological advancements, earned him a prominent place in the history of science and warfare.

Terry Bailey explains.

R.V. Jones (left), DCI James Woolsey, and Jeanne de Clarens.

Early life and education

R.V. Jones was born on September 29, 1911, in Herne Hill, London, to a family of modest means. From an early age, he exhibited an intense curiosity for how things worked, which led him to pursue studies in physics. Jones attended Alleyn's School in London before securing a scholarship to Wadham College, Oxford. At Oxford, Jones studied physics under some of the most distinguished scientists of the time, including Frederick Lindemann, later known as Lord Cherwell, who became a key advisor to Winston Churchill during the war.

Jones graduated with a first-class degree and remained at Oxford to conduct research in atmospheric physics. His deep interest in scientific instrumentation and precision led him to become an expert in high-frequency measurements. In 1936, he completed his Doctorate focusing on spectroscopic measurements, which laid the groundwork for the skills he would later apply to military intelligence and post contributions.

Joining the British Air Ministry

In 1939, as tensions in Europe escalated into war, Jones was recruited by the British Air Ministry, eventually working in scientific intelligence. He joined a small but elite team of scientists tasked with monitoring and analyzing German technological developments. His role quickly evolved into one of the most crucial during the war, becoming responsible for understanding and countering German advancements in radar, electronic warfare, and guided weapons.

R.V. Jones's most significant work came under the Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, where he reported directly to Churchill's scientific advisor, Frederick Alexander Lindemann, (1st Viscount Cherwell). Jones' task was to stay ahead of German technology, which meant intercepting, analyzing, and neutralizing it before it could be deployed effectively against the Allies.

The Battle of the Beams

One of Jones' earliest and most celebrated contributions was in the Battle of the Beams, a critical episode in the air war between Britain and Germany. Early in the war, the Luftwaffe began using radio navigation systems to guide their bombers over long distances during nighttime raids. These systems, such as the Knickebein, Lorenz, and X-Gerät, relied on a series of radio beams transmitted from the German-occupied continent, which the bombers would follow to reach their targets in Britain.

Jones, recognizing the threat posed by these beams, set to work analyzing how they functioned. Using a combination of intercepted German communications, captured equipment from down enemy aircraft and scientific reasoning, he discovered that the beams were highly directional and precise. The German bombers would fly along these invisible paths and drop their bombs when they intersected at pre-arranged points over British cities.

Jones proposed a series of countermeasures that were both simple and effective. His team developed techniques to jam or distort the beams, leading German pilots astray. Additionally, he arranged for false signals to be transmitted, causing the Luftwaffe to drop their bombs over empty fields instead of their intended targets. This deception was so successful that German crews often believed their bombs had hit home, while British cities remained relatively unscathed.

Operation Biting and countering German radar

The Germans were developing their advanced radar system at the same time as the British. As a scientific intelligence officer attached to the Air Ministry, Jones was able to untangle the clues which led to understanding Germany's radar capabilities, notably the highly effective Würzburg radar.

Jones was instrumental in instigating Operation Biting, the daring raid designed to obtain a working model of the German Würzburg radar. By 1941, the British were aware that the German radar systems were highly effective at detecting Allied aircraft, especially during bombing missions over occupied Europe. However, the precise nature of how the operational capabilities of these radars remained unclear. Jones, based on intelligence reports and radio intercepts, not only confirmed the existence of the radar but was also convinced that obtaining physical components from a German radar installation would provide the necessary insight for the British to develop effective countermeasures.

The opportunity arose when a Würzburg radar was located near Bruneval, on the French coast. Jones was instrumental in convincing the British high command to authorize a raid to capture the radar system. Operation Biting took place in February 1942, with British paratroopers seizing and dismantling key parts of the Würzburg radar. The successful retrieval of these components allowed Jones and his team to analyze the technology, leading to the development of electronic countermeasures that disrupted German radar accuracy. This not only improved the effectiveness of British bombing campaigns but also laid the foundation for further technological advances in electronic warfare.

His broader efforts to understand and neutralize German radar formed a key component of Britain's overall defense strategy, allowing the Allies to maintain the upper hand in the battle for air superiority. His contributions were critical in reducing the threat posed by German air defenses, in addition to paving the way for aspects of Operation Bodyguard.

The Intelligence war and operation bodyguard

Beyond the Battle of the Beams and radar countermeasures, Jones was instrumental in a wide array of intelligence efforts that significantly altered the course of the war. Perhaps one of his most vital contributions was the small part he and his department played in Operation Bodyguard, the extensive deception campaign that misled the German high command about the location of the D-Day landings.

The role R. V. Jones played in this operation though small was extremely significant, by monitoring German radar systems and electronic communication his input was crucial to its success.

Operation Bodyguard fed false information to German intelligence through a combination of radio broadcasts and fake infrastructure—such as the famous "ghost" army under General Patton, in addition to the double cross program that turned German agents to transmit false information.

Jones' knowledge of German technologies helped steer a number of the aspects of the deception that ensured the Germans believed the main invasion force would land at Calais rather than Normandy.

However, his efforts in the intelligence war extended to the development of countermeasures against German V-weapons. As early as 1943, British intelligence began receiving reports of a secret German weapon capable of causing massive destruction from long range. This was the V-1 flying bomb, soon followed by the more advanced V-2 rocket.

Countering the V-Weapons

Jones became part of the team that unraveled the mystery of the V-weapons and devised defenses against weapons. The V-1, often referred to as the "buzz bomb," was essentially a pilotless aircraft powered by a pulse jet engine. It could travel at high speeds and deliver a significant explosive payload over a reasonable distance. After analyzing intelligence reports, aerial reconnaissance, and even fragments of crashed V-1 bombs. Jones concluded that the weapon was likely to be used against London in a terror campaign.

Jones and his team helped devise several countermeasures, including anti-aircraft defenses, night-fighter tactics, and even attempts to jam the gyroscopic guidance system of the V-1 bombs. Although the V-1 caused significant destruction, Jones' contributions in reducing its effectiveness and helping target the launch sites minimized its overall impact.

The V-2 rocket, which came later, posed an even greater threat. Travelling faster than the speed of sound, the V-2 was impossible to intercept once launched. Jones, however, worked tirelessly to pinpoint the locations of the V-2 launch sites and relay this information to the Allied bomber command. His work in this area, while less publicized than his earlier contributions, played a significant role in limiting the V-2's potential for devastation.

Achievements and Recognition

Jones' achievements during the war were numerous, and he became one of the most trusted figures in British military scientific intelligence. His scientific acumen and ability to outthink the enemy's engineers earned him a reputation as a genius in the field of electronic warfare. In 1946, he was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) for his contributions to the war effort.

Perhaps Jones' greatest legacy was his influence on the emerging field of electronic warfare. His work laid the foundation for many of the technologies and strategies used in subsequent conflicts, including the Cold War. His relentless focus on precision and understanding the enemy's technological capabilities set the standard for scientific intelligence work for decades to come.

Following the war, Jones returned to academic life. He became the Chair of Natural Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, where he inspired a new generation of scientists. He also wrote extensively about his wartime experiences, most notably in his autobiography, 'Most Secret War' which remains one of the most important accounts of scientific intelligence during the Second World War.

In addition to his contributions to military science, Jones was involved in a variety of scientific projects throughout his career, including work on spectroscopy, astronomy, and atmospheric physics. His broad scientific interests and ability to apply his knowledge to practical problems ensured that his impact extended far beyond the battlefield.

Legacy

R.V. Jones passed away on December 17, 1997, but his legacy as one of Britain's most important wartime scientists endures. His work in scientific intelligence fundamentally changed the way wars were fought, demonstrating the power of knowledge and technological understanding in shaping military outcomes.

Jones is remembered not just for his wartime achievements but also for his lifelong dedication to science. His ability to blend theoretical knowledge with practical application was key to many of his successes, and he remained a firm advocate for the importance of science in both national defense and civil progress.

As the world continues to advance in the fields of electronics, intelligence, and warfare, the principles that R.V. Jones championed remain as relevant as ever. His life serves as a reminder that, even in the darkest times, the human capacity for innovation and intellect can serve as a powerful weapon against those who seek to harm.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Political War Over Tennessee Prohibition

It seems accepted that today’s political atmosphere is more divisive, caustic, and contentious than any since the Civil War. But from research for the author’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company (Amazon US | Amazon UK), at least in Tennessee, the late 1880s through 1920 were even more contentious and volatile over the issue of prohibition.

Clay Shwab explains.

A 1915 advert for Cascade Whisky from the Rock Island Argus.

Nashville

From the 1890s through the tumultuous years leading to Prohibition, the city of Nashville was very much like the wild west—a bustling, exciting, changing, and dangerous place. Political debates and rallies were frequently held in the downtown streets with hordes in attendance. Legal fun may have been hard to find in pre-Music City Nashville. Gunfire was frequent. In 1908, a senator and editor of the Nashville Tennessean, Edward Carmack, was shot and killed on Union Avenue after he attempted to shoot a one-time friend and editor of the Nashville American, Duncan Cooper. Their dispute related to prohibition.

From 1890 through 1920, Tennessee was a political war zone between the Wets and the Drys, the anti-prohibitionists and the prohibitionists, with entrepreneur and owner of the George Dickel whisky company, V. E. “Manny”  Shwab, as the chief strategist and field general for the Wets. Shwab owned the state’s most valuable distillery producing the “famous” Cascade Whisky, “Mellow as Moonlight”–at the time, a far more popular and well-known whiskey than Jack Daniel’s. The wet and dry battle blew Tennessee politics apart to the point that the Republican and Democrat parties split in half and reformed along prohibition position lines. The anti-liquor proponents were  known as “Fusionists”.

Cascade Hollow Seizure

Senator Carmack’s shooting provided the Drys the martyr they needed. In 1909, shortly  after the shooting, Tennessee passed  Bill #11 banning the  manufacture of alcohol. Malcolm Patterson, Tennessee governor and Shwab ally, vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto. Five days later, in what was the largest federal seizure of any kind, Shwab’s Cascade Hollow Distillery was shut down. Nine thousand barrels of Cascade whisky were seized along with the distillery’s six buildings and 600 acres. The whiskey alone was values at over $30 million in today’s dollars.

Newspapers were unabashedly biased, giving wildly differing “factual” accounts of events. According to reports, Shwab was either “the debaucherer of more young men than any other man in Tennessee” because of his whiskey company and many saloons, or a “one man Tammany Hall”, or “Nashville’s richest citizen” and a philanthropic, consensus building visionary, dragging Tennessee into the 20th century while elevating Tennessee whiskey to a stellar reputation. Newspapers throughout the country and Canada covered the seizure with headlines such as: “Big Still Taken by U.S.”, Chicago Tribune;  “Raid on Whiskey”, Vicksburg, Mississippi; “The Cascade distillery is the most valuable property of the kind in the state”, Nashville Banner; “Chattanoogans Think it Was Prompted by Politics”, Chattanooga. To emphasize the importance of the distillery to the state, the Nashville American stated that from 1905-1908, Manny’s Dickel company that distributed Cascade paid one fourth of the taxes paid by all distilleries in middle and west Tennessee combined, including Jack Daniel’s.

Tennessee Prohibition was not to go into effect until January of the next year, 1910. The alleged violation was tax evasion due to the common practice known as “equalization of wantage”. During the process of aging whiskey in wooden barrels, evaporation occurs. The government required payment of tax on a minimum of  40 gallons per each 50 gallon barrel, even if there were only 35 gallons remaining after evaporation. To avoid paying tax on non-existent whiskey, distillers would take whiskey from barrels holding more than 40 gallons and add it to barrels containing less. The seizure occurred on Thursday, April 1. Through Manny’s connection with the U.S. Attorney General and some powerful Tennessee allies, the distillery was back in Shwab’s hands the following Monday after posting a bond of $275,000 ($8.4 million today).

Bill #11 did not stop the fight. In 1911, thirty four Republican legislators retreated to Decatur Alabama to deny a quorum to vote on legislation—referred to by them as “the liquor election bill”—that would lead to the reversal of Tennessee’s prohibition on distilling. Shwab had assured the bill’s successful passage allegedly by bribing six Republicans. The April 12, 1911 Nashville Banner headline exclaimed “High-Handed Corruption Alleged in Election Bill Fight…Member or Members Have Been Fixed—Money Furnished by Well Known Liquor Dealer.” The allegation was that the Shwabs had furnished over $20,000 ($660,000 today) to “fix” votes. With the legislative process ground to a halt, the April 14, 1911 Memphis Commercial Appeal  opined that “the whole public machinery of the state would be clogged so long as the present situation exists.”

And the “present situation” persisted. The May 4th  Tennessean deemed Prohibitionist legislators who were supporting the bill, “arrant hypocrite and… mutton-headed ignoramuses” who have “…an inherited affliction which cannot be cured and for which [they] should be pitied, and not censured.” So much for objective journalism. By June 26, the three-month stand-off must have finally subsided as the legislature had a quorum to pass resolution #57 calling for an investigation into the slush-fund allegations as well as new allegations against several legislators. In July, Governor Ben Hooper vetoed the joint resolution. The fight persisted.

Boss Crump and Liquor by the Drink

In October 1913, Governor Hooper called a special and highly contentious legislative session of both houses. The issues were the shipping of liquor into Tennessee from other states and the “Nuisance Bill”. The bill would “declare a saloon, gambling den, bawdy house, or any other business the conduct of which is a violation of the law, a  public nuisance.” Similar to modern day anti-abortion bills considered by some states, any five qualified voters could shut a business down in an effort to get around public officials who were seen as ignoring the activity. For example, Shwab was consistently accused of using his influence to avoid raids  on his saloons as well as influencing legislation and dictating nominees for office.

Thirty-nine year old mayor of Memphis, E.H. “Boss” Crump, went to Nashville to fight and alter the legislation and to secure Manny’s support. Crump would be a major figure in Tennessee politics for the next twenty years, very much following in Shwab’s footsteps. He wanted to manipulate the language of the law so eleven of his wards could sell liquor by the drink. Manny was all for it, as it would allow liquor to be sold in the major cities. Papers referred to the issue as a “battle royal”. According to the Knoxville Journal:

Backing up mayor Crump and his henchmen was V. E. Shwab the wealthiest whiskey man in Tennessee the owner of Cascade, and the Gibraltar of the whiskey interests in Tennessee.…He was seen to talk with various members of the house and senate on the floor of the Maxwell (hotel) lobby this morning…Some little excitement went the round in whispers this morning when it got started that the whiskey interests are threatening the weak-kneed fellows.

Indicative of the atmosphere in Nashville, the Bristol Courier declared “The Tennessee Legislature has been in session and nobody has been killed, not even Boss Crump”. The lobbyists were accused of “threatening dire consequences to those who have accepted courtesies from them.” But the Crump and Shwab forces were unsuccessful. On October 14, 1913, the Tennessean exuberantly announced “John Barleycorn Knocked Out in Second Round”, declaring “Nashville Arid”. Shwab moved operations to Louisville to continue distilling and selling his renowned Cascade internationally until federal prohibition in 1920.

Clay Shwab’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis: The Visionary Scientist Who Played a Key Role in World War 2

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, born on Septembe, 26, 1887 in Ripley, Derbyshire, is often remembered for his role in the development of the famous "bouncing bomb" during the Second World War. However, his contributions to science, engineering, and aeronautics extend far beyond this iconic invention. A visionary in the truest sense, Wallis's legacy includes groundbreaking work in airship design, aircraft development, and advanced weaponry, in addition to, shaping the course of 20th-century technology.

Terry Bailey explains.

Barnes Neville Wallis.

Early life and education

Wallis's early life provided the foundation for his eventual career in engineering. His father, Charles Wallis, was a doctor, but young Barnes developed an early fascination with mechanical objects, much to his father's frustration. After attending Christ's Hospital school in Sussex, where he displayed a knack for mathematics and science, Wallis pursued an apprenticeship at Thames Engineering Works. However, he subsequently changed his apprenticeship to J. Samuel White's, the shipbuilder based at Cowes on the Isle of Wight originally training as a marine engineer, he took a degree in engineering via the University of London external program.

Contributions to Airship design

Wallis's early career saw him make significant contributions to the development of airships. In 1913, he joined Vickers, a company heavily involved in aeronautics, where he began working on lighter-than-air vehicles. He played a pivotal role in the design of the R100, a large British airship intended for long-range passenger travel.

The R100 project was part of a competition with the government-sponsored R101, which ultimately ended in disaster with the crash of R101, a craft of a different design to the R100. While the R101's failure effectively ended the British airship program, the R100 itself was a technical success, in large part due to Wallis's innovative structural design, which utilized a geodesic framework. This design became a hallmark of Wallis's work.

The geodesic framework was notable for its strength and lightweight properties. This design not only enhanced the airship's durability but also reduced its overall weight, making it more fuel-efficient. The R100's successful transatlantic flight to Canada in 1930 was a testament to the efficacy of Wallis's design, even though the airship program was ultimately scrapped after the R101 disaster.

Transition to aircraft design

After the decline of airship development, Wallis turned his attention to aircraft design. His expertise in geodesic structures led him to work on the Vickers Wellington bomber, which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force, (RAF) during the Second World War. The Wellington's geodesic structure made it incredibly resilient to damage. Unlike conventional aircraft, the Wellington could sustain considerable battle damage yet continue flying due to its ability to retain structural integrity even after losing large sections of the skin or framework.

This durability made it a valuable asset during the war, particularly during the early bombing campaigns. Wallis's work on the Wellington showcased his ability to apply innovative design principles to aircraft, extending the operational capabilities and survivability of warplanes. The Wellington aircraft became one of the most produced British bombers of the war, with more than 11,000 units built, attesting to the practical success of Wallis's engineering philosophy.

The Bouncing Bomb and the Dam Busters Raid

Wallis is perhaps most famous and remembered for his invention of the bouncing bomb, which was used in the Dam Busters Raid (Operation Chastise) in 1943. This operation targeted key dams in Germany's industrial Ruhr region, aiming to disrupt water supplies and manufacturing processes critical to the Nazi war effort. The bouncing bomb, officially known as "Upkeep," was an ingenious device that skimmed across the surface of the water before striking the dam and sinking to the optimal depth, then detonated when a hydrostatic pistol fired. In addition to, upkeep two smaller versions were also developed, High-ball and Base-ball.

The design of the bomb required not only advanced physics and mathematics but also extensive practical testing. Wallis conducted numerous experiments with scaled-down prototypes to perfect the bomb's trajectory and spin, ensuring it could bypass underwater defenses and inflict maximum damage, before conducting half and full-scale tests of the bomb. The Dam Busters Raid, though not as strategically decisive as hoped, was a major tactical and propaganda victory that demonstrated the effectiveness of precision engineering in warfare. It also solidified Wallis's reputation as one of Britain's foremost wartime inventors, and designers.

Beyond the Bouncing Bomb: The Tallboy and Grand Slam

While the bouncing bomb is Wallis's most well-known design, his development of the "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs was arguably more impactful. These were so-called "earthquake bombs," designed to penetrate deeply into the ground or fortifications before exploding, causing immense structural damage. The Tallboy, weighing 12,000 pounds, was used effectively against hardened targets such as U-boat pens, railway bridges, and even the German battleship Tirpitz, which was sunk by RAF bombers in 1944.

The Grand Slam, a 22,000-pound bomb, was the largest non-nuclear bomb deployed during the war. Its sheer destructive power was unparalleled, and it played a crucial role in the final stages of the conflict, helping to obliterate reinforced German bunkers and infrastructure. Wallis's work on these bombs demonstrated his understanding of the evolving nature of warfare, where the destruction of heavily fortified targets became a priority.

Post-War Contributions: Advancements in supersonic flight

After the war, Wallis continued to push the boundaries of engineering, particularly in the field of supersonic flight. He began working on designs for supersonic aircraft, foreseeing the need for faster travel in both military and civilian aviation. His proposed aircraft designs included the "Swallow" which was a supersonic development of Wild Goose, designed in the mid-1950s and was a tailless aircraft controlled entirely by wing movement with no separate control surfaces.

The design intended to use laminar flow and could have been developed for either military or civil applications, both Wild Goose and Swallow were flight-tested as large (30 ft span) flying scale models. However, despite promising wind tunnel and model work, these designs were not adopted. Government funding for Wild Goose and Swallow was cancelled due to defense cuts.

Although Wallis's supersonic aircraft designs were never fully realized during his lifetime, they laid the groundwork for later advancements in high-speed flight. The variable-sweep wing technology he envisioned was later incorporated into aircraft such as the F-111 Aardvark and concepts of supersonic flight in the iconic Concorde, the world's first supersonic passenger airliner. Wallis's vision of supersonic travel outlined his enduring ability to anticipate technological trends.

Marine engineering and submersible craft

Wallis's inventive spirit was not confined to aeronautics. In the post-war years, he became involved in marine engineering, focusing on the development of submersible craft and weaponry. One of his notable projects was the development of an experimental rocket-propelled torpedo codenamed HEYDAY. It was powered by compressed air and hydrogen peroxide that had an unusual streamlined shape designed to maintain laminar flow over much of its length.

Additionally, Wallis also explored the development of deep-sea submersibles. His work on underwater craft highlighted his interest in new forms of exploration and transportation, aligning with the burgeoning post-war interest in oceanography and underwater research. As part of this exploration of underwater craft, he proposed large cargo and passenger-carrying submarines, that would reduce transportation costs drastically, however, nothing came of these designs which probably would have transformed ocean-going transportation.

Due to Wallis's experience in geodesic engineering, he was engaged to consult on the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia. Some of the ideas he suggested are the same as or closely related to the final design, including the idea of supporting the dish at its center, the geodetic structure of the dish and the master equatorial control system.

Later life and recognition

Throughout his life, Wallis maintained a strong commitment to education and mentorship. He was an advocate for the advancement of engineering as a discipline and frequently gave lectures to students and professionals alike. Wallis became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1945, was knighted in 1968, and received an Honorary Doctorate from Heriot-Watt University in 1969 in recognition of his outstanding engineering achievements. Additionally, he was awarded the Royal Society's prestigious Rumford Medal in 1971 for his work in aerodynamics.

Even in his later years, Wallis remained active in engineering, particularly in exploring the future potential of space travel. His forward-thinking ideas on rocket propulsion and spacecraft design, though largely theoretical at the time, hinted at the emerging field of space exploration, which would become a global endeavor in the following decades.

Wallis passed away on October, 30, 1979, leaving behind a legacy of innovation that continues to inspire engineers and inventors worldwide. His impact on both military and civilian technologies is a testament to his brilliance and determination to push the boundaries of what he knew was possible but others often did not.

Legacy

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, was a true polymath whose influence extended across multiple disciplines. While he is best known for his wartime contributions, particularly the bouncing bomb, his legacy goes far beyond a single invention.

From the geodesic structures of airships and bombers to supersonic aircraft concepts and deep-sea exploration vehicles, in addition to, his innovative ideas on ocean and space exploration and travel. Wallis's career spanned an astonishing range of technological advancements. His ability to marry theoretical physics with practical engineering solutions made him a giant of 20th-century science and technology.

Wallis's story is not just one of wartime ingenuity but of a lifetime spent striving to solve complex problems with creativity and persistence. His contributions continue to resonate today, reminding us that the spirit of innovation is timeless.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Family Separations in U.S. Immigration History: A New Issue, or as American as Baseball and Apple Pie?

Candidate Donald Trump thrust immigration issues at the Southern border into the forefront of American politics in the early weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.   But even then, the issue was not new.

Joseph Bauer, author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), explains.

A teacher, Mary R. Hyde, and students at the Carlisle Indian Training School. Source: here and here.

At least two years before 2016, large numbers of Central American families, nearly all from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador began to arrive in walking caravans at the Texas Border.  Well before Donald Trump emerged, the U.S. immigration system at the border was overtaxed.  Ronald Reagan knew it; George W. Bush (fluent in Spanish) knew it; Barack Obama knew it.  All tried to address it, explaining that congressionally authorized resources were simply inadequate to manage the realities permitted by U.S. immigration law, especially the legal right foreign nationals to seek asylum or refugee status under a federal statute essentially unchanged since 1965.

Efforts for change and improvement all died at the altar of partisan self-interest.  Legislators from across the country—not only those with constituents on the border—concluded that any solution would be more problematic to individual political fortunes than continuing the status quo and arguing the positions most favored by the particular local and regional voters they needed to be elected.

Stoked by political rhetoric from both sides, the public worried about large numbers of new citizens entering the country. Legitimate worries included concern about the strain on public health, school resources, and transportation infrastructure in local communities.  Unfounded worries included concerns about crime.  Numerous studies have documented that immigrants, including those entering legally by asylum and even those “undocumented” persons who are in the U.S. without legal status, commit crimes at materially lower rates than American-born citizens.[1]  The other objection, that newcomers cause Americans to lose or find jobs, has also been refuted. Employers hiring large numbers of workers almost unanimously want as many immigrants allowed in as is possible to fill jobs for which they cannot find applicants otherwise.  And increases in the number of immigrants, by adding to the economy and success of businesses, actually increases the wages and employment opportunities of American-born citizens.[2]

2017 and 2018

But in 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration moved, without Congressional authority, to stop the Central American caravans with a new measure:  the broadscale involuntary separation of parents from their children at the Texas border, primarily at El Paso.  The intent of the new policy was deterrence: to discourage asylum seeking families from making their journeys.  If they began to be separated, finding themselves in different countries, it was thought, the seekers would stop seeking.

The program was initially undisclosed by the administration (on the ground that it was merely a “pilot program”) and drew little public or media attention.  It worked as follows.

 A family presented itself to the Border Control agents at the crossing (the recommended pathway for entrance) or on American soil near the border, having managed to reach it by other means (not recommended, but still a legal way to seek asylum under U.S. law).  Following brief interviews, nearly all parents were either detained temporarily in a government facility without their children or summarily deported and sent to the Mexican border, again without their children.  The children, regardless of age, were immediately deemed “unaccompanied minors,” since their parents were no longer present with them, and turned over to the custody of the Homeland Security Refugee Service for temporary housing, often in a church-affiliated respite center, and then ultimately placed in either American foster homes or the home of a qualifying relative somewhere in the U.S., if such a person could be identified.  If a relative could be found at all, the process was often lengthy.

Data on the actual number of children taken from their parents during the Trump Administration are imprecise.  But studies by relief organizations such as the American Council of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service, and the Washington Office on Latin America have documented that at least 2,000 children were removed from parents between February 2017 and the date the policy became public and official in May 2018; another 2,500 were separated in the 50 days thereafter.   Some estimates are as high as nearly 6,000 children and 3,000 families.  The Trump administration ostensibly stopped the practice on June 20, 2018, in response to public furor and condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum.[3]   Anti-immigrant positions might earn votes for some politicians, but taking children from their parents earned votes for nobody.   What it did was provoke the abhorrence of  the vast majority of (but not all) Americans.

Historical context

But was the widescale forced separation of parents and children in 2018 actually new in historical American immigration policy and practice?  Could such a policy have been a reality earlier in the American experiment?  The truth—many would say sad truth—is that it was.  Two prior examples are obvious and known to most Americans.

The first was the long period of legal slavery in the U.S., when millions of African and Caribbean black men and women were forcibly transported to the United States with the approval of the federal and state governments and held here in involuntary servitude.  Those slaves who were able to bring their children with them, or who gave birth to them once here, were routinely sold to new owners, never to see their children or grandchildren again.  There is no denying that slavery in the U.S. was tragically replete with the separation of families.

The second instance was the common practice for decades in the 19th century of removing Native American children from their natural parents and tribes and placing them either in “Indian” boarding schools or the strange Christian homes of white Americans.  (A moving portrait of the practice—and its harmful effects—is depicted in Conrad Richter’s classic novel, The Light in the Forest.)  These involuntary relocations were massive.  Federal and state governments separated as many as 35% of all American indigenous children from their families, according to a 1978 report by the US House of Representatives.[4]

Most of us learned of the above practices in our American educations, if incompletely.  But many may be surprised to learn that family separation in the U.S. occurred at the hands of some state and city governments even into the early 20th century, condoned or overlooked by the federal government.   Prior to 1920, when specific immigration rules were enacted by Congress, state and city governments, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, removed an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 children of Irish and Polish immigrants and placed them in Protestant or Anglo-American households, away from their local areas.[5]

We can hope that such interference with the family unit, based on religious hatred, would be unthinkable today.  But it is part of our past.

2015 report

In 2015, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration published a report entitled

Family Immigration Detention, Why the Past Cannot be Prologue.  The report addressed the difficult and sad question of the morality of detaining whole families at the border under the Obama administration.  It preceded the family separation policy that the Trump administration implemented 3 years later, which most Americans believe was even sadder and more immoral.

The authors of the ABA report must be disappointed.  The “past” that it examined—the detention of whole families—did not improve.  Instead, it worsened, with a government policy that, at least temporarily, divided the nuclear family unit itself.

In this instance, we did not advance from the lessons of our past.  But in history, there is always hope.  Maybe we will learn them at last.

Joseph Bauer is the author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), a novel that explores a white widower’s quest to fulfill a promise to his dying wife: to reunite Central American parents with their children separated from them at the Texas Border in 2018.  Mr. Bauer’s previously published novels are The Accidental Patriot (2020), The Patriot’s Angels (2022), and Too True to be Good (2023).  His latest finished manuscript of historical fiction about the lead-up to and conduct of WWII is titled, Arsenal of Secrecy, The FDR Years, A Novel.

[1] See e.g., Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate, University of Wisconsin research study funded by the National Institute of Justice (September 2024).  This and many other studies conclude that undocumented “illegal” immigrants commit about or less than half as many crimes as Americans for the same number of persons.  This is true across all kinds of crimes, including murders, other violent crimes, and drug trafficking.  Admitted asylum seekers and refugees also commit far few crimes than American-born counterparts.

[2] Immigration’s Effect on US Wages and Employment, Caiumi, Alessandro and Peri, Giovanni, National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2024).

[3] Many sources, including an audit by U.S.  have reported that family separations at the Texas border continued in significant numbers well after the Trump Administration announced a halt to them in June 2018.  See e.g., Long, Colleen; Alonso-Zaldiver, Ricardo. “Watchdog: Thousands More Children May Have Been Separated”. U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 2019.

[4]Sinha, Anita. An American History of Separating Families, American Constitution Society, November 2, 2020.

[5]Americans today almost unanimously believe that our Constitution, by its First Amendment, assures inviolate an individual and collective right to freedom of religion and worship.  But that Amendment, until applied to State and local governments much, much later, did not prevent any state from religious discrimination in its own laws.  Catholics were so generally despised in Massachusetts in the early days of our nation that Catholic priests were forbidden by state law from living there and subject to imprisonment and even execution if they did.

Adolf Hitler: When Shame becomes Dictatorship

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain.

Banknotes awaiting distribution during the 1923 German hyperinflation. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1215-506 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Early life of Adolf Hitler

A complex history creates the foundation of a man who was able to order the deaths, either directly or indirectly, of over 60 million people. Hitler was a frustrated painter and a vegetarian. His forces occupied 11 countries, some of which he occupied partially, and others completely. Among these countries were Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Whether we like it or not, the man who failed his initial entrance examinations and who was passed over for positions of leadership, still captured the psyche of nations. Hitler changed the course of history.

The leader of Nazi Germany was born in Austria in 1889. He had reason to hate and fear his father, who was violent towards his mother and used to beat them both severely. In 1907 he attempted to join the Academy of Arts in Vienna, but was rejected twice after he failed the entrance exam. After the death of his mother, Klara Pölzl, at the end of the same year, he moved to live in Vienna, one of the most prominent capitals in Europe. At the time, Vienna’s mayor was a known anti-Semite called Karl Lueger. As a young man who had experienced much violence and rejection, his settlement in Vienna contributed to shaping his ideas, both because of the prominence of and Leuger’s feelings towards the Jews.    

World War I broke out in 1914, so at age 28 Hitler volunteered to join thearmy, where he received the Medal of Courage twice during the war. Despite that, he was not promoted. According to his commanders at the time, Hitler did not have the leadership skills necessary. In 1918, the November Revolution took place in Germany, which led to the transformation of Germany from a federal constitutional monarchy to a democratic parliamentary republic.      

End of the war

With the end of the war, Germany surrendered and Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated the throne, and was ordered to be exiled in the Netherlands. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, where Germany was obliged to pay large reparations to the winning side. This was also a new chance, and a new opportunity for Germany. Freed from an authoritarian monarchy, it was now possible for there to be a political opening. German philosophical studies flourished, and new political parties began to spread - and spread their ideas.

The new authorities began to penetrate these new groups and parties. They hoped to use this openness to know more about their ideas and orientations. Hitler, who was still in the army, was one of the informants. In 1919, as an undercover informant he went to a bar where some parties were meeting for discussions, to spy on one of the right-wing parties: the Nazi Workers' Party.

Unlike others in Germany at the time, Hitler did not see this as an opportunity for the nation to grow and form new ideas. The sudden decision to surrender, instead felt like a keen betrayal and only fed the anger inside the young man. After Hitler heard their discussions, he was very impressed by their ideas about the parties' betrayal of the German Army, and their scapegoating of Jews in Germany’s defeat. Rather than informing others of the anger, Hitler instead joined them. In a short time, he became one of the most prominent leaders in that party eventually known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazi Party

Their goals, plainly, were against Judaism, communism and capitalism. Their arrogance was equally as lofty as they believed that as part of the Aryan race, they were themselves descendants of the inhabitants of the legendary continent of Atlantis. To them, who else should rule the world and return Germany to her proud place with all her former glory, power, and prestige? The Nazi Party carried out propaganda and issued its own newspaper to spread its ideas and beliefs. They attracted the attention of additional officers who were against the surrender decision and the government’s plans to reduce the size of the army.

An early ally of Hitler’s was an officer in the German Imperial Army, Ernst Röhm. Initially a friend and ally of Hitler, Röhm was also the co-founder and leader of the “Storm Troopers,” the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Rather than dispose of the weapons he had taken possession of, Röhm instead armed the militias and party members with them. With a country unstable from a war, and weapons in the hands of angry men who blamed outsiders for their shame and defeat, the party was well positioned to strike for power.

In 1921, Hitler was elected leader of the Nazi Party, and in 1923 the golden opportunity appeared. Because Germany did not have the money to pay its reparations to the Allies, the government decided to print money. The amount of money printed increased without the value increasing in proportion, and the German mark lost its value and collapsed. Prices increased, and a wave of great inflation hit Germany and became known as German hyperinflation.

Continuing instability

In response to the failure to pay reparations imposed by the victorious powers after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region of Germany. Hitler felt that this was an opportunity to seize power without elections, and staged a coup d’etat. This failed. Hitler      was arrested and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Bavarian Supreme Court pardoned him, however, and Hitler only remained in prison for nine months before he was released.              

In 1928, Hitler decided to participate in the elections, losing by 2.5%, as the Germans once again rejected the Nazi proposal. But when the American stock market collapsed in 1929, it had a major impact on the whole world. As unemployment in Germany reached up to an estimated 6 million, the atmosphere became ripe for radical proposals -fertile ground for right-winger Nazis and left-wing      Communists.

The Nazi Party took advantage of the opportunity to appear as saviors of the German people, for example, by providing aid to the unemployed, which made them the most popular party in Germany. In 1932, the Nazi Party, led by Hitler, became the largest German party, winning 37% of the votes. In 1933, the President of Germany appointed Hitler as chancellor, and Hitler came to power.

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

What was the Purpose of Britain's 'Cripps Mission' to India in 1942?

The 1942 Cripps Mission took place during the middle of World War 2. It was an attempt in March of that year by Britian to secure greater Indian co-operation to World War 2. It involved Stafford Cripps, a member of the British cabinet, meeting various Indian political leaders.

Bilal Junejo explains.

A sketch of Stafford Cripps.

Whenever it is the purpose of a (political) mission which has to be ascertained, it behoves one to ask three questions without delay: why was the mission sent at all; why was it sent only when it was; and why did it comprise the individuals that it did. Unless such well-meaning cynicism is allowed to inform one’s analysis, it is not likely that one will be able to pierce the veil cast by official pronouncements for public consumption upon the true motives of those who were instrumental in bringing about the mission’s dispatch in the first place. There is, alas, no such thing as undue skepticism in the study of a political event.

So, to begin with, why was the mission in question — which brought with it an offer of an immediate share for Indians in the central government (Zachariah, 2004: 113) if they accepted “a promise of self-government for India via a postwar constituent assembly, subject only to the right of any province not to accede (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — dispatched at all? A useful starting point would be Prime Minister Churchill’s declaration, when announcing in the House of Commons his administration’s decision to send a political mission to India, that:

“The crisis in the affairs of India arising out of the Japanese advance has made us wish to rally all the forces of Indian life to guard their land from the menace of the invader … We must remember also that India is one of the bases from which the strongest counter-blows must be struck at the advance of tyranny and aggression (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 4).”

Japan in the war

Since entering the war just three months earlier, Japan had already shown her might by achieving what Churchill would call “the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history” — namely the surrender of over 70,000 British and Commonwealth troops in Singapore, a British possession, in February 1942 (Palmer, 1964: 299) — and occupying thereafter the British colony of Burma, on India’s eastern border, in March — a development which marked the first time since the outbreak of war in September 1939 that India, Great Britain’s most cherished imperial possession, was directly threatened by the enemy. No such threat (or a vociferous demand for independence) had arisen at the time of World War I, which was why no similar mission (with a concrete offer) had been dispatched then. For over two years after its outbreak, no mission was dispatched during World War II either, even though a clamor for independence, spearheaded by the Indian National Congress (India’s largest political party), was existent this time. It was only the Japanese advance westward that changed the picture. In Burma, the Japanese had been “welcomed as liberators, since they established an all-Burmese government (Palmer, 1964: 63).” To the British, therefore, it was imperative that the Indians were sufficiently appeased, or sufficiently divided, to eliminate the risk of the Japanese finding hands to have the gates of India opened from within —not least because even before Japan entered the war, it had been reported that:

“Arrangements are in progress for an inter-Imperial conference on war supplies to be held in Delhi … [where] it is expected that the Governments of East Africa, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, and Malaya will be represented … to confer … on mutually developing their resources to provide the maximum for self-defence and for Great Britain … India (my emphasis), with her vast and varied resources and her central position, is the natural pivot for such arrangements (The Times, 8 August 1940, page 3).”

Small wonder, then, that the premier should have described the proposals which the Mission would be bringing as “a constructive contribution to aid India in the realization of full self-government (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 5).” But whilst a desire to garner Indian support for repelling the Japanese would seem able to explain why the mission was sent at all (as well as when), would that desire have also been sufficient to elicit on its own a public offer of eventual self-government from an imperialist as committed as Winston Churchill? As late as October 1939, in a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru (one of the principal Indian leaders), the non-party Stafford Cripps, who had established quite a good rapport with Nehru (Nehru, 2005: 224-5), would be writing (with reference to the Chamberlain administration) that:

“I recognise that it is expecting a great deal more than is probable to expect this Government to do anything more than make a meaningless gesture. The addition of Winston Churchill [to the Cabinet, as First Lord of the Admiralty] has not added to the friends of Indian freedom, though he does look at matters with a realism that is an advantage (Nehru, 2005: 398).”

Realism?

Were the Mission’s proposals a (belated) sign of that ‘realism’ then? Even though just six months earlier, shortly after drawing up with President Roosevelt the Atlantic Charter — a declaration of eight common principles in international relations, one of which was “support for the right of peoples to choose their own form of government (Palmer, 1964: 35)” — Churchill had created “a considerable stir when [he] appeared to deny that the Atlantic Charter could have any reference to India (Low, 1984: 155)”? As it turned out, it was realism on Churchill’s part, but without having anything to do with recognizing Indian aspirations. That is because when Churchill announced the Mission, his intended audience were not the Indians at all — not least because they never needed to be. The indispensability of India to the war effort was indisputable, but there was hardly ever any need for Churchill to appease the Indians in order to save the Raj. Simply consider the ease with which the Government of India, notwithstanding the continuing proximity of Japanese forces to the subcontinent, was able to quell the Congress-launched Quit India Movement of August 1942 — which was even described in a telegram to the premier by the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, as “by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far concealed from the world for reasons of military security (Zachariah, 2004: 117).” The quelling anticipated Churchill’s asseveration that “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. For that task, if ever it were prescribed, someone else would have to be found … (The Times, 11 November 1942, page 8).” When British might in India was still a force to be reckoned with, what consideration(s) could have possibly served to have induced the Mission’s dispatch just five months earlier? What would Churchill not have gained had he never sent it?

There are two aspects to that, the second of which also addresses the third of our original questions — namely why the Mission was led by the individual that it was. The first aspect was Churchill’s desire, following the debacle in Singapore, to reassure not just his compatriots but also his indispensable transatlantic allies that something was being done to safeguard resource-rich India from the enemy (Owen, 2002: 78-9). With India “now a crucial theatre of war in the path of Japanese advance, Cripps exploited US pressure to secure Churchill’s reluctant agreement to the ‘Cripps offer’ (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” This was not very surprising, for given that he was president of a country which not only owed her birth to anti-imperialism but had also just subscribed to the Atlantic Charter, Roosevelt could not afford domestically to be seen condoning (British) imperialism anywhere in the world. The American view was that Indian support for fighting Japan would be better secured by conciliation than by repression (The Daily Telegraph, 13 April 1942, page 2), and Roosevelt even sent his personal representative, Colonel Louis Johnson, to India to assist in the negotiations (Clarke and Toye, 2011). Under such circumstances, Churchill could have only confuted the Americans by first making an offer of which Washington approved to the Indians, and then proclaiming the futility thereof after it had been rejected by them (The Daily Telegraph, 1 April 1942, page 3). As he wrote before the Mission’s dispatch to Linlithgow, a fellow reactionary who would do much to sabotage the ‘Cripps offer’ by his (predictable) refusal to reconstruct the Executive Council in accordance with Congress’s wishes (removing thereby any incentive Congress might have had for consenting to postwar Dominion status) (Moore, 2011):

“It would be impossible, owing to unfortunate rumours and publicity, and the general American outlook, to stand on a purely negative attitude and the Cripps Mission is indispensable to proving our honesty of purpose … If that is rejected by the Indian parties … our sincerity will be proved to the world (Zachariah, 2004: 114).”

Public relations

As anticipated, this public relations gesture, “an unpalatable political necessity” for the gesturer (Moore, 2011) and therefore proof of his ‘realism’, worked — all the more after Cripps, who considered neither Churchill nor Linlithgow primarily responsible for his failure in India (Owen, 2002: 88), proceeded to “redeem his disappointment in Delhi by a propaganda triumph, aimed particularly at the USA, with the aim of unmasking Gandhi as the cause of failure. One result of the Cripps mission, then, was … [that] influential sections of American opinion swung to a less critical view of British policy. In this respect, Churchill owed a substantial, if largely unacknowledged, debt to Cripps (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” The ulterior motive behind sending the Mission became evident to some even at the time. As Nehru himself reflected after once more landing in gaol (for his participation in the Quit India Movement):

“The abrupt termination of the Cripps’ negotiations and Sir Stafford’s sudden departure came as a surprise. Was it to make this feeble offer, which turned out to be, so far as the present was concerned, a mere repetition of what had been repeatedly said before — was it for this that a member of the British War Cabinet had journeyed to India? Or had all this been done merely as a propaganda stunt for the people of the USA (Nehru, 2004: 515)?”

A desire, therefore, to satisfy the Americans, who were his intended audience, would explain why Churchill acquiesced in the Mission. But now we come to the other aspect which was alluded to earlier — namely why it was the Cripps Mission. To begin with, Cripps, a non-party person since his expulsion from the Labour Party in January 1939 for advocating a Popular Front with the communists (Kenyon, 1994: 97), had, shortly after the outbreak of war in September, embarked upon a world tour, convinced that “India, China, Russia, and the USA were the countries of the future (Clarke and Toye, 2011)”, and that it would therefore be worth his country’s while to ascertain their future aims. “In India Cripps was warmly received as the friend of Jawaharlal Nehru … [and] though unofficial in status, Cripps’s visit was undertaken with the cognizance of the India Office and was intended to explore the prospects of an agreed plan for progress towards Indian self-government (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But whilst this visit helped establish his bona fides with the Indian leaders and gave him such a knowledge of Indian affairs as would later make him a publiclysuitable choice for leading the Mission (The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 1952, page 7), Churchill had more private reasons for choosing Cripps in 1942 — as we shall now see.

Going abroad

After becoming prime minister in 1940, “Churchill [had] used foreign postings cannily to remove potential opponents and replace them with supporters; as well as Halifax, Hoare and Malcolm MacDonald (who was sent to Canada as high commissioner), he sent five other Chamberlainite former ministers abroad as the governors of Burma and Bombay, as minister resident in West Africa and as the high commissioners to Australia and South Africa. Several others were removed from the Commons through the time-honored expedient of ennobling them (Roberts, 2019: 622).” Similarly, the left-wing Cripps was also sent out of the country — as ambassador to Moscow, where he served for eighteen months, Churchill contemptuously observing when it was suggested Cripps be relocated that “he is a lunatic in a country of lunatics, and it would be a pity to move him (Roberts, 2019: 622).” To us, this remark shows how the Cripps Mission vis-à-vis India was inherently frivolous; for had Churchill considered the fulfilment of its ostensible aims at all important, would he have entrusted the Mission to a ‘lunatic’ (rather than to, say, Leopold Amery, who was his trusted Indian Secretary, and who had already dissuaded him from going to India himself (Lavin, 2015))?

However, after America entered the war, “Churchill [for reasons irrelevant to this essay] came to think Cripps a bigger menace in Russia than at home and sent permission for him to return to London, which he did in January 1942 … [to be] widely hailed as the man who had brought Russia into the war (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — this at a time when Churchill himself was grappling with a weakened domestic position (Addison, 2018), which the fall of Singapore would do nothing to improve. Anxious to win over the non-party Cripps, who was now his foremost rival for the premiership (Roberts, 2019: 714), Churchill “brought him into the government as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” Rather than engage in domestic politics, however, Cripps “chose to invest his windfall political capital in an initiative to break the political impasse in India (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But, “as Churchill may well have calculated in advance, the Mission failed and Cripps’s reputation was diminished (Addison, 2018).” The political threat to Churchill decreased considerably, for failure in India meant that Cripps’s removal as Leader of the House of Commons was “inevitable” (The Times, 22 April 1952, page 6). Who could have aspired to the premiership under such circumstances? The Mission had not even been a gamble for Churchill (who would have never sent Cripps only to add to his political capital), since the offer’s provision, prudently inserted by Amery (Lavin, 2015), for a province’s right to refuse accession to a postwar Indian Dominion was certain to have been welcomed by the Muslim League (India’s foremost Muslim political party) — which had declared its quest for some form of partition as early as March 1940 (with the Lahore Resolution), and the retention of whose support during the war was crucial because the Muslims, “besides being a hundred million strong, [constituted] the main fighting part of the [Indian] Army (Kimball, 1984: 374)” — but equally certain to have been rejected by the Hindu-dominated Congress (which was already irked by the stipulation that Dominion status would be granted only after the war, which nobody at the time could have known would end but three years later). Not for nothing had Churchill privately assured an anxious King George VI shortly after the Mission’s dispatch that “[the situation] is like a three-legged stool. Hindustan, Pakistan, and Princestan. The latter two legs, being minorities, will remain under our rule (Roberts, 2019: 720-1).”

Conclusion

To conclude, given his views on both India and Cripps, it is not surprising that the premier should have entertained a paradoxical desire for the Mission to succeed by failing — which it did. By easing American pressure on Downing Street to conciliate the Indians and politically emasculating Stafford Cripps at the same time, the Mission served both of the purposes for which it had been sent so astutely by Prime Minister Churchill.

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

Bibliography

Addison, P. (2018) Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32413 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Clarke, P. and Toye, R. (2011) Sir (Richard) Stafford Cripps. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32630 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Kenyon, J. (1994) The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History. Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Kimball, W. (1984) Churchill & Roosevelt: the complete correspondence. Volume 1 (Alliance Emerging, October 1933 - November 1942). Princeton University Press.

Lavin, D. (2015) Leopold Charles Maurice Stennett Amery. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/30401 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Low, D. (1984) The mediator’s moment: Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the antecedents to the Cripps Mission to India, 1940-42. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086538408582664 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Moore, R. (2011) Victor Alexander John Hope, second marquess of Linlithgow. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/33974 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Nehru, J. (2004) The Discovery of India. Penguin Books India.

Nehru, J. (2005) A Bunch of Old Letters. Penguin Books India.

Owen, N. (2002) The Cripps mission of 1942: A reinterpretation. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086530208583134 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Palmer, A. (1964) A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945. Penguin Reference Books.

Roberts, A. (2019) Churchill. Penguin Books.

The Daily Telegraph (1 April 1942, 13 April 1942, 22 April 1952)

The Times (8 August 1940, 12 March 1942, 11 November 1942, 22 April 1952)

Zachariah, B. (2004) Nehru. Routledge Historical Biographies.