Otto von Bismarck: The Architect of German Unification

Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) was a German statesman whose name is synonymous with the unification of Germany and the realpolitik approach to diplomacy. Born into a noble family in the Kingdom of Prussia, Bismarck was well-educated and initially embarked on a career in law. However, he was soon drawn into politics, where his career would have a monumental impact on the future of Europe.

Terry Bailey explains.

A portrait of Otto von Bismarck by Franz von Lenbach.

Early life and entry into politics

Bismarck was born in Schönhausen, a small town near Berlin, into a family of Junker nobility. His early life was marked by a rigorous education, first in law at the University of Göttingen and then at the University of Berlin. His political career began in earnest when he became a member of the Prussian Landtag (state parliament) in the 1840s. During this period, he became known for his conservative views and strong advocacy for the interests of the Junker aristocracy.

Bismarck's early political career was largely uneventful, but he gained attention in 1847 when he was appointed Prussia's envoy to the German Confederation in Frankfurt. His time in Frankfurt exposed him to the complex political dynamics of the German states, and it became clear that his ambition was to elevate Prussia to the leadership of a unified Germany. He returned to Prussia in 1851 and was soon appointed to the Prussian cabinet in the House of Lords.

Architect of German unification

In 1862, Bismarck was appointed Prime Minister of Prussia by Wilhelm I, who sought a strong leader to counter growing tensions within the German Confederation. This appointment marked the beginning of Bismarck's full ascendancy in European politics. Bismarck's primary political goal was the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, but he understood that this could only be achieved through a combination of diplomacy, military strategy, and deft manipulation of the various German states.

His most famous and successful diplomacy was the orchestration of the wars that would unite Germany: the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). In each case, Bismarck employed a mix of political maneuvering, military force, and diplomatic alliances to isolate Germany's enemies and win wars that were pivotal for unification.

The Danish War saw Prussia form an alliance with Austria to seize the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark, weakening Austria's influence in the region. The Austro-Prussian War, however, marked a definitive shift in the balance of power. Bismarck cleverly engineered the conflict to ensure that Austria was isolated diplomatically and defeated swiftly. The war led to the exclusion of Austria from German affairs, paving the way for the formation of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.

The final step in the plan came with the Franco-Prussian War. By provoking France into declaring war, Bismarck played on French fears of a united Germany under Prussian leadership, and in the subsequent victory, the southern German states were drawn into the newly formed German Empire. The proclamation of the German Empire in 1871 at the Palace of Versailles was the crowning achievement of Bismarck's career, but it was not the end of his influence.

Strengths

Otto von Bismarck stands as one of history's most formidable statesmen, whose political strength and strategic acumen reshaped 19th-century Europe. Known as the "Iron Chancellor," Bismarck's ability to balance ruthless pragmatism with long-term vision enabled him to unify Germany under Prussian dominance, securing its place as a major European power. His political strength lay not only in his grasp of realpolitik, the politics of pragmatism and power but in his skillful diplomacy, his understanding of timing, and his ability to manipulate complex political landscapes to his advantage.

His unmatched capacity for strategic diplomacy was pivotal in his success. He masterfully exploited the rivalries among Europe's great powers to achieve his objectives while avoiding prolonged wars. For instance, his orchestration of the wars against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870–1871) followed a calculated progression. Each conflict was designed to isolate his enemies, bolster Prussia's influence, and rally German states around a shared national cause. His deft handling of alliances ensured that Prussia remained secure and dominant while his opponents were often outmaneuvered and divided.

As Chancellor, his political strength was equally evident in domestic affairs. His introduction of progressive social reforms, such as Germany's pioneering welfare state, was a strategic move to counteract the growing appeal of socialism among the working class. By providing health insurance, accident insurance, and pensions, Bismarck both stabilized German society and secured the loyalty of key segments of the population. This innovative approach demonstrated his foresight, blending conservative governance with reforms that preempted social unrest.

Another key aspect of the man's strength was his adaptability and control over the political narrative. He was adept at using the press and public opinion to further his goals, exemplified by his manipulation of the Ems Dispatch to provoke France into declaring the Franco-Prussian War. This event unified German states against a common enemy and ensured their allegiance to Prussia. Bismarck's ability to manipulate information for strategic purposes underscored his comprehensive understanding of power dynamics in a rapidly changing world.

His political strength was a combination of his diplomatic brilliance, his willingness to innovate when necessary, and his mastery of realpolitik. His legacy, though complex, remains a testament to the power of strategic foresight and the skillful use of both diplomacy and pragmatism to achieve transformative goals.

Weaknesses

As stated, Otto von Bismarck, is often celebrated as the "Iron Chancellor," and a statesman of unparalleled influence who unified Germany through shrewd diplomacy and strategic warfare. His political strength lay in his ability to manipulate allies and rivals, navigate the complexities of European power dynamics, and create a unified German Empire under Prussian dominance. Yet, even this giant of 19th-century politics was not without weaknesses, both personal and professional, that shaped and sometimes undermined his legacy.

One of Bismarck's greatest weaknesses was his tendency to centralize power to the extent of becoming a micromanager. While this trait allowed him to control the intricate web of alliances and negotiations that defined his foreign policy, it also made his administration overly reliant on his presence. His reluctance to delegate authority left his successors ill-prepared to manage the empire he had built, a flaw that became glaringly evident after his forced resignation in 1890. Without Bismarck's guiding hand, the complex alliances he had forged began to unravel, setting the stage for the geopolitical tensions that culminated in the First World War.

Domestically, Bismarck's authoritarian approach to governance revealed significant weaknesses. While his Kulturkampf sought to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church, it alienated a significant portion of the population, ultimately forcing him to abandon the campaign. Similarly, his Anti-Socialist Laws, intended to suppress the growing socialist movement, failed to address the root causes of workers' discontent, even though he was instrumental in instigating small social changes. By prioritizing suppression over reform, Bismarck inadvertently fueled the very movements he sought to neutralize. His short-sighted domestic policies created long-term tensions that his successors struggled to manage.

His foreign policy brilliance was accompanied by a significant flaw: his emphasis on isolating France to maintain peace in Europe. While his creation of the intricate system of alliances, such as the League of the Three Emperors and the Triple Alliance, kept France diplomatically marginalized, it depended on maintaining a delicate balance between competing powers like Austria-Hungary and Russia. Bismarck's inability to resolve the underlying tensions between these two empires meant that his carefully constructed system was inherently unstable. When Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, the absence of his balancing act left Europe vulnerable to conflict.

On a personal level, Bismarck's paranoia and manipulative tendencies alienated many of his contemporaries. His habit of using crises, both real and manufactured, to consolidate power created distrust among allies and subordinates alike. His relationship with Wilhelm I was often fraught, and his domineering style did not endear him to the young Wilhelm II, who ultimately dismissed him. Bismarck's inability to adapt to changing circumstances and his overreliance on confrontation rather than compromise limited his effectiveness in the later years of his career.

Bismarck's strengths as a political strategist were undeniable, but his weaknesses, an over-centralization of power, inflexibility in domestic policies, an unsustainable foreign policy framework, and a manipulative approach to leadership, cast a long shadow over his achievements. While his legacy as the architect of German unification remains intact, the vulnerabilities in his approach sowed seeds of discord that would later fracture the empire he worked so tirelessly to create.

In conclusion, Otto von Bismarck's life and career stand as a testament to the power of strong, calculated leadership and the profound influence a single individual can have on the course of history. His contributions to the unification of Germany not only redefined the map of Europe but also established Germany as a central power on the world stage. Bismarck's ability to navigate the complex web of 19th-century European diplomacy was unparalleled, as he skillfully maintained peace through a carefully balanced system of alliances designed to preserve Germany's position and prevent large-scale conflicts.

However, his legacy is far from unblemished. While his Realpolitik solidified German unity and stability during his tenure, his policies also fostered a fragile equilibrium that depended heavily on his oversight. His dismissal by Kaiser Wilhelm II disrupted this delicate balance, and the subsequent abandonment of his cautious diplomacy contributed to the volatile environment that would lead to the First World War. Moreover, Bismarck's emphasis on authoritarian governance, repression of socialist movements, and the Kulturkampf revealed a darker side to his statesmanship, which continues to spark debates about the long-term impact of his methods.

Ultimately, Bismarck's legacy is a dual-edged sword. On one hand, he was a visionary who forged a modern German state and achieved unparalleled diplomatic success. On the other hand, the very foundations he laid carried within them the potential for instability and conflict. His life exemplifies both the triumphs and the limits of power, leaving an indelible mark on European history that continues to be studied and debated. Bismarck's story is not just a narrative of unification and strategy but also a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of even the most masterful leadership.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Ems Dispatch

The Ems dispatch (French: Dépêche d'Ems, German: Emser Depesche), sometimes called the Ems telegram, was published on the 13th of July, 1870; it incited the Second French Empire to declare war on the Kingdom of Prussia on the 19th of July, 1870, starting the Franco-Prussian War.

The actual dispatch was an internal telegram sent by Heinrich Abeken from Prussian King Wilhelm I's vacationing site at Ems to Otto von Bismarck in Berlin, describing demands made by the French ambassador concerning the Spanish succession.

Bismarck, the chancellor of the North German Confederation, released a statement to the press, stirring up emotions in both France and Germany.

The name referred to Bad Ems, a resort spa east of Koblenz on the Lahn river, then in Hesse-Nassau, a new possession of Prussia.

The Kulturkampf

In the history of Germany, the Kulturkampf (Cultural Struggle) was the seven-year political conflict (1871–1878) between the Catholic Church in Germany led by Pope Pius IX and the Kingdom of Prussia led by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

The Prussian church-and-state political conflict was about the church's direct control over both education and ecclesiastical appointments in the Prussian kingdom as a Roman Catholic nation and country.

Moreover, when compared to other church-and-state conflicts about political culture, the Kulturkampf of Prussia additionally featured anti-Polish sentiment.

A Remarkable World War 2 Major – John Howard

Major John Howard (December 8, 1912 - May 5, 1999) served as an Officer in the British Airbourne Division during the Second World War. His military career and his reputation were made famous during the early hours of D-Day at the Orne River and Cean Canal Bridge, more famously referred to as Pegasus Bridge. The operation to seize these Bridges from the Germans was of vital importance to the whole of the D-Day invasion. His wartime exploits featured in the iconic war film the Longest Day. In that film Howard was played by actor Richard Todd who in fact served under Howard himself and was present in real life at Pegasus Bridge. Who was this real life hero and what was his story?

Stephen Prout explains.

Major John Howard.

John Howard’s early years

Within Howards own written account he describes his early very ordinary upbringing which was not unusual for families in Britain at the time. He was born in West London in 1912. At school Howard performed well academically, but he would be denied the chance of a place in a secondary school due to the poor state of his family’s finances. He found his outlet as a member of the scouts where he could exercise his passion avidly in outdoor pursuits, boxing, and various other sports he enjoyed. This focus on his physical fitness would serve him well in the following years with his time in the army.

He then began working life starting in a clerical position at a stockbroker. This position was then abruptly cut short by the economic recession of the 1930s. The outlook for most families in Britain at this time was bleak and Howard’s family was no exception and so with few other options Howard joined the British Army where he went on to serve two separate terms.

First enlistment in the army

Howard enlisted in the British Army in 1932, serving in Shrewsbury first as a private soldier and then as a non-commissioned officer until 1938. His first term in the army was not particularly eventful. There were few opportunities for advancement in a peacetime army and his attempts to build a career were limited. Howard also found army life difficult in so much as he did not find settling in easy. His skill at physical fitness soon attracted the attention of his superiors and he performed consistently well on army exams to become became a company clerk and later a physical training instructor.

However when his application for a commission as an officer was rejected, the highest rank he would reach at this stage was to corporal. He therefore left in 1938 to serve as police constable in Oxford. With the outbreak of World War Two John Howard was recalled for duty. This time his army career would be quite different and earn him a small place in the history books.

The Second World War and second enlistment

By September 1939 Britain was once again at war with Germany and Howard began serving a second term in the Army. This would present him with a completely distinct experience from his first spell in the army. This time he would progress multiple times up through the officer ranks. He began his second term as Regimental Sergeant Major in the King's Shropshire Light Infantry and by the time he was in action on June 6, 1944 he advanced to the rank of Major. He was one of the first of many of the allied soldiers in combat within the opening hours of D-DAY at Pegasus Bridge. It would be an event that would make him remembered.

The war changed the culture in the Army but only very gradually. Howard’s first challenge was a familiar one and it was to do with ascension into the higher chain of command in the army. Howard was one of the first officers in the British Army whose rise in rank was not assisted or influenced by the incredibly old and exclusive social class network that was prevalent at the time. It was a network where only select individuals from certain backgrounds were permitted into the officer ranks and these individuals were usually drawn from the wealthy classes.

His progression was a rarity amongst the officer classes, and he would feel this discomfort so much so that this rise in the ranks was not always met with ease. Due to the elitist nature of the British Army Officer class, Howard initially had difficulty establishing himself with the ranks of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, second battalion, initially as Second Lieutenant. The idea of an officer being recruited, progressing, and breaking traditional norms was not common and in many quarters frowned upon by existing officer classes. All this would gradually change as the war progressed. Acceptance eventually came by the time he was promoted to Captain in 1941. His reputation would establish him as a respected leader and by the time his mission on D-Day was over his abilities were never in doubt. He was then swiftly promoted to Major.

The Road to D-Day

Howard soon proved to his peers to be an outstanding, committed, professionally driven officer and he quickly earned their respect. In the months preceding D-Day he trained his men relentlessly, and at the same time also expected no less if not more from his officers. He constantly tested the men and officers’ physical fitness with a combination of continuous training such as day and nighttime maneuvers with regular sporting activities. The results paid off in the way the men performed and quickly executed their mission on D-Day at the Orne River bridges. As his assault began the defending Germans on the bridge were caught by surprise. They were convinced that they were facing a superior if not larger force on that eventful night of June 6.. Howard’s men quickly overcame the defenders. The training had paid off.

Howard prepared his men exceptionally well and he was determined that he and his men would be ready for the tasks that lay ahead. For one exercise he requested that a training ground be found which could resemble the terrain and conditions he and his men expected to face in Normandy to carry out simulations. Such a site was identified and that was near the River Exe in Exeter, Devon.

In that simulation he deployed his men to execute numerous demanding drills and practice assaults. Once the exercises had finished he then had his men march back from Exeter to their base in Oxford. It was a long haul, and they were all met with a mixture of heavy rain and scorching summer weather, but the men and Howard continued to persevere. There were no exceptions with no “officer privilege” as all ranks including Howard were to complete the march together. It earned him the respect of his men.

Howard also expected discipline from his officers when they had finally returned to base and his men were showered, fed, and bedded down. When he was not conducting day or night military training he insisted the men of his D Company were kept active with various sports or cross country runs. By the time Operation Overlord was ready to be launched they were a cohesive professional elite force.

During the training, Howard reported that he suffered constant airsickness and the only occasion he avoided this was on the actual assault on Pegasus Bridge where of course he had other matters on his mind.

Between 1941 and 1942 he moved between ranks as he joined the airborne division and took on D Company. He took a temporary demotion from Captain to take on the command of the glider division, but his rank to Captain was restored in 1942 and he would progress further on to become a Major.

On June 5 there was a lot of anticipation and fraught nerves which were made worse by the waiting as an adverse weather front was not going to settle. Later that day the signs were beginning to show that the weather was turning and so the mission was ready to launch. "D" Company began to mobilize and prepared to board their gliders. The gravity of the moment was not lost. In Major Howard’s words, "It was an amazing sight. The smaller chaps were visibly sagging at the knees under the amount of kit they had to carry.” Prior to boarding Howard attempted to give them a pep talk, "I am a sentimental man at heart, for which reason I don't think I am a good soldier. I found offering my thanks to these chaps a devil of a job. My voice just wasn't my own." Just before eleven o’clock, Howard's glider took off, followed at one-minute intervals by the remainder of his attacking force. One hundred and eighty-one airborne troops were heading into German occupied France in the dead of night.

Operation Overlord and Pegasus Bridge – the strategic importance

There were two Bridges that needed to be taken quickly to assist and progress the planned British landing at Sword beach. It was of vital importance that the Allies denied access to any potential German counterattacking force. Once those bridges were secured the Allies could press further inland to push back the German forces and proceed with their post invasion plans.

Howard had one hundred and eighty men in those initial early hours at his disposal together with the element of surprise. This was a small force but highly professional; however they were only lightly armed therefore in some respects vulnerable at that early stage in the invasion. They landed close to the bridges in their gliders and quickly departed from the fuselage and assaulted the German occupiers while the sentries were either stunned or sleeping.

After quickly overwhelming the defenders, which took less that fifteen minutes, Howard and his men had a long uncertain night ahead. They were alone for the next few hours in German occupied France in the dead of night. They were only lightly armed with every possibility of a strong counterattack until support arrived from the larger invasion force. That support arrived a few hours later with further support coming from Lord Lovatt’s Special Service at midday. The mission was a success, and it became an essential and often referenced story of Operation Overlord’s history.

His citation on his conduct on D-Day reads as follows:

Major Howard was in command of the airborne force which landed by glider and secured the bridges over the River Orne and Caen Canal near Benouville by Coup de main on 6-6-44. Throughout the planning and execution of the operation Major Howard displayed the greatest leadership, judgment, courage, and coolness. His personal example and the enthusiasm which he put behind his task carried all his subordinates with him, and the operation proved a complete success.

In those three months following D-Day Howard distinguished himself, earning the DSO medal.

Re-Posting home, Injury, and the Wars End

Howard returned to England on September 4, 1944. For three months after the taking of the two bridges he and his troops were involved in heavy fighting around Caen as part the continuing Allied advance into Nazi occupied Europe. Howard began originally with one hundred and eighty-one men - by the time of he was returned home only forty remained and he was the only officer left alive. His objectives were met but the cost was high. On his return he was immediately tasked with rebuilding his company and conduct further training in readiness for further operations. However, events took a different turn. He was involved in a car accident in November 1944 where whilst driving at speed he crashed his car inflicting him with life changing injuries.

He remained in this hospital until March 1945, and so played no further part in the war in Europe, missing momentous events such the Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, the crossing of the Rhine, and the invasion of Germany. After being discharged from hospital he was assigned another task. This time the focus was on Asia as the war with Japan continued after Germany surrendered. His job was again to train and condition his 6th Airborne Division for a proposed assault on the Japanese mainland.

During training he was again put out of action by injury. The commander of the 2nd Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry asked Howard if he could be fit in time to resume command to undertake this proposed mission and so Howard immediately began an arduous physical training regime at a running track near his home with only after a few months of recuperation, but he was not fully healed. On his second day of training his hip jammed under the strain of his physical training and his nerves in his right leg deadened. He returned to hospital for a further operation and by the time he was discharged a second time the war in Asia was over.

Celebrating Major John Howard - After the War

There have been accounts that he was discharged quietly without any ceremony that recognized this bravery and contribution, but this is not strictly true. In 1946 he received an audience with King George. Also, in that same year he received the coveted Croix de Guerre avec Palme in France for his wartime heroics at the two famed bridges. As a tribute, Pegasus Bridge aka the Bénouville Bridge was renamed "Esplanade Major John Howard" in his honour. His legacy endured in many ways. Afterwards he went on to lead a quieter life as a public servant in the National Savings Committee and the Ministry of Food.

Later, his part was depicted in the classic film, The Longest Day that brought Operation Overlord to the cinema. However, his career, his rise through the ranks and his final year in the army would be a bittersweet one and not one fitting or expected for such a hero as he was forced to sit the war out from a hospital bed.

His contribution and that of his men at D-Day captured vital strategic objectives against impossible odds. That brief time in the whole of the war was a vital contribution that ensured Operation Overlord’s success. Whatever the duration of time Major John Howard had spent in the war, it is without doubt that those three months he served in active duty has earned him his place in history.

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

The North Side Gang—Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Who was responsible for running this group of gangsters that, while small, caused a lot of trouble for the biggest figure of Chicago’s Underworld? That was none other than Dean O’Banion. Our figurative Robin Hood.

Erin Finlen starts her series here.

Dean O’Banion.

Dean O’Banion

Dean O’Banion, or Dion as he is often misnamed in history, is considered the archetype of Irish Chicago Gangsters. An impulsive, faintly religious, prankster who was oddly chivalrous and loyal to a fault was the original boss of the North Side Gang during Prohibition and his death became the catalyst for what are known as The Beer Wars.

The Death of a Mother

Born in Maroa, Illinois on July 8, 1892, to Charles and Emma O’Banion, Dean was a middle child of three, with a big brother named Floyd and a little sister named Ruth. He was a good student and in one of the only surviving childhood pictures of him, taken at his school in Maroa, it is easy to see a precocious but loving child staring back. Maroa is a small town a few hours’ drive south of Chicago and away from the influences of the big city it is possible that O’Banion would have taken a very different path is things had stayed the same with his happy family to guide him.

Except, Dean was struck by a tragedy that no child is equipped to endure and certainly not back them when there was no therapy or mental health knowledge, not in the way we have now. When he was six years old, O’Banion’s mother passed away from tuberculosis and his world was shattered. He had loved his mother dearly and after her death not only did he lose her, but his father moved him and his older brother to Chicago in an effort to be closer to his own family and for better employment opportunities. His sister Ruth stayed behind in Maroa and ended up living in Kansas and having a family of her own when she was older.

Chicago, it’s His Hometown

The shock of not only losing him mother but then being uprooted from his childhood home and leaving behind his sister was probably traumatic and confusing. It would have given a much less optimistic child a pessimistic and depressed disposition. Dean, however, found that he enjoyed the adventure that was waiting for him.

In Chicago, he was enrolled at Holy Name School on State Street, but school only did so much to curb his impulsiveness and there was no stopping the influences of the neighborhood they lived in an area that was called “Little Hell,” and that lived up to its name with child gangs running the streets.

Then when he was sixteen, he went to hop on the back of a trolley car, slipping when he grabbed the handle, he fell and was hit by the wheels of the trolley. It broke his leg and he walked with a limp for the rest of his life. Given the state of medicine in the early 1900s, he seems to have had some of the luck of the Irish to have not had a worse outcome.

He eventually left school and started working, first as a singing waiter in a saloon, where he met the acquaintance of a criminal named Charles Reiser. Reiser would introduce him to safecracking, although, Dean, always a little trigger happy and impulsive, wasn’t the best at deciding how much nitroglycerin to use. His frame of mind was always ‘more is better’ and he had a tendency to ruin the contents of the safe when he blew it open, once blowing a hole in the wall of the building but leaving the safe unharmed.

Through Reiser and safe cracking he met the man who would become his best friend and right hand man, Earl “Hymie” Weiss.

Robin Hood and Little John

Weiss and O’Banion were friends from the start, a study in opposites. O’Banion was impulsive with a temper that was easily triggered but just as easily satisfied. He was jovial and people were drawn to him, wanting to be his friend. Weiss was serious, with a temper that was terrifying when he was set off and not nearly as easily calmed. Smart and forward thinking he was O’Banion’s perfect foil and the two almost seem to be made to rule the Prohibition scene. Which they began almost as soon as it started, with O’Banion hijacking the first truck and immediately starting his booze running racket. They were very successful and it showed.

They were also regularly in trouble together, but by that point they were able to pay off most juries and judges. When asked why they were robbing a telegraph office O’Banion said he was there to apply for a job. Similarly, when asked why his finger prints were at the scene of the crime, he replied with “That was an oversight. Hymie forgot to wipe them off.”

O’Banion’s biggest passion was the flower shop, Schofield’s, that he had bought stock in with his friend Sam ‘Nails’ Morton. Where Morton was content to be a silent partner, though, O’Banion preferred to work there, getting his hands dirty. One of the most notorious gangsters of his day was unrecognizable humming and arranging bouquets, while helping customers when they came into the shop. The store also his office. On its second floor he ran the North Side Gang, taking calls and meetings, he even installed a couch for Weiss, who was frequently laid low with migraines.

O’Banion loved to dress nicely and dine well. What he didn’t put up with was…well, it was a lot. Once in a restaurant he heard a man yelling at his wife. O’Banion intervened and wrestled the man to the floor. When someone made a barbed remark about them he shot them in a crowded theater. Afterwards, he realized what he had done and apologized, according to a newspaper man at the time, asking him what brand of cigars he should send him. When some of his drivers complained that one of the other men who worked in the garage was gay, he told them to deal with it or leave, that that was just the way the man was and he wasn’t hurting anything.

O’Banion, as evidenced by the man in the restaurant berating his wife, was not one to take a marriage commitment lightly and when he met Viola, who would become his bride. He was immediately smitten. The pair were deeply in love and when he died, she told reporters that the man she knew wouldn’t have hurt a fly. That he only carried a gun because of the danger in the city. Naive? Yes. Lying? Possibly. But it is very likely that the version of him that she knew was not the man who shot people in theaters or took men on one way rides, a term, by the way, that is credited to his best friend, Hymie Weiss.

Two of his other best friends and his other underbosses in the North Side were Vincent Drucci and George Moran. Moran and O’Banion were good friends, but the important one to look at here, is Vincent Drucci. Drucci was a Sicilian who had grown up on the north side of Chicago. When he came home from World War I, he fell in with O’Banion and his friends. Drucci offsets any rumors that O’Banion hated Sicilians, as the two played pranks together and would go to speakeasies, laughing and having a good time. It wasn’t Sicilians that O’Banion hated, it was just one family of them: The Gennas. They are the ones caused the most trouble and who would eventually lead to his death.

The Murder of John Duffy

At the start of 1924, Dean O’Banion was already in a bit of trouble, although no one could really pin the blame on him. A man named John Duffy had been found murdered in a ditch north of the city. His body was found with three bullet holes in it and when police went to his house they found the body of his girlfriend who had been shot dead by Duffy. No one questioned with the regards to the couple seemed at all surprised that Duffy would have murdered her and expressed concern for her. Duffy was not a well-liked man.

It was suspected that Dean O’Banion killed him, as Duffy was last seen getting into a car with O’Banion and one man who authorities later decided was James Monahan, Hymie Weiss’s brother in law, outside of the Four Deuces, an establishment run by South Side leaders Johnny Torrio and Al Capone. The car that police seized in the investigation belonged to Monahan, though he told police that Weiss was paying on the car for him. In Hot Springs, Arkansas at the time, receiving treatment for his headaches, Weiss was released of suspicion.

Some suspect that O’Banion was trying to frame Torrio and Capone for Duffy’s murder by meeting him outside The Four Deuces. However, it is more likely that was simply a way to get Duffy to meet him, as Duffy was believed to have ties to their gang. That fact and the fact that Weiss’s car was used, inadvertently throwing suspicion on O’Banion’s friend, implies that rather than being a plot to frame Torrio, it was another of O’Banion’s impulsive, spur of the moment decisions.

The Sieben Brewery Raid

When Prohibition had started it had been a free for all in Chicago, with everyone trying to steal alcohol and speakeasies from everyone else. Johnny Torrio, according to history, organized the gangs and got them to agree to only sell alcohol in their assigned territories. This had worked out remarkably well, except that The Terrible Genna Brothers, as they were known, a family gang of ruthless killers from the west side of the city refused to back off of O’Banion’s territory. And by May of 1924, O’Banion had had enough, deciding to cut ties with Torrio and the whole situation entirely. Unfortunately, he chose the worst possible way to do it.

Telling Johnny Torrio that he was interested in selling his stock in the Sieben Brewery O’Banion asked him to meet at the brewery to finalize the deal. What Torrio didn’t know but Dean O’Banion did was that on that particular day the brewery was set to be raided by the police. Torrio had already been arrested for violating prohibition once, but O’Banion had not, meaning that he would more than likely get off with a warning, while Torrio was going to have to serve jail time.

Making matters worse, O’Banion didn’t hide that he had been expecting the raid well, shaking hands with the police and in general being in quite a good mood for someone being arrested. It didn’t take much for Torrio to put together what had happened.

When the Genna Brothers found out, they demanded permission to kill O’Banion. The only person stopping them was the leader of Sicilian Union in Chicago, Mike Merlo, who was against violence and urged them not to get revenge. The Gennas and Torrio with their heavy respect for Merlo, agreed. Except it was really just waiting. Merlo was dying of cancer and once he died, there would be nothing standing in their way.

Let the War Begin

Over the summer of 1924, O’Banion was busy as ever. In July he was arrested for violating the Volstead Act again, this time with Hymie Weiss and another gangster, Dan McCarthy. Their trial was put on hold however, as Weiss was too ill to go to court and doctors informed authorities that they weren’t sure Weiss would live long enough to stand trial.

After the second arrest, O’Banion took a brief vacation out west, where he was introduced to a new weapon. The Thompson Submachine Gun. He was extremely interested in them and brought them back with him when he and his wife returned to Chicago.

November 9, 1924, Mike Merlo succumbed to cancer and took with him the stay of execution that he had given O’Banion. The Gennas brought in a hired gun and placed orders for thousands of dollars’ worth of flowers. In spite of them being rivals this was not unusual, Schofield’s was the place to go for your flower order, especially if you were part of the Underworld. That night, after O’Banion had left the shop Jim Genna and another man came in, getting a feel for the shop and picking up $1,000 of the $3,000 worth of flowers they had order from Mr. Schofield, telling him they would get the rest in the morning.

When the car pulled up on the day of the funeral to pick up the order, four men emerged from the car. Frankie Yale, John Scalise, Angelo Genna and Salvatore Ammatuna walked into the shop. According to William Crutchfield who was working that day, sweeping up fallen petals, O’Banion recognized them and asked William to go to the back so he could speak with them. O’Banion didn’t seem suspicious according to him. In fact, he greeted them with an outstretched hand. That was his view as the door to the back room closed behind him. And only a few moments later he heard gunshots. Dean O’Banion had been shot four times and lie dead on the floor of his beloved flower shop. And all hell was about to break loose.

Crutchfield telephoned the authorities who arrived at the shop, with sirens on and began their investigation. Coming down the street, Hymie Weiss and George Moran saw the cars and detoured to Weiss’s mothers house, where he telephoned the shop asking for O’Banion. He was informed of what had happened, and according to Rose Keefe in her book, The Man Who Got Away, silently went into the bathroom and locked the door. Moran had to break it down and when he did he found Weiss sobbing, saying “Everything I have in the world is gone.”

Saying Goodbye

O’Banion’s funeral was the biggest that Chicago had ever seen and it enthralled and disgusted people in equal measure. The funeral itself was attended by many figures of gangland and Torrio and Capone paid their respects as well. A bold move, considering it was generally accepted that they had helped with, if not entirely ordered the hit on the man for whom the funeral was being held. Vincent Drucci and Hymie Weiss cried openly and Weiss was photographed helped Viola, Dean’s widow, after being unable to carry the casket due to his grief.

After the funeral, as the last of the mourners filed out and the gangsters got into their cars and drove away, everyone knew this was not going to end well. Chicago held it’s breathe. The Chicago Beer Wars had begun.

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

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Dean Charles O’Banion. (n.d.). https://www.myalcaponemuseum.com/id158.htm

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

From Red to Clear: The Story of how Coca-Cola was Secretly Delivered to the USSR

Coca-Cola is undoubtedly the most famous soft-drink beverage in the world, and we are all intimately familiar with the iconic red, white, and black color combination. But did you know that Coca-Cola at one point shed its iconic color scheme to sneak its way into the Soviet Union?

It is honestly difficult to imagine Coca-Cola being any other color; it's hardly recognizable, and yet that was precisely the point. All the effort that went into creating what we know today as “Coca-Cola Clear” was done to quench the thirst of a prominent Red Russian.

Here is the story of how the iconic beverage became a small sweet spot in the deteriorating East-West relationship of the Cold War. Chaveendra Dunuwille explains.

Georgy Zhukov, around 1960. Source: Mil.ru, available here.

Coca-Cola and World War II

Allied Forces

Before we get into the actual story, it is important that we comprehend how important Coca-Cola was during the war and its profound impact on both sides of the conflict.

According to Coca-Cola, the company began building its global network in the 1920s, and it significantly expanded during World War II thanks to the visionary thinking of then Coca-Cola president Robert Woodruff. The Woodruff instructed the company to ensure that every American serviceman and woman should be able to get their hands on a bottle of Coke for 5 cents, wherever they were and no matter how much it cost the company. This declaration ended up costing the company $83.2 million in today’s dollars. But Coca-Cola would agree that it was money well spent.

Coca-Cola was seen as an integral part of maintaining morale among US forces in all theaters of the conflict. During the war, Coca-Cola partnered with the United Services Organization (USO) in 1941 and played an important role in the American war effort as a much-needed morale booster for the young GIs. In 1943, General Eisenhowerordered over 3 million bottles of Coca-Cola to North Africa and requested supplies to keep refilling over 6 million bottles every month. In the Pacific theater, when Richard Bong set the American air-to-air victories record, General Henry ‘Hap’ Arnold gifted the aviator with 2 cases of Coca-Cola as a reward. In another instance, the very mention of the name Coca-Cola saved Lt Col. Robert "Rosie" Rosenthal’s life. After being shot down in one of his mission, Roshental was intercepted by advancing Soviet forces. To avoid being mistaken for a German pilot, he began to yell "Roosevelt, Churchill, Stalin, Lucky Strike, Coca Cola, bombing Berlin." This allowed the Soviets to recognize him as an American and helped him return to friendly lines. The show Masters of the Air also features Lt. Rosenthal’s interactions with the Soviets. 

Whether it be Europe, the Pacific, or North Africa, the young GIs could always count on a cool, refreshing bottle of Coca-Cola to remind them of the “taste of home.” In one of their letters home, a US soldier remarked, “If anyone were to ask us what we are fighting for, we think half of us would answer, the right to buy Coca-Cola again.” - Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

Coca-Cola’s ad campaigns of the time heavily leaned on this rhetoric and featured almost exclusively military personnel. Today, these decisions can be credited for fostering the long-standing good relationship between Coca-Cola and the US military.  

In order to keep up with the never-ending demand, the company built over 64 bottling plants across the world and sent over 200 employees to maintain the facilities. The employees that got the crates to the front lines were named the “Coca-Cola Colonels.” While they were civilians, they were issued military uniforms when operating on the front lines and given the rank of technical observer. The Coca-Cola Colonels often endured the same dangers the soldiers faced, and unfortunately, three of them were killed in action.

By the end of the war, Allied service personnel had consumed over 5 billion bottles of Coca-Cola; the company had become a quintessential part of the American identity, and the stage was set for its global expansion.

Nazi Germany

Much like in the US, Coca-Cola was incredibly popular in Germany as well. By 1929 Coca-Cola was being bottled and drunk in Germany, and by 1940, Coca-Cola was the undisputed soft-drink king in Germany, enjoyed by all levels of German society. According to some legends, Hitler himself was rumored to indulge in Coca-Cola while relaxing to watch Hollywood movies.

It would seem that the Atalanta-based company was unfazed and turned a blind eye to the events that were unfolding in the name of business. The company continued to supply its German subsidiary with syrup and other supplies during the early days of the war, and the head of the German subsidiary, Max Keith, is reported to have toured the facilities in occupied Holland and France to take over their businesses.

However, when Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, the US officially entered World War II, and American companies were ordered to immediately halt all business with the enemy. As a result, Coca-Cola HQ cut off its supply of syrup to Germany, leaving Keith stranded and Coca-Cola’s GmBH on the verge of collapse.

But ever resourceful, Keith worked with his chemists to develop a recipe that cleverly worked its way around wartime rationing by using leftovers like fruit shavings and apple fibers. While it may sound unappetizing by modern standards, the new product sold over three million cases and saved Coca-Cola GmBH. After the war, Coca-Cola refined the recipe and reintroduced this drink in April 1955, making its way to the US in 1958. This drink is none other than Fanta.

Breaching the Iron Curtain

It's 1945; World War II has ended, and a new war is on the horizon, a Cold War. The old world order had collapsed, replaced by the clash of ideologies between the two new superpowers, the US and the USSR.

With its actions in World War II, Coca-Cola identified itself around the world as an icon of American culture, and this did not go on well with the Soviet Union. Despite the colors aligning, Coca-Cola’s sweetness could not breach the Iron Curtain as the Soviets viewed it as a tool of western imperialism and wanted to stave off a ‘Cocacolanization’ of the Soviet people.

However, it was during the war that a prominent Russian general, one Georgy Konstantionvich Zhukov, developed a taste for Coke that he just couldn’t seem to shake. General Zhukov is no ordinary general; he was a marshal of the Soviet Union who oversaw some of the Red Army’s fiercest battles, including the legendary Battle of Kursk. He would go on to become the 1st Commander of the Soviet occupation zone in Germany and later the Minister of Defense. Despite all the accolades and the high position in the USSR, not even he could enjoy a bottle of the famed American drink without great personal cost. Thus, he devised a clever plan that would allow him to enjoy his guilty pleasure without getting into hot water with the Communist Party.

Zhukov communicated to his US counterparts that if the iconic caramel coloring could be removed, he could pass the drink off as vodka, arguably Russia’s most famous beverage. As an added layer of security, he also mentioned that the Coke should not be filled in its usual bottles, lest some curious eyes recognize the distinct shape.

General Mark W. Clark communicated Zhukov’s request to President Truman, who then passed on the message to James Forley, the Chairman of the Coca-Cola Export Corporation. After some tinkering, the chemists at Coca-Cola managed to produce a clear variant of the iconic drink and filled it in unmarked straight bottles complete with a white lid that included a red star. Zhukov took the delivery of 50 of these Clear Coke crates, and the rest remains a mystery.

What happened to the Bottles?

We honestly don’t know what happened to those 50 crates. The fate of the Clear Coke seems to be one of those moments in history that have seeped through the cracks. Perhaps Zhukov indulged in guilty pleasure? Or was it confiscated by the Soviets? We may never know.

Did the efforts pay-off for Coca-Cola and the US?

In retrospect, you could say that the effort to make the Clear Coke and deliver it to Zhukov didn’t really pay off in the long or short term for Coca-Cola or the United States.

While Zhukov would have no doubt been personally thankful to his old American colleagues for delivering him the Coca-Cola, the interaction is relegated to history as an interesting footnote, and it did not help mend the deteriorating US-Soviet relations of the period.

At the same time, despite trade restrictions being lowered over time, Coca-Cola was effectively locked out of the Russian market due to clever marketing by their rival PepsiCo, involving the then Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev (a story for another time). Pepsi effectively maintained a monopoly in the Russian market up until 1980 when Coke came into Russia through the 1980 Moscow Olympics.

Can you get Clear Coke today?   

Yes, you can. But Coca-Cola Clear is a Japan exclusive product. Its available in many major Japanese retail stores such as Lawson and Seven-Eleven. But thanks to online shopping and worldwide delivery services, you can enjoy this beverage from almost anywhere in the world.

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

 Sources

●      An American GI’s best friend: Coca-Cola

●      Articles - Rod Beemer | Author · Speaker · Historian 

●      Mark Pendergrast, For God, Country and Coca-Cola (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1993)

●      The USO & Coca-Cola: A Refreshing 80+ Year Partnership

●      How did Coca-Cola grow as an international business?

●      How Fanta Was Created for Nazi Germany - Gastro Obscura

Lost Reminders: Florida Agriculture Before Suburbia

Today, where quiet streets line a suburban Florida neighborhood, a small, bustling town of sorts once stood. When the Everglades were drained in the early 1900s, it created dry land that eventually became host to several Florida cities that were formed in the mid-twentieth century. For many of those new municipalities, agriculture was an interim stage in the history of the area before incorporation took place. One such city, Coral Springs, was the site of a vast farming and ranching enterprise which included a now-forgotten settlement that existed decades before the city was established.

Karl Miller explains.

President Harry Truman at Everglades National Park in December 1947.

Prior to 1900, southern Florida was dominated by the enormous Everglades wetlands area, precluding development of much of the region.  Florida leaders launched the Everglades Drainage District in 1913, a body that oversaw the construction of a series of canals to drain the wetlands. The success of these efforts led to an increase in available real estate, helping to create the Florida land boom of the 1920s.

1920s and 1930s

Henry Lawrence Lyons (1893-1952), a farmer based in Pompano Beach, a city in Broward County on the southeast Atlantic coast, began his Florida career in earnest in the 1920s. A Georgia native, Lyons participated in the real estate boom, purchasing tracts of vacant property several miles inland and gradually building up a sizeable ownership while also serving two terms as a county commissioner. This buying activity was capped by an enormous 6,200-acre purchase in 1934, property that would later become Coral Springs. (1)

Using heavy mechanical equipment, Lyons and his workers cleared his holdings of natural vegetation, occasionally resorting to dynamite for more difficult situations. He dug his own system of canals to increase drainage from the grounds, made gravel roads, and created three-acre plots throughout the area. Lyons then planted crops, predominantly green beans, which were harvested by a seasonal team of 600 laborers, then sent to a facility in Pompano Beach which cleaned and sorted the crop before packaging them for distribution across the United States.[1]  By 1938, his operations were “on a tremendous scale, his payrolls gigantic” with shipments running “. . . into the millions of packages.” ([2]) When the 1930s ended, his enterprise expanded further to include cattle raising. 

While Lyons lived in Pompano Beach, his roughly one hundred permanent employees lived year-round in the workers quarters, described by a 1939 visitor:

      . . . at the center of the farm there is a veritable town – a cluster of buildings which
      includes hurricane-proof cabins . . . anchored in concrete foundations.  Here are the

      stables, sheds, and the machine shop, which has just about every gadget imaginable

      for making home repairs to the fleet of tractors, trucks, plows, listers, planters,

      ground dusters, and countless other machines . . . ([3])

The group of buildings was the nucleus of farm activity. Workers were largely African American, including sharecroppers Lyons brought from Georgia with the promise of employment during the Great Depression. They worked long hours in the fields and dealt with a range of perils including mosquitoes, alligators, poisonous snakes, and extreme heat, before returning each day to their quarters. Their efforts were a main component driving Broward County green bean production from a 1930 reported value of $800,529 to 1950 sales of $5,638,227. ([4])

Post-war period

In 1945, the United States Geological Survey created a map of Pompano Beach, including the Lyons farm. Far removed to the west from the nearest part of the city, a cluster of over two dozen structures appeared in the middle of the farm just north of Pompano Canal. Today, it would have been located close to Three Mountains Park, a city recreational area near the intersection of Riverside Drive and Atlantic Boulevard. ([5])

In 1952, Lyons died, and ownership of his estate passed to Lena, his wife. She ran the farm for ten years before selling the entire property in 1962 for one million dollars to Coral Ridge Properties, a South Florida development corporation looking to meet enormous post-war demand for suburban housing. Coral Springs was formally incorporated by an act of the Florida legislature the following year, and agricultural operations wound down to a close.

As a planned community, Coral Springs was built according to an intentional design. A series of aerial views taken regularly by Broward County from 1963 onward showed as construction gradually changed the landscape around the old buildings until they were finally demolished in the mid-1970s. ([6]) A subdivision named Shadow Wood then rose over the site, leaving no trace of the Lyons era behind.

While the rapid growth of Florida in the twentieth century seemed to almost create residential areas from thin air, the land had a past. As with many other new Florida cities of the time, Coral Springs was built on ground that had previously been agricultural. While gone now, the farm it followed had itself supplanted the natural state of the environment, transforming it and preparing it, in a way, for the next phase in the history of the area.

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

[1] Clarence Woodbury, “Titan of the Bean Patch,” The Country Home Magazine 63(1), January 1939.

[2] Fort Lauderdale News, November 30, 1938.

[3] Woodbury, “Titan of the Bean Patch.”

[4] United States Census Bureau, 1930 Census: Agriculture Volume 2. Reports by States, with Statistics for Counties and a Summary for the United States, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, accessed December 18, 2024 at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1930/agriculture-volume-2/03337983v2p2ch07.pdf; United States Census Bureau, 1950 Census of Agriculture. Part 18: Florida, Statistics for Counties. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, accessed December 18, 2024 at https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/agriculture-volume-1/34059685v1p18ch2.pdf.

[5] United States Geological Survey, Fort Lauderdale North Quadrant, Scale 1:24000, Washington, DC, 1945.

[6] Broward County Urban Planning Division, Aerials 1963 to 2000, Broward County, Florida, Township 48, Range 41, Section 34, 2000, accessed December 17, 2024 at https://www.broward.org/Planning/Pages/GIS.aspx.

Just when did American, French and German Forces Fight Together in World War 2?

War is full of unlikely stories, isn't it? But what happened at Castle Itter in May 1945 almost defies belief. Imagine this: American soldiers, disillusioned German troops, and French political prisoners standing shoulder to shoulder to fend off a Waffen-SS attack. It sounds like something out of a dramatic wartime novel, or a late-night history channel special, but it's not. This really happened, complete with all its strange twists and turns.

Richard Clements explains.

Major Josef Gangl.

Castle Itter: A Fortress of Contrasts

Nestled above the Austrian village of Itter, Castle Itter has seen its share of transformations over the centuries. Originally a medieval fortress, it evolved into a 19th-century Alpine retreat, the kind of place you'd imagine travelers visiting for fresh air and sweeping mountain views. Picture it: quiet mornings with coffee on the terrace, surrounded by the majesty of the Tyrolean Alps. But history has a way of disrupting even the most tranquil settings.

In 1938, when Nazi Germany annexed Austria, the castle's fate changed dramatically. The Nazis took over and, by 1943, had turned this once-idyllic spot into a high-security prison for France's most influential captives. I've always found it jarring to imagine, a place that once welcomed guests with charm now holding figures like former French premiers Édouard Daladier and Paul Reynaud under lock and key. The contrast between its picturesque exterior and the grim reality inside is hard to shake.

Desperation and Calls for Help

By early May 1945, the Third Reich was in free fall. Hitler was dead, Allied forces were advancing on all fronts, and German command structures were collapsing. Castle Itter's SS guards, sensing the end, fled their posts. For the prisoners, their temporary freedom was bittersweet. They were unarmed, surrounded by hostile forests teeming with Waffen-SS troops, and unsure of their fate.

Their first hope came in the form of Zvonimir Čučković, a Yugoslav handyman. Risking everything, Čučković slipped out of the castle with a plea for help. He eventually reached American troops near Innsbruck. Meanwhile, Andreas Krobot, the castle's Czech cook, pedaled to the nearby town of Wörgl, where he found Major Josef Gangl, a Wehrmacht officer who had turned against the Nazis. Gangl was already working with Austrian resistance fighters to protect local civilians from SS reprisals.

Gangl's decision to side with the Allies wasn't simple. A decorated veteran of the Eastern Front, he had seen more than his share of the horrors inflicted by Nazi ideology. By May 1945, his disillusionment was complete. Protecting the prisoners at Castle Itter wasn't just a strategic choice; it was a deeply personal stand against a regime he no longer believed in.

An Unlikely Alliance

Gangl sought out Captain Jack Lee, a tank commander in the U.S. 12th Armored Division. When I picture their first meeting, I imagine a tense moment. Gangl, a former enemy, approaching with a white flag, hoping the Americans wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later. To Lee's credit, he listened. Gangl explained the situation, and the two men devised a rescue mission. It wasn't a large force – just a handful of American soldiers, some of Gangl's defecting troops, and Lee's Sherman tank, nicknamed Besotten Jenny.

By the time they reached the castle, night was falling, and tensions were high. Inside the castle, the prisoners had armed themselves with whatever they could find. Jean Borotra, the French tennis star, had taken charge of organizing them, though most were untrained in combat. Lee and Gangl knew they were outnumbered and outgunned, but retreat wasn't an option.

The Battle Begins

The Waffen-SS launched their attack at dawn on May 5, 1945. Machine gun fire rained down on the castle, and the SS deployed a formidable 88mm flak cannon. Besotten Jenny provided critical support until it was destroyed by enemy fire. The defenders, American GIs, Wehrmacht defectors, and French prisoners, fought side by side. Gangl, ever the protector, was killed by a sniper while trying to shield one of the French leaders from harm.

Jean Borotra was an unexpected figure in this story. A celebrated tennis champion and former French official, he seemed far removed from the violence of war. Yet, by the time he stood with a rifle in Castle Itter, the choice was clear, fight or face certain death. His courage, like that of many others in this strange battle, was a testament to the resilience of those thrust into unimaginable circumstances.

As the situation grew desperate, Borotra volunteered for a daring mission. Scaling the castle wall, he slipped past enemy lines to find reinforcements. It's hard not to marvel at his courage. Imagine sprinting through a war zone, unarmed, knowing that every step could be your last. But Borotra succeeded. He reached a nearby U.S. unit, and by mid-afternoon, reinforcements arrived. Tanks rolled up the hill, scattering the SS and securing the castle.

Relief and Redemption

By the time the battle ended, the defenders had achieved the impossible. Around 100 SS soldiers were captured, and the castle was safe. But the victory came at a cost. Major Gangl's death was a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who stood against tyranny, even at great personal risk.

Gangl was posthumously honored as a hero of the Austrian resistance, with a street in Wörgl named after him. Captain Lee was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross for his leadership. The French prisoners, including Borotra, returned to France as symbols of resilience and survival.

A Moment of Shared Purpose

The Battle of Castle Itter is more than a bizarre historical event – it's a stark reminder of how humanity can emerge in even the darkest moments of war. Think about it: American soldiers and disillusioned Germans, once fierce adversaries, joining forces to defend French prisoners. For a few hours, all the labels – enemy, ally, prisoner, faded, leaving behind something simpler and more profound: the will to survive together.

When I reflect on this story, it's the humanity that stands out. War often draws hard lines between people, but this battle reminds us that those lines aren't as immovable as they seem. Sometimes, shared danger is enough to bring people together, even when everything else says they should be divided.

The Castle Today

Castle Itter still stands, quiet and unassuming, on its hill above the village. Its weathered stones, scarred from the events of May 1945, seem almost reluctant to reveal the extraordinary story they witnessed. To me, that makes its story even more compelling. It's not just a relic of history; it's a reminder of what can happen when courage and circumstance push people to rise above the divisions of war.

This is a tale worth telling, not just for its strangeness, but for the glimpse it offers into the complexities of human nature. The walls of Castle Itter hold more than memories; they hold a legacy of unity in the face of chaos.

 

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.

 

References

·       Bell, Bethany. "The Austrian Castle Where Nazis Lost to German-US Force." BBC News, 7 May 2015.

·       Harding, Stephen. The Last Battle. Da Capo Press, 2013.

·       Rampe, Will. "Why the Battle of Castle Itter Is the Strangest Battle in History." The Spectator, 28 April 2022.

·       Wands, Christopher. "Strange History: The Battle of Castle Itter." The Historians Magazine, 2022.

·       Various authors, "Battle of Castle Itter," Wikipedia, accessed 2023.

Virginia Woolf and the Dreadnought Hoax of 1910

In February 1910, a group of six friends played a prank on the British Navy. Newspapers proclaimed it the Dreadnought hoax after the battleship that they targeted. Among the group was Virginia Stephen. She later became known as Virginia Woolf; author of such classics as Mrs. Dalloway (1925), To the Lighthouse (1927), Orlando: A Biography (1928), and A Room of One’s Own (1929).

Michael Mirra explains.

Virginia Woolf, circa 1902.

The Prankster Horace Cole

A hoax is a deception that is intended to be discovered in order to ridicule someone or something. Those being ridiculed may include authority figures or established conventions, rules, and world views. Differing from forgeries, which are intended to go unnoticed, hoaxes require an audience to witness the victim being tricked and to mock the situation. This public attention prevents possible cover-ups and destabilizes the victim’s power.

The presumed leader of the Dreadnought hoax was a man named Horace de Vere Cole. He had previously joined the army and fought in the Second Boer War, which the British referred to as the South African War. By 1899, the British were interested in gold mines found in the Transvaal region, located in the northeastern part of South African Republic, and wanted voting rights given to foreign temporary residents. The Boers (South Africans of Dutch, German, and Huguenot descent) from the Transvaal declared war and defended the region with guerilla tactics. Larger British numbers, a scorched-earth policy affecting food supplies, and an urgency to save dying Boer women and children held in concentration camps contributed to the Boers surrendering in 1902. Part of the peace treaty conditions resulted in an alliance of the British and the Boers against Black Africans. We will return to this topic later.

During the war, Horace was wounded. Virginia, who described him as a “very charming” and “wild young man,” suggested that his injuries and struggle with hearing loss led to him becoming a practical joker. According to her, he could not take up any profession, and being a man with a “good deal of money,” he made it his profession “simply to make people laugh.” In one of his pranks, he dressed as a city worker and stood outside the Bank of England. He then roped off a space in the middle of the street, holding up traffic, and began to pickaxe the pavement. After he made a large hole, he walked away. Allegedly, it was hours before the police discovered that it was not official road work.

The Zanzibar Hoax of 1905

Despite Virginia’s suggestion, Horace at least had ideas of a profession when he became an undergraduate student after returning from the war. It was at Trinity College, Cambridge that he befriended Virgnia’s younger brother, Adrian Stephen. In March of 1905, Horace recruited Adrian for a hoax. The Sultan of Zanzibar, Sayyid Ali bin Hamud al-Busaidi, happened to be visiting London. At the time, Zanzibar was a British Protectorate made up of two islands off the coast of East Africa. It later united with Tanganyika on the mainland to form the United Republic of Tanzania. Horace and Adrian, with three friends, sent a telegram to the Mayor of Cambridge, Algernon S. Campkin, on behalf of the sultan. They claimed that he would be visiting Cambridge later that day and asked if the mayor could show him around.

After the mayor agreed, four of the pranksters dawned embroidered robes, fake beards, and blackface makeup. Adrian wore a headscarf while three of them (Bowen Colthurst, Horace Cole, and Leland Buxton) wore turbans. The fifth member (“Drummer” Howard), acting as their “translator,” wore a suit and overcoat. All had western pants and shoes on.

The disguised party boarded the train at the Liverpool Street Station and made their way to Cambridge. The actual sultan was visiting Buckingham Palace. When the pranksters arrived in Cambridge, they showed caution by claiming that the sultan’s uncle “Prince Mukasa Ali” was standing in for him. Horace acted as the made-up uncle. The mayor and the town clerk greeted the group and brought them in front of a large crowd at Cambridge Guildhall. When directed toward King’s College Chapel, the group refused to enter. They claimed religious reasons, possibly to leave before any detection. Returning to the train station, the group ran back outside and jumped into Hansom cabs that drove them into the country to change their clothes.

The Zanzibar hoax was revealed in The Daily Mail two days later to the embarrassment of the Mayor of Cambridge. The mayor threatened to have the students expelled, but the vice chancellor of the college ultimately did not deem the hoax worthy of expulsion. Virginia, speaking in 1940, recalled thinking it was a “very silly thing to do.” She worried about her brother being able to finish his degree and become a lawyer.

Planning the Dreadnought Hoax

Five years later, Horace and Adrian planned to repeat the Zanzibar hoax. According to Virginia, Horace had a friend in the navy, most likely on the H.M.S. Hawke. There were rivalries in the navy and the younger officers liked to play jokes on each other. This friend asked Horace to play a joke on the H.M.S. Dreadnought. A dreadnought is a type of battleship with the largest range weaponry of its time. The majority of its guns were 12-inch instead of smaller sizes, and it used turbines instead of steam engines. Earlier “pre-dreadnought” battleships were then considered “obsolete.” Its conception was significant because a dreadnought-building race began between Britain and Germany. By the start of World War I, Britain had nineteen dreadnoughts and Germany thirteen. The H.M.S. Dreadnought was a specific dreadnought. It was the first of its kind, having launched in 1906, and was the flagship of the British Home Fleet from 1907-1912. For this hoax, the admiral of the fleet would replace the mayor, and the Emperor of Abyssinia (modern Ethiopia) would substitute for the Sultan of Zanzibar. Substituting one African nobility for another, however, suggests that the hoaxers believed Black peoples were interchangeable.

As they laid their plans, Horace and Adrian recruited four friends. Two of these friends dropped out days before the hoax was set to take place. This was when Virginia entered the story. Horace went to see Adrian at his and Virginia’s 29 Fitzroy Square residence in the Bloomsbury district of London. Virginia was there when Horace explained the situation to Adrian, which led to the two revealing the hoax plans to her. She volunteered to take one of the vacant places. By chance, their friend Duncan Grant stopped by that night and he took the other spot. The remaining two friends were Anthony Buxton and Guy Ridley.

Anthony was chosen to impersonate the Emperor of Abyssinia. However, Emperor Menelik II faced declining health including a minor stroke in 1906 and a partially paralyzing stroke in 1909. Empress Taitu, his wife, had an active role as his advisor and her influence grew during these years. Soon after, Menelik named his fifteen-year-old grandson, Lij Iyasu, his heir apparent. Due to Iyasu’s age, the general and statesman Ras Tesemma Nadow was assigned his regent. Rumors spread that the empress was organizing a resistance to stay in power. It was not until March of 1910, a month after the Dreadnought hoax, that Ras Tesemma prevailed over Empress Taitu. This situation complicates who would have been visiting England at this time and who Anthony should have been correctly impersonating. It is likely that the hoaxers assumed Menelik was still capable because that is who is often referenced.

During the following days, the group went to the shop of costume designer Willy Clarkson in Westminster. They claimed that they were going to a “fancy dress ball.” According to Virginia, Clarkson saw through the lie and was on board with aiding a hoax. At another location, they bought a Swahili grammar book from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel. While Swahili was not widely spoken in Abyssinia, it was spoken in Zanzibar. The accurate choice would have been Amharic. Regardless, they spent time attempting to learn Swahili.

The Dreadnought Hoax of 1910

On the morning of the hoax, Clarkson arrived at the home of the Stephen siblings and personally put the wig and blackface makeup on Virginia who was playing a prince. She also wore a turban, fake beard, gold chain, and a royal red satin caftan. Clarkson warned her not to drink or eat, for liquid or the warmth of food could cause her makeup to run. This time, Adrian was acting as the “translator,” so he only wore a bowler hat, fake beard, and a suit with a long coat.

Virginia and Adrian met up with the rest of the group at Paddington Station. There was a first class carriage reserved for the “Emperor of Abyssinia and suite.” Horace, wearing a top hat and suit, was posing as an official from the Foreign Office, which handled affairs between Great Britain and foreign powers. Duncan, Anthony, and Guy were dressed similar to Virginia with turbans, robes, and blackface.

Before the train left the station at 12:40, a telegram was forged to Admiral William May. Another friend, Tudor Ralph Castle, was enlisted solely to send the telegram. It read that “Prince Makalen of Abbysinia [sic]” and suite were arriving in Weymouth (the home of the fleet) at 4:20 and that he wished to see the Dreadnought. It was signed “Harding” [sic], misspelling Charles Hardinge who was the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign Office. It is possible that “Prince Makalen” was an inconsistency with their plan or that the “emperor” was an error in their accounts of the hoax. The intention of sending the telegram with short notice was to make sure the admiral did not have any time to check its validity.

Once the train arrived at Weymouth Station, a uniformed naval officer named Peter Willoughby greeted them with a salute. A red carpet was then unfurled and barriers put up to keep the gathering crowd away. The group walked down it in pairs while onlooking men raised their hats and women bowed. Marines presented their arms and the group bowed for them. According to Virginia, they purposely did not smile, believing that native princes should be “severe and dignified.” Willoughby saluted them once more as they entered a car that took them to the pier where marines in blue jackets stood at attention.

The admiral’s steam launch took the group to the Dreadnought. As they approached, they heard the sounds of military music being played. Coincidentally, it was the Zanzibar National Anthem, for the navy could not get the music for the Abyssinian anthem in time.

After boarding, Admiral May bowed and saluted them. Standing nearby was the commander of the Dreadnought, William “Willy” Fisher, who happened to be Virginia and Adrian’s first cousin. He did not recognize Virginia in her costume. According to her, after Fisher looked at Adrian, he said something inaudible to the nearby captain of the Dreadnought. This man was Captain Herbert William Richmond, who was also a friend of the Stephen siblings. In a moment that could have revealed the hoax, luck was on their side and Adrian was not recognized either.

Admiral May suggested, to Adrian and Horace, that “His Majesty” would like to know the different divisions of marines; possibly that the admiral’s center squadron flew red ensigns, the vice admiral’s van squadron flew white ensigns, and the rear admiral’s squadron flew blue ensigns. This put Adrian’s translation skills to test. There was a member of the Dreadnought that spoke Amharic. Fortunately, he was on leave that day. According to Adrian, he “could hardly remember two words” of the Swahili he had practiced. Instead, he broke up and mispronounced words he remembered from Homer, Ovid, and Virgil. It was later reported in newspapers that the “Abyssinians” responded with “bunga-bunga,” and Virginia specifically with “chuck-a-choi.” Some reports described “bunga-bunga” as a catchphrase said in unison at “every fresh sight.” This chorus de-individualizes actual Abyssinians and creates an image of them being amazed at every achievement of Western Civilization. Both Stephen siblings denied the use of these words.

At this point, Admiral May handed over tour duties to Fisher and Richmond. He had planned a day of golf and only left it to greet the “emperor.” The tour included the living quarters, the mess, and the battleship’s equipment. They saw the guns, rangefinders, compasses, and wireless equipment. In order to see this technology, they climbed a ladder onto an observation mast. There was a breeze and it began to rain. Virginia noticed Duncan’s mustache being blown by the wind, revealing his white skin underneath. She nudged Adrian who took Duncan aside to fix the mustache. Adrian had an umbrella, but there were too many people to cover. Therefore, he talked to Richmond about “the heat of the Abyssinian climate and the chill of England.” The captain took the hint and led the group below deck, showing off the officer’s bathrooms.

The tour now led to the wardroom and drinks were offered. To avoid ruining anyone’s makeup, Adrian said that the Abyssinians did not drink alcohol of any kind. Nonalcoholic drinks were then offered, but Adrian said that the Abyssinians did not drink or eat until after sunset and unless it was prepared in a certain way for religious reasons. This was probably what the hoaxers believed to be Islamic traditions. However, Christianity had been the official religion of Abyssinia for over 1500 years. This shows that they were mimicking their expectations and not the reality.

When the tour was ending, an officer asked Adrian if the “emperor” would like a twenty-one gun salute as he left the battleship. Virginia later said that “by this time we had all of us begun to be slightly ashamed of ourselves.” She felt guilty of abusing their hospitality. Adrian declined the offer claiming that the “emperor” wished to suspend any further ceremony.

Marines in blue and red lined up on the deck and saluted as the group returned to the steam launch. Willoughby escorted them back to the pier, pointing out the sites on the way. According to Virginia, he pointed out the H.M.S. Hawke. She imagined the officers on board watching them through spy glasses and laughing. Horace took a case out of his pocket containing a star with jewels, provided by Clarkson. This prop medal represented the Order of the Star of Ethiopia, which was a real award created by Emperor Menelik II in five levels (Knight Grand Cross, Grand Officer, Commander, Officer, and Member). Horace presented it to Willoughby in acknowledgment of the courtesy he had shown “His Majesty” and the “princes.” Willoughby graciously declined stating that he was not allowed to accept an honor from a foreign power.

A car took the group back to the train station, the red carpet, and their first class carriage. As the train left, the “emperor” looked at the people of Weymouth from the window and raised his hands to his forehead. It was now 6:00 in the evening. A meal was arranged to be served in their compartment once the dining carriage was open. Waiters brought in a table. Horace was not done with the hoax, though. He informed the waiters that they could not serve the “emperor” dinner without wearing white gloves, for he could not take a plate from a man with bare hands. The train was held at the next stop while the men left to purchase white gloves. The group did not change out of their costumes until they were home.

Aftermath

The next day, Horace had the group photographed in costume. According to Virginia, she believed it to be a private souvenir of the hoax. It was not long after that she saw the photograph printed in The Daily Mirror with news of their exploit making the front page. A hoax requires an audience after all. The article did not report anyone’s name except for Horace who had leaked the story to The Daily Express and Mirror. Adrian also claimed that Horace acted without his knowledge.

More newspaper articles were followed by questions being asked by members of parliament. Some responded with laughter. However, the hoax reflected the credit of the navy, showed that anyone could forge a telegram to the admiral of the fleet, and raised suspicions of German spies being shown secret equipment. Afterward, Adrian and Duncan apologized to the First Lord of the Admiralty, Reginald McKenna, and explained that they did not mean harm against the admiral or any officers. They were let off with a warning about the hoax. McKenna was stern that the forgery could have led to jail time. However, pursuing the case would bring more publicity, so a light fine was given.

The apology appeased the House of Commons, but not the navy. Young boys would run up to Admiral May and other marines in the street, yelling “bunga-bunga” at them. Fisher eventually learned who was involved. He visited Adrian in a fury and demanded the addresses of the others. Virginia heard their voices from upstairs. Years later, she wrote in a letter that she did not remember seeing her cousin again.

Fisher and three navy officers took a taxi straight to Duncan’s house. Duncan was sitting down to breakfast when they pulled him into the taxi. Somewhere around Hampstead Heath, they got out to cane him. According to Virginia, it was “two ceremonial taps.” He rode the tube home in his slippers despite being offered a ride home from his abductors. Horace received a similar symbolic punishment. For him, it was six ceremonial taps to his backside, which he was allowed to give back. Virginia’s punishment was being called “a common woman of the town” in the mess.

Evaluating History

Biographers often praise Virginia’s involvement, claiming that she decided to take part in the hoax as an expression of solidarity with oppressed groups against imperialist racial hegemonies. To begin supporting this claim, she may have been influenced by the history of radicalism in her family. Her grandfather, Sir James Stephen, drafted the Slavery Abolition Act of 1833. Her godmother, Julia Margaret Cameron, photographed Prince Alemayehu of Abyssinia in British drapery with his British caretaker, Captain Tristram Speedy, holding a lion-skin tippet. This reversed a racist political cartoon that depicted Britannia jailing Emperor Tewodros II, Alemayehu’s father, wearing a feathered headdress. Virginia’s father, Leslie Stephen, opposed slavery in the United States. He also wrote about racism behind British colonialism, believing that the Second Boer War could have been prevented and fearing that England would invade Abyssinia. England did support Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia in 1896. It is suggested that the closest child to Leslie was Virginia and that she was his literary successor. Her interest in his writings could have left an impression.

At the time of the hoax, Virginia was working on a draft of her first novel, The Voyage Out (1915). Its characters are implicated in colonialism, which she linked to racism and sexism. While set in South America, there are allusions to Africa and Abyssinia. Anti-imperialist views are typically interpreted in many of her later works such as The Waves (1931) and Three Guineas (1938). At the very least, she made an expression of solidarity in literature.

Many of the same writings are remembered for their discourse on gender issues. Her challenge of patriarchy is seen as extending back to the hoax. Wearing a beard and acting as a man signaled her stance. Biographers claim that she was ridiculing masculine establishment in the form of the British Navy. Her short story “A Society” (1921) featured a character named Rose who disguised herself as an Ethiopian prince, went aboard a British ship, and received six light taps on the behind as punishment. The story, however, comments on the ramifications of male civilization. The connections between her experiences and Rose have led to the belief that her role in the hoax was a comment on patriarchal values.

Lastly, Virginia married Leonard Woolf in 1912. While he did spend seven years as a colonial administrator in Ceylon (modern Sri Lanka), he returned to England as a vocal opponent of colonialism. He similarly put his views into his novels. Together, they founded the Hogarth Press giving more opportunity for Virginia to publish political writings and reason to view her as standing against oppression.

This claim ignores Sir James Stephen’s role in the British Empire, having served as Counsel to the Colonial Board of Trade. He was nicknamed “Mister Mother-Country” for his devotion to the ideals of the empire. Julia Margaret Cameron’s first major photography exhibit lionized men who opposed abolition in the United States and supported Britain's invasion of Abyssinia. Leslie Stephen preserved England’s nation-builders in the Dictionary of National Biography (1882), perhaps his most famous work. All were complicit with colonialism. As for their potential influence on Virginia, when England supported Italy’s invasion of Abyssinia, she wrote, “What is it all about, and which side am I?” in a letter to her older brother Thoby.

Virginia reported that she entered the hoax for fun. She could have been just as easily influenced by hearing about her brother and his friend’s exploits. In her own account, she presented the hoax as an adventure, expressed remorse, and did not discuss colonialism.

The hoaxers revealed the navy’s ignorance of Abyssinia at the cost of their own. Speaking Swahili and going along with assumed Islamic practices for an Amharic-speaking nation with one of the longest ties to Christianity shows Virginia’s ignorance of the oppressed. There is also the glaring matter of blackface. This was not the only time that Virginia wore blackface makeup. Virginia and her older sister, Vanessa Bell, attended curator Roger Fry’s Post-Impressionist Ball in 1911. In Vanessa’s words, “we wore brillant flowers and beads, we browned our legs and arms and had very little on beneath the draperies.” While this was in response to London audiences’ negative reaction to Fry’s inclusion of non-Western subjects, it did not stop Virginia from using the n-word when writing about another one of Fry’s shows.

Biographers are often quick to claim that Horace and Adrian were not politically motivated by the hoax. Instead, they label them as crude jokesters who probably thought African royalty was inherently funny. In this view, unlike Virginia, they were not interested in ridiculing imperialism or the masculine establishment. Adrian was not interested in his father’s writings and neither of them were particularly studious on history or politics.

This claim may be true for Horace. He was already complicit with colonialism through his involvement in the Second Boer War. His record of pranks, which he favored over studying for exams, does not help his case.

Adrian may deserve more credit. His account reads as anti-militarist and anti-authoritarian. This was something that Virginia’s account lacked. According to Adrian, “anyone who took up an attitude of authority over anyone else was necessarily also someone who offered a leg for everyone else to pull.” He described “armies and suchlike bodies” as “almost irresistible” targets for a hoax. His views were cemented by adding “I do not know either that if everyone shared my feelings towards the great armed forces of the world, the world would not be a happier place to live in.” Perhaps he was the most likely of the hoaxers making a statement.

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

Works Cited

Asserate, Asfa-Wossen. King of Kings: The Triumph and Tragedy of Emperor Haile Selassie I of Ethiopia. London, Haus Publishing, 2015.

Greacen, Robert. “The Dreadnought Hoax.” Books Ireland, no. 236, 2000, pp. 372–372. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/20632234. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Johnston, Georgia. “Virginia Woolf’s Talk on the Dreadnought Hoax.” Woolf Studies Annual, vol. 15, 2009, pp. 1–45. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24907113. Accessed 11 Dec. 2024.

Kennard, Jean E. “Power and Sexual Ambiguity: The ‘Dreadnought’ Hoax, ‘The Voyage out, Mrs. Dalloway’ and ‘Orlando.’” Journal of Modern Literature, vol. 20, no. 2, 1996, pp. 149–64. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3831472. Accessed 6 Dec. 2024.

Niehoff, Simone. “Unmasking the Fake: Theatrical Hoaxes from the Dreadnought Hoax to Contemporary Artivist Practice.” Faking, Forging, Counterfeiting: Discredited Practices at the Margins of Mimesis, edited by Daniel Becker et al., transcript Verlag, 2018, pp. 223–38. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1wxr9t.16. Accessed 10 Dec. 2024.

Reid, Panthea. “Stephens, Fishers, and the Court of the ‘Sultan of Zanzibar’: New Evidence from Virginia Stephen Woolf’s Childhood.” Biography, vol. 21, no. 3, 1998, pp. 328–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540072. Accessed 6 Dec. 2024.

Reid, Panthea. “Virginia Woolf, Leslie Stephen, Julia Margaret Cameron, and the Prince of Abyssinia: An Inquiry into Certain Colonialist Representations.” Biography, vol. 22, no. 3, 1999, pp. iv–355. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23540033. Accessed 7 Dec. 2024.

Seshagiri, Urmila. “Orienting Virginia Woolf: Race, Aesthetics, and Politics in ‘To the Lighthouse.’” Modern Fiction Studies, vol. 50, no. 1, 2004, pp. 58–84. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26286282. Accessed 9 Dec. 2024.

The Salvation Army, Economic Emigration, and The British Empire

The Salvation Army (the Army) is predominantly known as an international charitable organization. For over a million people worldwide, it is an Evangelical church with its own distinctive polity and practice, owing its heritage to British Methodism and American Revivalism. Less well-known is that between 1891 and 1932, the Army supported over 100,000 men, women, and children to travel from Britain to her colonies across the sea. This Evangelical movement and engine for social reform became an emigration agency because they believed that moving the ‘surplus population’ out of Britain into unclaimed land in the colonies would reduce poverty, specifically urban deprivation, in the mother country.

Christopher Button explains.

Salvation Army co-founder William Booth.

Introduction

The Salvation Army began social service work in 1866, with the first food depots providing meals for dockers who had been laid off during the collapse of the Poplar shipyards. By the 1870s, social service work had transformed into social reform work. Early examples included the establishment of rescue homes for female sex workers who were trained to become domestic servants or given jobs such as bookbinders. They also set up sheltered workshops for unemployed or homeless men to enable them to learn a trade and return to work. According to William Booth, the simple principle was that:

Any person who comes to a shelter destitute and starving, will be supplied with sufficient work to enable him to earn the fourpence needed for his bed and board. This is a fundamental feature of the scheme, and which I think will commend it to all those who are anxious to benefit the poor by enabling them to help themselves without the demoralising intervention of charitable relief…There is no compulsion upon anyone to resort to our shelters, but if a penniless man wants food her must, as a rule, do work sufficient to pay for what he has of that and of other accommodation. I say as a rule because, of course, our officers will be allowed to make exceptions in extreme cases.[1]

The Victorian demand that people should lift themselves up by their bootstraps was adopted by the Army. The Army expected and demanded from the customers of its social relief efforts that they engage in hard work, commitment to personal transformation, and, where absolutely necessary, the absolute minimum of charity to allow them to do so.

In Darkest England

In 1890, the Army released the blueprint for a new, totalizing, and universal scheme of social reform that would provide a system of welfare designed to work towards eradicating poverty and destitution and bring about the salvation of the world. This project was called In Darkest England and the Way Out, written principally by William Booth and published in 1890. It sold over 100,000 editions within the first few months. It was, in its way, quite a simple scheme. There were three parts to this scheme. Each was a form of colony, consciously adopting the structures of empire just as the book’s title borrowed from David Livingstone’s book Darkest Africa. The language is telling and is something we will return to.

The first step was the ‘City Colony’ including food depots, shelters, rescue work for women, salvage yards and ‘elevators.’

The ‘Elevator’ was a new concept in social services, combining generous acceptance with patient but unwavering discipline. ‘No one brings a reference here’ explained an officer in charge of one such institution. ‘If a man is willing to work, he stays; if not, he goes.’ No guide line could be simpler for the entrant; none more demanding upon those who were seeking his rehabilitation…The elevator was, in effect, and entry form of ‘sheltered workshop’ – a concept which was little known at the time and consequently less understood.[2]

The elevator was a combination of shelter and workshop or factory. Men could find somewhere to live and work in various trades to pay for their bed and board and gain enough stability to seek work in the trade they were learning. Central to every part of the city colony was regular, often daily, worship for all the residents. None were compelled to attend, but for many, it was an easy source of entertainment. Attendance at salvation meetings in the shelters across 1891 was recorded at 136,579, with 708 recorded as being converted. The work of social reform was undertaken hand in hand with the work of personal reformation with the intent of universal conversion.

For those city colonists who thrived and demonstrated their proper attitude to work, the second stage of the Darkest England scheme beckoned. This was the ‘Farm Colony.’ The Army intended to take select members of the urban poor who had demonstrated their willingness to work and submit to discipline and transplant them to training farms. Sir John Gorst QC MP wrote:

The unemployed is taken away from the town where he competes with a congested mass of workers, too numerous for existing employment opportunities, and brought back to the land, where he produces more than he consumes, where his labour enriches the nation without lessening the earnings of his fellow workmen.[3]

The Army in the UK bought a farm in Hadleigh, Essex, and developed it to receive colonists from the city. Similar farms were purchased in Australia, America, and South Africa. Farm colonists would work for the first month purely for bread and board. Then, if they demonstrated their willingness to learn, work, and behave, they would start to be paid. The farm colonists learned to work the land in small holdings or as tenant farmers. Some were returned to the city as unsuitable for the farm. Others were encouraged to purchase a 5-acre smallholding from the Army at favorable interest rates and become independent. But for others, they would be eligible for the third part of the Darkest England scheme — the Colony Across the Seas.

The Colony Across the Sea

Here, we come to the point at hand. The Darkest England scheme was dependent upon the British Empire. The Darkest England scheme could not have worked without the shared culture, language, infrastructure and transportation links. The fact that the scheme did not live up to its promise has less to do with the Empire and more to do with the incredible amount of funding necessary to make it practicable. Despite the relative failure of the Darkest England scheme beyond the city colony, the limited successes and the plans for the scheme highlight the inherent links between the Army and the Empire. William Booth said:

It Is absurd to speak of the colonies as If they were a foreign land. They are simply pieces of Britain distributed about the world, enabling the Britisher to have access to the richest parts of the earth.[4]

In the same way, the Army intended to send Britain’s poorest, properly trained and equipped, out to the parts of the Empire where land was underutilized. The movement from city to farm to overseas farm or factory was meant to become a new system built into the structure of Britain. By reducing the overall population and upskilling the urban poor, not only would Britain benefit, but the colonies would be developed. Ausubel wrote:

Indeed, one of the purposes of the In Darkest England scheme itself was to bring about structural change, since Booth was one of those Victorian reformers who believed that as population was the root course of the long depression from the early 1870s to the late 1890s and that mass emigration was part of the answer to this problem.[5]

The Army started supporting the emigration of its farm colonists to the colonies over the seas in 1891. Initially, colonists went to New South Wales and Queensland. By November 1891, 95 emigrants had been sent overseas by the Army with letters of recommendation for farms and factories in the receiving territories. The 1907 yearbook reported that since 1905, 15,000 people had emigrated through the Army’s agency. However, problems in the scheme were starting to emerge.

A key example comes from New Zealand, where there was…

Agitation against the scheme by Trades and Labour Councils…On the grounds that living standards of workers would be depressed by this introduction into the Colonies of what they termed ‘undesirable persons the Pauper and criminal scum of the alleys and byways of Great Britain.’[6]

The colonies, especially New Zealand and Australia, did not want to receive people who had been destitute and dwelling in London’s slums until recently. The costs involved in emigration had, until then, helped to ensure that those emigrating from Britain had been able to support themselves on arrival. The Army supported the Salvationist colonists, but they were travelling to improve themselves and did not go with their own resources.

Another issue was that William Booth and the Army had somewhat misunderstood the relationship between Britain and her colonies and dominions. By the early 1900s, the Empire was already starting to decentralize, especially in the self-governing states and dominions. Britain could not simply tell the governments of Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa to give spare land to colonists from The Salvation Army. The Army was not empowered to create new colonies, and the Imperial government could not provide the Army with new land. The Army was not given unused land in the existing colonies. The third stage of the Darkest England scheme seemed to be failing, so the Army had to turn to a broader approach to emigration.[7]

Family Emigration

Colonel David Lamb, the new commander of the emigration department, decided to broaden the project to include families as well as single men. This brought into reality some of William Booth's hopes for Darkest England.

In the Salvation Ship we shall export them all – father, mother, and children. The individuals will be grouped in families, and the families will, on the farm colony, have been for some months part more or less near neighbours, meeting each other in the field, in the workshops, and in the religious services. It will resemble nothing so much as the unmouring of a little piece of England, and towing it across the sea to find a safe anchorage in a sunnier clime. The ship which takes out emigrants will have the produce of the farms, and constant travelling to and from will lead more than ever to the feeling that we and our ocean-sundered brothers are members of one family.[8]

With Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa actively working against William Booth’s scheme of social imperialism, it was up to Canada to rescue Darkest England. The relationship between the Army emigration service and Canada developed until the Army became one of Canada’s leading immigration agencies, accredited and financially sponsored by the Canadian government and funded by direct donations in the UK. Between 1905 and 1907, the Army chartered fourteen ocean liners with a thousand immigrants on each. By the opening of the First World War, over 50,000 settlers had been supported in moving to Canada. By 1932, when the emigration service ended, more than 112,000 people from Britain had moved to Canada.

The system was comprehensive. Corps officers in the UK advertised the scheme and supported families in applying for emigration through the Army’s agency. Social officers helped identify likely candidates from the shelters or Hadleigh Farm and made their applications to the agency. The emigration department also stationed agents in the Army’s labour exchange bureaus, particularly helping domestic servants emigrate. The Army also offered emigration insurance for the settlers. For 10 shillings, the traveler would be insured against loss of belongings and against the risk of not finding employment. Whilst most settlers using the Army’s emigration agency had a position organized on their behalf for when they arrived, some went without work waiting for them in the hope of finding a position. The Army would pay for their return to Britain if they did not find work.

The Army chartered liners to carry the new colonists from the UK to Canada on an alcohol-free trip. They were accompanied on the ships by Salvation Army officers who led worship and prayer meetings, offered counsel, and gave lectures on the culture of the colonist's new home. The Salvationist colonists would then be welcomed by officers at receiving stations and transported to their new homes, where the local officer would make introductions and ensure they were connected to the corps. Then, if they did not join the local corps, they would receive a semi-annual visit from an Army officer to assess their progress. From start to finish, the whole scheme was operated as part of the Army’s international mission.

Conclusion

The Army combined the structures and methods of the British Empire with an Evangelical Zeal for conversion and the belief that salvation was as much about this world as it was about the next. William Booth wrote:

I saw that when the Bible said, ‘He that believeth shall be saved’ it meant not only saved from the miseries of the future world, but from the miseries of this [world] also. Then it came from the promise of Salvation here and now; from hell and sin and vice and crime and idleness and extravagance, and consequently very largely from poverty and disease, and the majority of kindred woes.[9]

The Army's social reform work was grounded In the underlying principle that social transformation would only make a lasting difference to the world if it were combined with individual conversion. Helping the poor through social reformation was at least partially undertaken to remove the obstacles to salvation. A hungry person, a cold person, or a homeless person would not become a Christian. By removing them from their circumstances of poverty, giving them a trade, and moving them to a new land with a place to become independent, the individual would better themselves and society as well.

However, far more critical for the Army was the hope that by transporting saved Salvationists around the world, they would create colonies of salvation which would spread the word of Salvationism. The central doctrine of Salvationism was that its members evangelized to the groups they had been part of. The converted drinker went back to preach to the drinkers. The sex workers told her previous colleagues about the possibility of rescue and redemption. Walker wrote:

One of the most significant features of The Salvation Army was the relationships of its members to the wider community. As soon as people were saved, they were asked to stand before a crowd and relate their experience of conversion…If the Spirit of God pervaded an individual, he or she was ready to preach and testify regardless of previous sinfulness, lack of education, of inexperience.[10]

Without the British Empire, its transportation network, its shared culture and language, and William Booth's implicit assumptions that the Imperial territories were simply an extension of Britain, The Salvation Army would not have been able to grow in the way it did. The British Empire was to be matched by a Salvation Empire, spread around the world, transporting Salvationists in ready-made units to the far reaches of Christendom to go out and grow William Booth’s Christian Imperium and usher in the prophesied Millennium.

Christopher Button writes at Theology Corner (link here).

Bibliography

All The World – Salvation Army Publication

Ausubel, Herman. In Hard Ties: Reformers Among the Late Victorians, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Bradwell, Cyril R. Fight the Good Fight: The Story of The Salvation Army in New Zealand 1883-1983, (Wellington: Reed, 1982)

Booth, William, In Darkest England and the Way Out, (London: The Salvation Army, 1890)

Coutts, Frederick. Bread for my Neighbour: The Social Influence of William Booth, (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1978)

Sandall, Robert The History of The Salvation Army Volume III 1883-1953 Social and Welfare Work, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. 1955)

Walker, Pamela J. Pulling the Devil’s Kingdon Down: The Salvation Army in Victorian Britain, (London: University of California, 2001)

White, Arnold, The Great Idea: Notes by an Eye-Witness on Some of the Social Work of the Salvation Army, (London: The Salvation Army, 1910)

[1] William Booth, quoted in Sandall, The History Vol. III, p. 120

[2] Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, pp. 106-107

[3] John Gorst quoted in Coutts, Bread for my Neighbour, p. 78

[4] William Booth, Darkest England, pp. 143-144

[5] Ausubel, In Hard Times, p. 180

[6] Bradwell, Fight the Good Fight, pp. 53-54

[7] White, The Great Idea, p. 47-49

[8] William Booth, In Darkest England, p. 152

[9] William Booth, “Salvation to Both Worlds” All The World, January 1889 pp. 1-6

[10] Walker, Pulling the Devil’s Kingdom Down, p. 187

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.