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

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

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

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

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

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

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

The Post War Mandate

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

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

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

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

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

The Uprising

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

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

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

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

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

The Veneer of Democracy 

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

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

Economic Concessions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

Has American Education been Watered Down?

American education has had significant changes since the 19th century. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses the role of the Unitarian Church in the move to a more secular education system and modern-day school textbooks in America.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

The New England Primer, a key school textbook in 18th century America.

When I investigate societal breaks, I investigate morals, ethics, and presumptions. I also investigate cultural varieties and similarities through behavioral and customary tendencies. With that all being said, I am aware of a break in traditional (what was once known as normal) academic thinking at the break of the 20th century. This thinking spilled over into political discourse. Of course, this started well before that. I wrote about it in an article recently where I mentioned that there was a hairline fracture that split the thinking of American traditionalists and progressive intellectuals.

In the 19th going into the 20th century, the Unitarian Church (a secular "church") was the catalyst. Traditionalists (such as the clergy and church) began to slowly halt providing leadership in our public schools and universities (prior to this was a largely homeschooling education). Harvard was taken over by the Unitarian Church, and as the quality of public education began to decline, Horace Mann (the "father of progressive education") would convince the state of Massachusetts that the best way for education to grow would be to have the government take control, instead of the private sector (such as families and churches). [1]

As traditional American doctrine was neglected, the competing ideology of socialism took off. Karl Marx’s book, which was written in 1844, never had much influence in American society - that was until we had backslid from Christian principles of economics and dabbled even more in greed. Thus, monopolies would form and grow. Wealth was accumulated, instead of employing the extra wealth to meet the needs of the poor and society itself. Self-culture (or individual interest) began to replace the common good of the community. What followed was indoctrination into “self-culture,” a human thought process of “me, myself, and I” which closely follows materialism. To break open a political divide for control and power, there must be a catalyst to enable this cultural shift. Thus, secular humanism was born.

Intercollegiate Socialist Society

Marshall Foster writes that: “in the loft restaurant above Peck’s restaurant at 140 Fulton Street in lower Manhattan, a group of young men met to plan the overthrow of the predominately Christian world-view that still pervaded America. At this first meeting five men were present: Upton Sinclair, a writer and a socialist; Jack London, writer; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister; J.G. Phelps Stokes, husband of a socialist leader; and Clarence Darrow, a lawyer.

Their organization was called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Their purpose was to ‘promote an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women.’ These men were ready to become the exponents of an idea passed on to them by an obscure writer named Karl Marx—a man who never tried to be self-supporting but was supported by a wealthy industrialist who believed in his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Although a small group in the beginning, these adherents of socialism more than succeeded in their task.

“By using the proven method of gradualism, taken from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, these men and others who joined with them slowly infiltrated” the public schools of our nation. By 1912 there were chapters in 44 colleges. By 1917 there were 61 chapters of student study groups of the League of Industrial Democracy. “At that time John Dewey, the godfather of progressive education, was the vice-president of the league. By 1941 Dewey had become president and Reinhold Niebuhr, the liberal socialist theologian, was the treasurer.” [3]

The beginning of the end of traditional America had become entrenched. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell mentions that “the loss of Christian tradition, character, and responsibility led to the failure of many banks in the early 1900’s. To remedy this situation, power was granted to a centralized Federal Reserve Board in 1913. But this unbiblical economic structure and lack of character produced many more problems. Within 20 years, the Stock Market had crashed, and America was in the midst of the Great Depression.” [4] With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for Roosevelt's “New Deal,” such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, which ultimately set up the state as provider, rather than God.

Textbooks

Our history, as of the 1900s, has been manipulated to make certain academic agendas fit the needs of a political end. A great example is the evidence in our academic texts over the course of this time.

Professor Paul C. Vitz conducted a government-funded study the 1980s on whether bias exists in public school textbooks. His study clearly showed bias and censorship exists, and the nature of the bias is clear: “Religion, traditional family values, and conservative political and economic positions have been reliably excluded from children’s textbooks.” [5]

Vitz wrote that while the bias may not be deliberate, a “secular and liberal mindset appears to be responsible.” And he points out that the bias is primarily manifested by exclusion. As an example, “sixty representative social studies textbooks were carefully evaluated” and “none of the books covering grades 1 through 4 contain one word referring to any religious activity in contemporary American life.” While these social studies texts mention the family, “the idea that marriage is the origin and foundation of the family is never presented. The words marriage, wedding, husband, wife, do not occur once in these books.” [6] It is not surprising why so many Americans today reject the biblical view of the world (let alone history and family).

An excerpt from Dr. Stephen K. McDowell, co-founder, and President of the Providence Foundation, mentions: "The social studies texts frequently presented 'role models' but 'not one contemporary role model is conservative and male.” High school U.S. history texts almost completely ignored major religious events of the past 200 years and there was “constant omission of reference to the large role that religion has always played in American life.” This was true for elementary texts as well. In one second grade history book, 30 pages were given to the Pilgrims, but they were “described entirely without any reference to religion.” At the end of the first year they observed a day of Thanksgiving, but no mention is made of the fact that they gave thanks to God.

Christian bias via exclusion continues in current textbooks. For example, one recent history text quotes the Mayflower Compact: 'We whose names are under-written … do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick.' What was omitted from this important historical document? Their clear Christian motive: “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia.”

Bias is not only expressed by exclusion but also by changing the meaning of a text or writing. One U.S. History Advanced Placement textbook summarizes the Second Amendment as, 'The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,' which is an inaccurate meaning of the amendment which clearly states, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This same text says the First Amendment gives us a 'separation of church and state,' failing to explain this amendment does not separate God from government or religious ideas from public life. Rather, it acknowledges a jurisdictional separation between the institution of civil government and the institution of the church.

Misrepresenting motives is another means of bias. Under the heading 'Roots of American Government,' a popular seventh-grade Houghton Mifflin Social Studies textbook expounds: 'Enlightenment thinkers in the American Colonies were excited. Here they were, the first people in history to have the chance to create an entirely new government based on Enlightenment Principles.' However, America was not created by Enlightenment thinkers on Enlightenment ideas, but according to John Adams, the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity.'

In conclusion

This is confirmed in a study done on the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on the political ideas of the Founding Fathers. Professor Donald Lutz conducted an exhaustive ten-year research of about 15,000 political documents of the Founders’ Era, recording every reference our Founders made to other sources. By far, the most quoted source of their political ideas was the Bible, 34% of citations, and about 50% of the other citations came from men with a biblical worldview.

“Some texts teach direct lies, like a high school history textbook published by Pearson that teaches Donald Trump is mentally ill and his supporters are racists. In other texts the Founders of America are often presented as atheists, agnostics, or secularists who wanted no religious influence in public life, when in fact, all but a couple of the signers of the Declaration and two or three members of the Constitutional Convention were orthodox Christians who believed the foundation of free nations rests on the Christian faith." [7] 

It is the above-mentioned analysis on education that feeds into the most common misconceptions and errors - of replacing traditional thought and history, which was considered normal prior to 1900. I feel this is by far the most harmful to learning when developing an accurate history and historical interpretation of early American encounters.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life, 253. 1989.

[2] Field, Peter S. 2001. ""the Transformation of Genius into Practical Power": Relph Waldo Emerson and the Public Lecture." Journal of the Early Republic 21 (3) (Fall): 467-493.

[3] Foster, Marshall, and Mary-Elaine Swanson. The American Covenant: The Untold Story, xvii. Mayflower Inst, 1983.

[4] Beliles and McDowell, 250-251.

[5] Paul C. Vitz, Censorship, Evidence of Bias in Our Children’s Textbooks, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1986, p. 1.

[6] Vitz, 1.

[7] McDowell, Stephen K. "A Nation at Risk: Changing Textbooks Reveal the Secularization of American Education." Providence Foundation. Accessed February 13, 2021. https://providencefoundation.com/a-nation-at-risk-changing-textbooks-reveal-the-secularization-of-american-education/

Kashmir: A Divided Territory Since 1947

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

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

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

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

1947

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

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

Since the 1940s

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

His email is shahmanan74@gmail.com

Christine Jorgenson: The First American to become well-known for having Gender Reassignment Surgery

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

Christine Jorgensen in 1954.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

It is not every day a person gets to witness a historical or groundbreaking event, unless that person happens to live in the United States. The country tends to celebrate “almost” everything. As a still relatively young country, there are still historical milestones to achieve, but where does the country draw the line at historical first? Where does it become ridiculous? America’s new vice president has been bestowed the honor of three historical first, the first African American, the first South Asian American, and the first female to be vice president. The first transgender person picked for a senate-confirmed post, the first openly transgender contestant on Jeopardy, Callie Brown, was the first non-biological female hired as a full time NCAA coach. Twenty years from now the history books our children bring home from school will be as thick as technical manuals. We anxiously await daily for the next historical first while tearing down and erasing the past. We have entire months dedicated to peoples of various races, cultures, gender, sexuality, and heritage. In honor of Women’s History Month we shall explore the trials and tribulations of a true trailblazer; a women who has been largely forgotten in a time of historical first for women.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr.) was born on May 30, 1926 in New York, the second child of George and Florence Jorgenson. During her high school years she had a sense of attraction to her male friends, but felt that she was not homosexual. Instead Christine concluded that she was a woman trapped in a man’s body. This was not a time in which a person could discuss their sexuality so, she repressed her identity and tried to fit in. Never quite being able to control her feminine tendencies she was subject to teasing from boys in the neighborhood and at school. Her sisters even took notice in her odd behaviors and would often tease her for not being more masculine. Despite the teasing and gender dysphoria, she graduated high school and attempted to volunteer for service in the United States Army.

I’m Not the World’s Most Physical Guy

Due to her size and weight, the Army disqualified her from service. This was devastating to Christine who was searching for a sense of belonging and a chance to make her parents proud.[1] The opportunity for military service would come to Christine a couple of months later when she was drafted by the Army. Entering into service in September 1945 at the conclusion of WW2 she was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey as a clerk facilitating paperwork for soldiers returning home for war. In December 1945 Christine was honorably discharged from the Army and attended a photography school in New Haven, Connecticut and later training as a dental assistant in New York using the G.I. Bill. Unable to find meaningful happiness Christine turned to research in order to find a solution to her gender dysphoria. 

Upon reading the book The Male Hormone, a study by Paul de Kruif on testosterone published in 1945[2], Christine believed she had found an explanation to her problem – a lack of testosterone. This led her to start taking estrogen to further decrease her testosterone levels. In 1950 she traveled to Europe which at the time was the only place where reassignment surgeries were practiced. When she arrived in Denmark she met with Dr. Christian Hamburger ,who diagnosed Christine with being transgender. Dr. Hamburger offered his experimental services for free and once special permissions were granted from the government of Denmark, Christine began a two year journey of hormone treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and surgery. [3]However, the surgeries received in Denmark only removed the male genitalia and she was unable to receive a vaginoplasty until sometime after her return to the United States in 1952. 

Taking a Walk on the Wild Side

Any hope of keeping a private life quickly diminished when the press swarmed her at the airport upon her arrival home in 1952. Understandably, this was quite the story and since the media has no appreciation for personal space, she was plastered on the front page of the New York Daily News titled “Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty” and was the subject of articles in hundreds of newspapers around the country. Initially she was unable to cope with all her new found attention and went briefly into seclusion.  However, she decided that if this is the life she was going to live she would have to embrace it. For a fee, Jorgenson was willing to give interviews and tell her story stating, “I decided that if they wanted to see me, they would have to pay for it.”[4] Not surprisingly, Hollywood was ready to cash in on what they viewed as a human anomaly, though the attention was from a relatively unknown director at the time.

Edward Davis Wood Jr., better known as Ed Wood, sold the idea of a biopic of Jorgenson to investors. However, the finished product was a docudrama about cross-dressing and trans-sexuality, which would become known as one of the worst pictures ever made. Several offers to Jorgenson to appear in the film were declined and Ed Wood stepped in to fill the part of the transvestite spinning the movie into his personal story.[5] In 1970, the film The Christine Jorgensen Story premiered in Los Angeles based on her autobiography published in 1967. Through the ridicule and praise, Jorgenson endured the world of gender dysphoria on her own terms. In a world not quite ready for out and about transgenderism, she became a pioneer for others to emulate and embrace. 

She supported herself as a lounge singer and speaker for those who were curious or fascinated enough to hear her. During her time in the spotlight, she was engaged to be married twice, but due to the marriage laws at the time she was unable to secure a marriage license. Once Hollywood and the media had finished profiting off her she retired to southern California were she succumbed to bladder and lung cancer on May 3, 1989. Though viewed as an oddity by most during her time, she stayed true to herself, lived as the live she wanted to live, and became a trailblazer for other with gender dysphoria.

In a country that rushes to place people on a pedestal as “firsts” for the sake of creating history, America often neglects real historical events until they are ultimately forgotten.

What do you think of Christine Jorgenson? Let us know below.

Now, you read James’ past article on the Fascism on 1930s America here.

[1] “From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgenson’s Story,” The National WWII Museum New Orleans, last modified June 29, 2020, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen

[2] Paul Kruif, The Male Hormone (Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945)

[3] Biography, "Christine Jorgensen," Biography, last modified June 22, 2020, https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

[4] Ibid

[5] Judith R. Fagen, "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953," The Gay & Lesbian Review, last modified February 24, 2021, https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

Bibliography

Biography. "Christine Jorgensen." Biography. Last modified June 22, 2020. https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

Fagen, Judith R. "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953." The Gay & Lesbian Review. Last modified February 24, 2021. https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

"From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgensen’s Story." The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. Last modified June 29, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen.

Kruif, Paul. The Male Hormone, 1st ed. Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945.

James VI/James I’s Love Life: The British King whose Lovers were Men

James VI of Scotland (later also crowned James I of England) is a king of some ambiguity: he was both intellectually wise (possibly one of the cleverest kings that either England or Scotland has had), yet also remarkably foolish in how he allowed his heart to rule his head. But James was not a man of great extremes, unlike his predecessor Queen Elizabeth I, who kept herself virtuously pure, or his grandson, King Charles II, who was an obsessive womanizer. James fell somewhere in the middle, with only three real passionate affairs throughout his life. So why did his love life matter so much?

Samantha Arrowsmith explains.

A painting of James VI/James I, c. 1605.

To answer the question of why his love life mattered so much is simple on the face of it: these lovers were men. As historian Lady Antonia Fraser has noted, ‘the degree of their intimacy is less important than its political consequences’[i], because these men rose into positions of unequalled power. For modern historians, the emphasis should not be on their gender, but rather a discussion of their competency and the danger that they posed to the Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

Our said dearest son

James VI (1566-1625) was born into the turbulent world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, when murder, assassination and usurpation were the norm. His own father, Lord Darnley, had been murdered when James was less than a year old, probably with the connivance of his mother, the Catholic Mary Queen of Scots. Within a few months she was forced to abdicate and flee Scotland, and James would never see her again. Crowned at thirteen months old and raised a Protestant, he became the pawn of successive Regents who, to protect him from kidnap by the next power hungry noble, cocooned him in Stirling Castle with his tutor, George Buchanan, a sadistic disciplinarian. Jock o’ the Slates, as he was known because of his prolific learning, survived his childhood to reach his majority, but he did so in a cold and dangerous world, protected from everyone:

‘Suffer nor admit no noblemen of our realm or any others, of what condition soever they be of, to enter or come within our said Castle or to the presence or our said dearest son, with any more persons but two or three at most.’[ii]

Esmé Stuart, Duke of Lennox circa 1542-1583

When James first met his cousin in 1579, he was a thirteen-year-old orphan, controlled by dour older men in search of power and governed by the strict guidelines of the Presbyterian Church. Esmé Stuart, on the other hand, was thirty-seven, married with children and fresh from the French court. He was well-travelled, educated, fun and described as ‘of comely proportion, civil behavior, red-bearded, and honest in conversation’[iii]. Whatever James’ sexuality might have been, Esmé dazzled him, bringing light into his studiously lonely world. One contemporary witness noted how James was not ashamed to show his affection for Esmé whenever the moment took him:

‘The King altogether is persuaded and led by him … and is in such love with him as in the open sight of the people often he will clasp him about the neck with his arms and kiss him.’

The nobles were concerned, not so much at James’ unabashedly open affection, but rather at what the observer notes first: that the king was persuaded and led by him. Within months, Esmé begun to reap the rewards of his relationship, not only in expensive gifts such as Mary Queen of Scots’ diamond The Great H of Scotland, but more significantly in titles and positions in government. By March 1580, Esmé had been made the Earl of Lennox and was already so powerful that the English Ambassador reported firstly that he ‘carryeth the sway in court’, and then, a few months later, that ‘few or none will openly withstand anything that he would have forward’[iv].

This political influence was dangerous. Lennox was a Catholic in a highly charged Protestant court, where religious civil war constantly threatened the fragile peace. He was rising at the expense of the ancestral nobility, and even his conversion to the Protestant faith in the summer of 1580 could not allay fears that he was a papal agent intent on restoring Mary Queen of Scots’ to the Scottish throne. For James, his renunciation of the Catholic faith only served to deepen his affection for him.[v]Yet, the nobles’ fear seemed justified when, in April 1581 Lennox had the King’s last regent, the Earl of Morton, executed for treason and for having been involved in the murder of the King’s late father. Rather than punishing him, the King made him the Duke of Lennox four months later.

In the volatile world of sixteenth-century Scottish politics, James, with his polarized dependence on Lennox, was taking an enormous risk. It could not last, and there was a certain amount of inevitability when the nobles finally took their revenge, kidnapping James whilst he was out hunting in August 1582. The usurpation of the monarch was not without precedent and for the ten months that he was held captive he must have wondered if he was about to suffer his mother’s fate. He would be lucky and survive to escape and reclaim his authority, but one outcome was that, despite resistance and many tears, he was forced to send his favorite into exile. They would never see each other again and Lennox died in France on May 26, 1583 still professing that he had ‘such extreme regret that I desire to die rather than to live, fearing that that has been the occasion of your no longer loving me.’[vi]

In tribute, James would pen the poem Ane Tragedie of the Phoenix, full of deep desire, with Lennox’s name woven into the text[vii], but he would not learn from his close shave with disaster. When in love, James loved passionately, unreservedly, and openly, regardless of the danger to his own person or the stability of his country.

Robert Carr, Earl of Somerset circa 1587-1645

There is something lavishly romantic about the way that James (now also King of England) met his next great love, the seventeen-year-old Robert Carr in 1607. Yet of all his relationships, this one proved the most troublesome. 

Carr sparked James’ passionate nature from the outset. He was a remarkably handsome man, described by the Earl of Suffolk as ‘straight-limbed, well-favored, strong-shouldered and smooth-faced…’, and when he fell from his horse at a tilt, James’ elaborate sense of romance caused him to follow the boy to Charing Cross Hospital to ensure his welfare. It was obvious to all from the outset that James was in lust, if not yet in love, and the way that he fussed over the injured boy gave rise to satirical comments by some and false statements of concern by others[viii].

There had been other male favorites since the fall of Lennox, but none had been given the same political power until Carr. James’ passion was once again measured in his generosity and, like Lennox, Carr’s rise was spectacular. He was immediately knighted and then made a Gentleman of the Bedchamber (a role that required him to sleep in the King’s room). Contemporaries reported how James would lustfully kiss, pinch and fondle his favorite in public[ix] and by 1610 he was so powerful that he was able to influence the King into dissolving Parliament. In 1611 he was made Viscount Rochester and in April 1612 James made him a Privy Councillor. It is unlikely that such a rise would have come for free and when Carr was created Lord Chamberlain, James wrote that ‘no man should marvel that he bestowed a place so near himself as his friend, whom he loved above all men living’.

James was again playing with political fire, allowing one man to dominate and influence him as he had with Lennox. In 1613 the Spanish Ambassador reported that, when in Council, Carr:

‘showeth much temper and modesty, without seeming to press and sway anything. But afterwards the King resolveth all business with him alone, both those that pass in Council and many others wherewith he never maketh them acquainted.’

James seems to have learnt nothing from his near escape in 1582, treating Carr as his closest advisor at the detriment of others, despite evidence of his incompetence. He was so detested that even the Queen was keen to see a new man in her husband’s bed. It took fate and Carr’s own conceited insolence to save the two kingdoms, though it would bring James to the edge of personal scandal.

Despite being James’ lover, Carr fell in love with his mistress, Frances Howard, the wife of the Earl of Essex. James was not against his favorites marrying and he openly assisted Carr in having Frances’ first marriage annulled so that she would be free to marry him. The king paid for the wedding and, as a gift, he created the new couple the Earl and Countess of Somerset.

The new earl was still on the rise, and as far as James was concerned, their love was as viable as ever, wife or no wife. But, as well as complimenting him on his looks, the Earl of Suffolk had also noted that Somerset was:

‘…endowed ‘…with some sort of cunning and show of modsty, tho, God wot, he well knoweth when to show his impudence’. 

It was a characteristic that would be Somerset’s downfall, and within a year of the wedding, he had been insolent to the king once too often. James complained to Somerset that he had shown him a ‘strange frenzy’ and ‘strange streams of unquietness, passion, fury and insolent pride and (which is worst of all) with a settled kind of induced obstinacy’[x]. The king was tiring of Somerset’s sullen behavior and, worse still, that he would no longer sleep with him:

‘I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnest soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but as a point of unkindness.’

The King warned him that ‘there must be some exterior signs of the amendment of your behavior towards me’, but it was already too late. A key opponent to the Somersets’ wedding had mysteriously died in the Tower of London, and by the summer of 1615 the Countess had been found guilty of his murder. James was damaged by the association; Somerset was his favorite, he had secured the annulment that had allowed them to marry and the country was abuzz with tales of the salacious court. The Somersets were sentenced to death, but James still felt enough for his old favorite to have the sentence commuted to imprisonment. Nevertheless, his passion was gone and the sweet prose to Somerset at the height of his power was replaced with regret:

‘I shall never pardon myself but shall carry that cross to the grave with me, for raising a man so high as might make him presume to pierce my ears with such speeches.’

George Villiers, Duke of Buckingham 1592-1628

Where Somerset failed, Villiers succeeded, captivating the King and earning the mantle of his last and perhaps greatest love. His meteoric rise took him through the ranks from knight to earl to marquis in three short years, and in 1623 he was made the Duke of Buckingham.

Though they were together for nine years, James was a man coming to the end of his life. He suffered from gout and, probably, porphyria, the same mental illness that was to later afflict George III. It caused him moments of severe abdominal pain and bouts of senility that left him open to persuasion as never before:

‘The King seems practically lost. He now protests, now weeps, but finally gives in.’

Buckingham was more than willing to take advantage. He was described as having an effeminate countenance and as:

‘the handsomest-bodied in England; his limbs so well compacted and his conversation so pleasing and of so sweet a disposition.’ 

In reality he was also arrogant, incompetent and startling corrupt, but Buckingham was able to satisfy James’ desires as he seems to confirm when he told James that he had been pondering ‘whether you loved me now . . . better than at the time which I shall never forget at Farnham [in 1615], where the bed's head could not be found between the master and his dog’.

James was repeating his earlier folly, promoting a man of little talent above both his natural station and his intellectual one. It was a position that would put James and his kingdoms yet again in danger. On the domestic front, Buckingham helped to destroy the financial reforms the Earl of Middlesex had been attempting to impose, ensuring that the Earl was finally impeached by Parliament in 1624. When his shady dealings in Ireland were in danger of coming to light in 1621, he nurtured the row between the King and Parliament over the royal prerogative; James prematurely dissolved Parliament and the investigation that would have exposed him was ended.

Buckingham had also managed to gain control of foreign policy, at which he was also incompetent. Against his better judgment, in 1623 James allowed his heir, Charles, to travel with Buckingham to Spain to woo the Spanish Infanta. The negotiations that the duke led were so calamitous that they came close to making the Prince a hostage to the Spanish. When the party returned, Buckingham hid his humiliation by calling for a patriotic Protestant war on Spain. Two years later, to again restore his own popularity, he led a doomed raid to help the Huguenots in France. And finally, as the king neared death, he instigated a military campaign to recover the Electorate of the Palatinate, which quickly dissolved into yet another disaster. 

But ‘sweete Steenie’, as the King called Buckingham, could do no wrong, even during the disastrous trip to Spain when the pain of being parted from him was forefront in James’ mind:

‘…god blesse thee my sweete Steenie and sende thee a quikke and happie return with my sweete babie [Prince Charles who was 22], in the armes of thy deare dade and stewarde.’ 

As he sunk into senility, James needed love, whatever form that took. In one of his most famous letters, where he calls Buckingham both his wife and his child, he shows us that the thought of being without him was unbearable:

‘…I desire only to live in this world for your sake, and that I had rather live banished in any part of the earth with you than live a sorrowful widow’s life without you. And so God bless you, my sweet child and wife, and grant that ye may ever be a comfort to your dear dad and husband.’

He would cling to Buckingham until the end, whatever the cost.

Neither a God nor an angel

James made many of the classic mistakes in his relationships with his favorites and that his lovers were men meant that they were able to hold political positions, such as Privy Councillor, Lord Chamberlain and Treasurer of Scotland, which a female mistress could not. He promoted them far above their natural station, allowed them to influence him in matters of Church and State, and listened to them at the detriment of his ‘natural’ advisors, the nobility.

Yet, ultimately, the main problem was that James’ men were not right for the positions they held. He chose them for their looks and their flattery, not for their competence. They were greedy and unfit for the roles he gave them. They influenced him into decisions the canny King, who had survived so much as a child, should not have made, often putting himself and his kingdoms at risk of not only being financially milked but also of war. But when in love, James loved passionately and loyally:

‘I, James, am neither a god nor an angel, but a man like any other. Therefore, I act like a man and confess to loving those dear to me more than other men. You may be sure that I love the Earl of Buckingham more than anyone else, and more than you who are here, assembled. I wish to speak in my own behalf and not to have it thought to be a defect, for Jesus Christ did the same, and therefore I cannot be blamed. Christ had John, and I have George.’

What do you think of James VI/I’s lovers? Let us know below.

Now, you can read about whether King James VI/I’s predecessor, Queen Elizabeth I, was really the ‘Virgin Queen’ here.

[i] Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, p126

[ii] Mary Queen of Scots to the Earl of Mar, March 29, 1567

[iii] Rictor Norton, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, January 8, 2000, updated January 9, 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

[iv] Stedall, Robert,  Esme Stuart 1st Duke of Lennox

[v] Bergeron, David M, King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999, p38

[vi] December 18, 1582 in Bergeron, pp49-50

[vii] Bergeron, p53; Murphy, Samantha A Writing Britain: James VI & I and the National Body

[viii] Fraser, p126

[ix] Fraser, p126

[x] Stewart, Alan, The Cradle King: a life of James VI and I, Pimlico, London, 2009, p266

Bibliography

Bergeron, David M. King James and Letters of Homoerotic Desire, University of Iowa Press, Iowa City, 1999

Fraser, Lady Antonia, King James VI of Scotland and I of England, Book Club Associates, London, 1984

Norton, Rictor, "Queen James and His Courtiers", Gay History and Literature, 8 January 2000, updated 9 January 2012 http://rictornorton.co.uk/jamesi.htm

Stewart, Alan The Cradle King: a life of James VI & I, Pimlico, London, 2009

Wikipedia: Personal relationships of James VI and I

Was Portugal Really Neutral in World War II?

Portugal was officially neutral in World War Two, but did its behaviour show that it was neutral? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this by looking at the Portuguese leader’s beliefs, the long-standing treaty between Portugal and Britain, the wolfram question, and the Azores.

A British Royal Air Force plane in the Portuguese Azores during World War II.

When discussing the roles played by various countries in conflicts throughout history, the term “neutrality” implies impartiality and a lack of bias towards any belligerent side. However, as we have seen with other countries during the Second World War, declaring neutrality was often much more complex than simply avoiding taking sides.

When the Second World War broke out in the autumn of 1939, Portugal was one of various European countries to declare its neutrality.  Portugal was in quite a delicate position at the opening of the conflict, meaning that a declaration of neutrality was in the country’s best interests - at least for the moment. This declaration of neutrality would allow Portugal to preserve her own foreign policy and take advantage of various opportunities that the war provided to prosper.

Rise of the Estado Novo

Antonio Salazar was born in 1899 in Beira Alto, Portugal. Salazar’s parents sent him to a seminary for his education when he was 9 years old. However, after spending several years at the seminary, he decided he wanted to further his education, and entered Portugal’s most prestigious university, the University of Coimbra, in 1910 at the age of 21. He graduated four years later with a degree in economics and his performance merited an appointment at the university as a professor, where he became known for his speeches and articles on political economics. His popularity continued to grow, and he was elected to Portugal’s national legislature in 1921. [1]

In 1926 there was a coup d’état and the leaders offered Salazar the position of finance minister, which he accepted with the stipulation that he receive almost total control of the government. This was declined and he resigned five days later to return to teaching. Two years later, in 1928, the leader of the government again asked Salazar to become the finance minister and met the stipulations that Salazar had initially demanded.

As finance minister, he quickly managed to balance the country’s budget and brought financial success to the Portuguese government. Salazar’s position strengthened further when he became the president of Portugal’s ruling Council of Ministries in 1932.

A year later, he formally created the Estado Novo, or “New State”, a corporatist state with a fascist orientation. Although it has often been compared with the contemporary regimes of Italy, Spain, and Germany, Salazar’s Portugal differed through its comparatively moderate use of state-sponsored violence.  Salazar was a Catholic traditionalist who strongly believed in using economic modernisation to defend Portugal’s Catholic and rural values.

Conflicted Loyalties

The outbreak of the Second World War put Portugal in a tenuous position. Since signing the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, Portugal had always maintained close ties with Britain. However, during this era, Portugal also maintained close ties with its large neighbour, Francoist Spain. Salazar had backed Franco’s regime during the Spanish Civil War, and this, combined with his government’s Fascist qualities, earned him the respect of Hitler and Mussolini. [2] 

Upon the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, Salazar issued a declaration of Portugal’s neutrality. He also declared that Portugal’s old treaty of alliance with England did not automatically mean that Portugal had to go to war in support of the Allies. This was discussed with Britain beforehand, and the British indicated that they did not need Portuguese assistance. [3]

Salazar’s reasoning for neutrality was that he feared invasions by Germany or a potential German-allied Spain if the country entered the war; German troops were stationed roughly 260 km from the Portuguese borders. As a result, Salazar decided to stay out of the conflict, but decided he could use it to his country’s economic advantage, maintaining open trade with members of both the Allied and Axis camp throughout the war years. However, when considering the question of Portugal’s neutrality, it is important to examine two key factors that came into play with Portugal’s relationships with belligerent countries.

The Wolfram Question

One of the biggest issues with Portuguese neutrality was the prevalence of the mineral wolfram in the country. [4] This powerful resource quickly became Portugal’s ticket to maintaining neutrality throughout the conflict. 

Wolfram is a major source of tungsten, a metal used in steel hardening processes used in producing important items such as machine tools, armor-piercing shells, tank and airplane parts, and engine parts.  Outside Portugal, the Allied powers did not want Germany to have access to this incredibly valuable resource, while inside, Salazar viewed it as a matter of Portugal’s sovereignty since the mineral belonged to the country. He decided to satisfy both parties, Allied and Axis, preferring not to alienate either camp to maintain Portugal’s neutrality. 

However, the so-called “Wolfram War” seriously damaged Portugal’s claim to neutrality, since it was a definite expression of pro-Axis sentiment within the country - the Germans received approximately 75% of Portugal’s wolfram exports, while Britain received only 25%, despite the alliance and loud protestations. [5] Britain did enjoy one advantage in this situation - due to their long-standing relationship, Britain was able to pay in credit, while Germany had to pay cash. This allowed Britain to obtain a valuable resource while being short on cash.

On the other hand, Portugal also allowed the Axis powers to incur sizable debts in their clearing agreements, even advancing them significant amounts of private and government contracts.  In addition, Portuguese merchants were an important source of vital smuggled commodities such as diamonds and platinum to the Axis.

Portugal negotiated secret agreements with Germany to send an average of over 2,000 metric tons of wolfram annually between 1941 and mid-1944, which was roughly 60 percent of Germany's minimum industrial requirement. [6] The intense competition for wolfram boosted the Portuguese economy and generated huge profits for banks and businesses. Portugal profited so much from the sale of wolfram trade that it continued to do so despite threats from the Allies.

In January 1944, the Allies tried to pressure Portugal to embargo all wolfram sales, but this was resisted - Portugal defended its right as a neutral country to sell to anyone they saw fit, while also fearing a German attack should they stop. The wolfram trade debacle finally ended on the eve of the D-Day invasion in June 1944, when Portugal imposed a total embargo on shipments to both sides of the war after the Allies threatened heavy economic sanctions. 

Despite this, Portugal was able to profit massively from the wolfram trade and gain a major economic boost.

The Azores

In addition to wolfram, Portugal had another resource coveted by both the Allied and Axis powers: the strategically important Azores islands. Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the islands made a perfect base for launching offensive operations. For the Allies, possession of the Azores was important for protecting the convoy supply routes of the central Atlantic. Failing to control them left a gap in defenses for convoys in which they might get caught in pitched battles between Allied and Axis ships. In addition, controlling the Azores would prove vital to the Allies’ potential plan of an invasion of Europe, since they could be used as an air base to provide cover for the invading armies. [7]

For the Axis, the Azores meant an ideal U-boat base plus air bases needed for Projekt Amerika, a Luftwaffe bombing campaign of the East Coast of the US. An Azores base in the middle of the Atlantic would greatly improve the operational efficiency of German U-boats by cutting out the time needed to return to ports in France to refuel, meaning they could spend much more time out in the field. [7]

Again, Salazar was torn - should he give up control of the Azores to the Allies, he feared a German invasion of Portugal through Spain. Despite Salazar’s refusal to give up the islands, Churchill and Roosevelt jointly decided to occupy the islands in 1943 but agreed that it would have to be done delicately. Churchill favored a diplomatic approach, and invoked the Treaty of Windsor, which Salazar approved. One airfield was quickly constructed in secret, with the British entering first, followed by the Americans, with plans for more airfields to follow. However, Salazar stipulated that while the British were welcome under the Treaty, the Americans were not - and if pressed by the Germans, he could not use the excuse of diplomatic necessity, as with the British. Salazar threatened to forcefully resist the landing of American troops in the islands but reneged at the eleventh hour. 

The Azores airfields were used to transfer bombers to the Pacific theatre and played a key role in winning the war in the Atlantic for the Allies. It allowed more planes to launch than from any aircraft carrier group, punched a hole in German U-boat supply lines and put Allied convoy lines within reach of land-based bomber protection, allowing for crucial shipments of provisions to reach their destinations unscathed.

Conclusion

The question of whether Portugal was truly neutral is a complex one. A nation can only be considered truly neutral if it exhibits no biases to other belligerent nations. Examining Portugal’s relationships with the Axis and Allied powers, Portugal in fact did express bias, although in different ways to each of the warring sides. It sold a far higher percentage of the valuable wolfram mineral to the Axis powers, making a vital contribution to their war effort, yet also contributed to the Axis’ defeat by allowing air bases to be constructed on the Azores islands and fell back on its traditional relationship to Britain.

Ultimately, Portugal can be considered neutral during the Second World War. In fitting with the traditional definition of neutrality, Portugal did not clearly favor a particular side in the conflict, instead preferring to play both sides against each other, seeking to benefit itself economically above all. Portugal’s neutrality remained useful to both sides throughout the war, and thus, by rendering different services to both sides, Salazar was able to effectively buy his country’s ability to remain out of the Second World War.

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

Now, you can read about whether Spain was neutral or a Nazi ally in World War Two here.

Sources

[1] Watkins, Thayer. Antonio Salazar De Oliveira of Portugal and His Estado Novo, www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/salazar.htm.

[2] Gayer, Gary. “Political Neutrality in World War 2.” California Polytechnic State University, 2013.

[3] Leite, Joaquim da Costa. "Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II." American University International Law Review 14, no. 1 (1998): 185-199. Accessed February 26,2021

[4] Wheeler, Douglas L. “The Price of Neutrality: Portugal, the Wolfram Question, and World War II.” Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1986) Accessed February 26 2021 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3513391?seq=1

[5] Packard, Jerrold Michael, "The European neutrals in World War II" (1989). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3984. Accessed February 26. 2021 https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5866

[6] RG 84: Portugal.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed February 26, 2020 www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-portugal.html.

[7] Gnam, Carl. “Portugal during WW2: Covering the Azores Gap.” Warfare History Network, 3 Dec. 2020. Accessed February 26, 2021  warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/01/25/covering-the-azores-gap-in-world-war-ii/

Bibliography

Gayer, Gary. “Political Neutrality in World War 2.” California Polytechnic State University, 2013. 

Gnam, Carl. “Portugal during WW2: Covering the Azores Gap.” Warfare History Network, 3 Dec. 2020, warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/01/25/covering-the-azores-gap-in-world-war-ii/.

Leite, Joaquim da Costa. "Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II." American University International Law Review 14, no. 1 (1998): 185-199.

Packard, Jerrold Michael, "The European neutrals in World War II" (1989). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3984. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5866 

 “RG 84: Portugal.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-portugal.html.

Watkins, Thayer. Antonio Salazar De Oliveira of Portugal and His Estado Novo, www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/salazar.htm.

Wheeler, Douglas L. “The Price of Neutrality: Portugal, the Wolfram Question, and World War II.” Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1986)

How America Supported the Anti-Soviet Mujahideen Rebels in 1980s Afghanistan

At the end of 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to support the Communist-inspired Afghan government. This led to a decade-long conflict in which the anti-Soviet Islamic Mujahideen rebels were supported by the United States. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about the conflict and some of the negative unintended consequences of American support for the rebels.

A Soviet military offensive against the Mujahideen.

From 1979 to 1989 the Americans supported the Mujahideen Islamic rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union’s invasion. The Americans supported the rebels as a means of inflicting their own “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision in sending weapons to the anti-Communist rebels helped turn the tide of the war in the rebels favor and doomed the Soviet Union - and later the USA. American support for rebels in Afghanistan, was one of a number of Carter and Reagan’s foreign policy blunders that hurt America and Israel. The U.S. decision to support the rebels in Afghanistan was a strategic miscalculation and the wrong way to overcome our defeat in Vietnam. This was known as “Vietnam Syndrome”, which haunts America to this day.

U.S efforts to support the rebels appeared as far back as March 1979 in classified protocols at the Jimmy Carter White House ([1]). This was done because the U.S. was worried about increased Soviet involvement in propping up the weak pro-Communist puppet state in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late December 1979 ([2]). In the very first hours after the Soviet Union invaded, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said “He hoped the Soviets could be punished for invading Afghanistan, that they could be tied down and bloodied the way the United States had been in Vietnam” ([3]). At the start of the conflict the American government started sending the rebels some captured Soviet weapons as a means of getting revenge for the Soviet’s (limited) involvement in the Vietnam War, while keeping their involvement minimal (6). This was a bad decision because the Islamic fundamentalism of the recent Iranian Revolution was also coming to Afghanistan.

Iranian influence

In early spring 1979, in the Shiite Muslim town of Heart, Afghanistan, religious activists started organizing along fundamentalist lines based on the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini’s example ([4]). Even the non-Shia Muslim groups of Afghanistan were beginning to organize along the lines of Khomeini’s religious-political revival (4). 

In late December 1979 an amended top-secret presidential finding was signed by President Jimmy Carter, and it was reauthorized in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan (5). This permitted the CIA to secretly ship weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen rebels ([5]). The CIA would ship these weapons through the help of the Pakistani government‘s secret service, the Inter Services Intelligence or ISI (5). 

In 1983, after a visit to Afghanistan, Congressmen Charles Wilson from Texas, in his role as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, began procuring  billions of dollars of weapons for the Mujahideen (11). Charles Wilson’s weapons would then pass-through Pakistan’s ISI (11). 

As time went on the weapons the rebels received became more sophisticated, so that they could combat the Soviet attack helicopters. The biggest threat to the Mujahideen was the MI-24 D, which was called by the rebels “The Devil’s Chariot” (14). From 1982 to 1984 the Americans sent the Mujahideen the portable surface to air missiles such as Strela-2 and the Redeye (7). The Mujahideen did use the Stela-2 and the Redeye with some notable successes against Soviet attack helicopters, but further success alluded them due to the fact that the Mujahideen lacked the training required for successful use of these weapons (7). The Heat Seeking Strela-2 and the Redeye were not as effective against the Soviet MI-24 Attack Helicopter, because the MI-24 used two flare dispensers and the AVU system, which blocked a direct view of the hot engine exhausts and swirled the exhaust gases in the rotor streams (7). The MI-24’s began using the AVU from 1983 to 1984 (7). The AVU also increased the MI-24’s weight, which resulted in Soviet crews having, in some cases, to remove the MI-24’s armor, and so making the weapon vulnerable to attack (8). The AVU also would not work under extreme high-altitude conditions and high temperatures and thus it could not always be used in combat (8). Furthermore, the heavy weight of the AVU caused minor reductions in maximum speed and the service ceiling, which could present a problem in combat (8). The MI-24 D attack helicopter’s cockpit was vulnerable to small arms fire - which was how some were lost in combat (9).

Later military supplies

The next weapon that was a “game changer” was the FIM-92 Stinger portable surface to air missile (7). The Afghan Mujahideen started acquiring the Stinger Missiles at the end of 1986 (10). Stinger Missiles started appearing in large numbers in the first half of 1987 and the end result was that Soviet attack helicopter units lost more MI-24’s in the first six months of 1987 then they had in all of the previous year (7). The Stinger Missile was so effective that the Soviet helicopter fleet was temporarily paralyzed (7). The Stinger Missiles also had an unpleasant consequence. When the MI-24’s were escorting passenger or transportation aircraft they were forced to put their MI-24’s in front of the passenger or transport aircraft and take the hit from the incoming missile themselves (7). This resulted in MI-24 helicopter crews being able to protect the transport and the passenger aircraft in the vast majority of cases, but not always (7). The Soviet Special Forces soon captured examples of the Stinger Missiles and they discovered weaknesses in the weapon, so allowing them to develop countermeasures (7). The result of this was that the MI-24 was equipped with infrared jammers, which could be tuned in to jam the Stinger’s seeker head almost perfectly (7). This in combination with the AVU System and flares reduced the effectiveness of the FIM-92 Stinger (7). Even this counter measure was not 100% effective though. The L166V Ispanka infrared jammer was not an all-protection system (8) as it was designed to counter missiles with infrared seeker heads. The Stinger Missile’s effect in the Soviet-Afghan war also sowed fear among the Soviet pilots and troops (12). From 1980 to 1989, according to the Russian periodical Mir Aviatsiya, 122 MI-24’s were irretrievably lost, with 42% of all downed MI-24 helicopters lost to “Dushkas” heavy machine gun, 30% by portable surface to air missiles, 25% by light antiaircraft guns, and the remaining 3% by small arms fire (13).

Consequences

The decision to arm Afghan Mujahideen rebels and other non-Afghan rebels during the conflict would have disastrous consequences for Israel and the USA. By the time Taliban had taken Kabul, Afghanistan in 1996, an estimated 600 of the approximately 2,300 Stingers distributed by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war remained missing (15). The Iranians were buying as many Stinger Missiles as they could, and CIA officers roughly estimated that Tehran had acquired about 100 Stingers by 1996 (15). In that same period the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, had possessed 53 Stingers missiles that had been collected by various Pashtun warlords that were loyal to the Taliban (15). By the end of the Soviet-Afghan war the CIA was worried that the Stinger Missiles could fall in the hands of terrorist groups or hostile governments such as Iran for shooting down American civilian passenger planes or military aircraft (12). Many Stinger Missiles went to Mujahideen commanders who were associated with anti-American radical Islamist leaders (12). In my view, the U.S. government should not have sold Stinger Missiles or any weapons to Mujahideen groups. The USA should have also stayed neutral during the Soviet Afghan conflict.

President Carter failed to resolve the Iran Hostage crisis (1979-81). In February 1982 the US government removed Iraq off the list of states, ‘supporting international terrorism’ and reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in December 1984 (16). From December 1984 the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad provided the Iraqi Military much needed military intelligence (16). Conversely, U.S. relations with Israel were especially hurt after the Israeli Air Force’s raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor on June 7, 1981(17). The raid resulted in the delaying of a shipment of American aircraft to Israel that had already been authorized, as well the U.S. voting for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (17).

Conclusion

The American government supported Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Many historians believe that the American government did this as a means of inflicting a “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision to send weapons to the rebels defeated the Soviet Union but created a breeding ground for terrorists in Afghanistan. The decision also made Iran more dangerous to American national security. The U.S. decision to support the Mujahideen was one of a series of foreign policy disasters during the Carter and Reagan years. Support for the rebels was an egregious and ill-advised decision by the American government. 

Now, you can read some World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.

[1] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 42. 

[2] Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2012. 13. 

[3] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 50-51. 

6 Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial. 2009. 210. 

[4] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 40. 

[5] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001.  New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 58-59.

11 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979 -89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012. 49. 

14 Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 176. 

7 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 178-179.

8 Normann, Michael . MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 152-153. 

9 Normann, Michael. MIL  MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present: Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 28. 

10 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2012. 30. 

12 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 11. 

13 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present:Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 179-181. 

15 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 336- 337. 

16 Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 43-44. 

17 Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Nuclear Reactor. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-oprea-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor

References

Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012.

Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004.

Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial, 2009. 

Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 

Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 

“Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Reactor”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-opera-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor. 

Queen Victoria and the First Opium War

Queen Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire in 1837. Shortly after, she was at war with China in the First Opium War (1839-1842). Here, Sam Kelly explains the background to the war, the war itself, and the curious drug-taking habits of the Queen and mid-nineteenth century Britain.

Lin Zexu and the destruction of opium.

Who is the most notorious drug kingpin of all time? Most people would say Pablo Escobar, or perhaps El Chapo. But they would be wrong. More than a hundred years before these men were born, there was a powerful woman who controlled a drug empire so vast and so unimaginably lucrative that it made Escobar and El Chapo look like low-level street dealers. Unlike modern drug lords, she didn’t have to live in a remote jungle compound surrounded by thugs toting machine guns because no one was coming after her. She didn’t have to conceal her ill-gotten gains from the tax collectors because the proceeds from her drug operation were funding the entire country. And she didn’t have to worry about being gunned down in the street or locked away in prison because every single person who was empowered to punish drug crimes was already on her payroll. Her name was Queen Victoria and she was running the British Empire.

Her meteoric rise as a drug lord began innocently enough. It happened because British people loved drinking tea. The average London household was spending 5% of its annual income on Chinese tea, which was not a problem as long as Britain could trade something to China in exchange for all the tea. Unfortunately, Britain didn’t have much that the Chinese wanted. China saw British manufactured goods as inferior and unnecessary. Having nothing to trade, Britain was forced to pay for tea with the currency of the realm, which was silver. Britain was almost literally pouring silver into China’s imperial treasury and racking up massive trade deficits in the process. China was getting rich, and Britain grew resentful. The British Empire was determined to find something, anything, that Chinese people craved.

They found opium. It ticked off all the boxes. It grew natively in India, which the British Empire controlled. It was an amazingly effective painkiller, which meant the Chinese were willing to pay outrageously high prices for it. And most importantly, it was obscenely addictive. People who used opium got hooked almost immediately, which allowed Britain to increase the price as demand grew.

Thanks to opium, the trade imbalance was reversed almost overnight. China was forced to return all of the silver the British had spent on tea, plus a great deal more. Now it was China, not Britain, that was racking up ruinous trade deficits. And millions of Chinese citizens were being transformed into hopeless opium addicts.

China Fights Back

China tried to put a stop to it. It declared opium illegal and banned it throughout the country. However, the British Empire wasn’t ready to give up its lucrative drug operation. If they could not sell opium legally, they would hire drug mules and third parties, pay off corrupt officials, or just plain smuggle it in, whatever it took to keep the money coming in. They even offered free samples of opium to Chinese citizens in a craven attempt to get as many people addicted as possible. From their point of view, it wasn’t personal; it was business, and business was extremely good. Opium sales were now responsible for some 15% - 20% of the British Empire’s annual revenue.  

The Chinese Emperor was determined to wipe out the opium scourge by any means necessary. His viceroy, a man named Lin Zexu, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, explaining what she was doing was immoral. Opium was illegal in England and punished with the utmost strictness and severity, yet she was flooding China with opium and deliberately getting people hooked. The Queen never saw the letter and when she did not respond to his letter, Lin Wexu decided it was time to take aggressive action. He seized a massive shipment of British opium and ordered his soldiers to trample it under their feet and then dump it into the South China Sea. This time, the Queen responded.

Something you need to understand: Queen Victoria was only 18 years old when she ascended to the throne in 1837. She was new in the job – and under the impression that, as queen, she could do whatever she wanted. So when the Chinese government dumped 2.5 million pounds of British opium into the sea, she reacted like any all-powerful young imperial leader would. She declared war on China in 1839.

It is known as the First Opium War (1839-1842). There was a Second Opium War a few years later (1856-60). British forces laid waste to the Chinese army and slaughtered tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. The Emperor had no choice but to capitulate and sign a one-sided peace treaty that surrendered Hong Kong to the British, opened additional ports for British opium to flood into the country, and granted British citizens who were living in China immunity to Chinese laws. It was an unprecedented blow to the nation’s sovereignty. The esteemed empire of China had been defeated and humbled by a young ruler. China was now perceived as weak by the rest of world, making it ripe for invasion and subjugation by Western powers, Russia, and Japan. And so began China’s tragic “century of humiliation.”  

Queen Victoria Was a Drug User

But why? Why did Queen Victoria choose to bring ruin and shame upon one of the world’s most ancient civilizations simply to preserve her illegal drug smuggling operation? Partly it was due to being given too much power at too young of an age. And partly it was due to the nationalistic impulse to regard British wealth and happiness as more important than the lives of Asian peoples halfway around the world. But it certainly didn’t help matters that she was on drugs. Yes, that is correct. Her Majesty the Queen was not only selling drugs, she was using them.

She used opium every day. Unlike the Chinese citizens who became addicted, she did not smoke it in a pipe. In Britain, the more fashionable way to ingest opium was to drink it in the form of laudanum, comprised of 90% alcohol and 10% opium. Laudanum was available over the counter without a prescription. Doctors recommended it to mothers for their teething children. Queen Victoria drank a glass every night to help her sleep.

Her other drug of choice was cocaine. It was not illegal at the time. Cocaine was brand new on the scene and regarded as a wonder drug. European explorers had witnessed indigenous peoples living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, who chewed coca leaves regularly and had amazing stamina and were strong and hardy, despite being physically small. European scientists reached the conclusion the same active ingredient from coca leaves would have even greater salutary effects on Europeans who, in their not-so-scientific and racist opinion, were inherently healthier, stronger and more intelligent than their South American counterparts.

Queen Victoria was a particular fan of cocaine chewing gum. It came highly recommended for soothing aches and pains from tooth and gum disease, plus it supplied the chewer with boundless amounts of energy, and for reasons that were unexplainable at the time, it tremendously boosted one’s feeling of self-confidence – just the ticket for a young inexperienced Queen who desired to project a strong assertive image. It was extremely popular with British elites. In fact, Victoria is reported to have shared cocaine chewing gum with a young Winston Churchill. Back in those days, no one knew about the downside of cocaine use. Doctors and scientists genuinely believed it was good for you.

Which brings me to the final twist in this story: Because she believed cocaine was good for you, Queen Victoria refused to sell it to the Chinese. She was happy to sell them all of the opium in the world, despite its devastating effects, but they could not touch her cocaine.

What do you think of Queen Victoria and the First Opium War? Let us know below.

References

Stephen R. Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Knopf 2018.

Tom de Castella, “100 Years of the War on Drugs,” BBC News Magazine, January 24, 2012, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-16681673

Matt Schiavenza, “How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History,” The Atlantic, October 25, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/

Ellen Castelow, “Opium in Victorian Britain,” Historic UK, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

“Did This Beloved Queen of Britain Use Drugs,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/did-this-beloved-queen-of-britain-use-drugs/

“The Opium War and Foreign Encroachment,” Asia for Educators, Columbia University, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

Michael Malloy – The New York Irishman who wouldn’t die

Remember the cartoons you saw as a child, where one character is the oblivious target and survivor of another’s constant scheming? In 1930s New York, that scenario played out in real life. Here, Tom Daly explains the extraordinary story of Michael Malloy.

Tony Marino’s speakeasy. Third Avenue, New York.

On a warm afternoon in July 1932, three New Yorkers cooked up a scheme to make themselves rich. Running a speakeasy in the last year of the prohibition on alcohol in the US, one of them had noticed an Irishman who would regularly visit his bar, drink himself silly and pass out. That afternoon, he and his accomplices observed the man, slouched over his glass and mumbling to himself. He looked old, sick and tired, and it seemed as if he was not far from dying. How hard could it be to give him a little help along the way? With two more accomplices, they took out several life insurance policies on him, plied him with free booze and waited for him to pass. But he would not go so easily – every morning he was back, cheerfully ordering another drink as he settled in for the day. Before long the gang was becoming increasingly desperate, trying to poison him and even running him over with a car, but the insatiable Irishman simply would not die. He rose every morning and carried on as normal, like a cartoon character who keeps accidentally surviving attempts on their life, blissfully unaware that they are the target of a terrible plot. 

The man was an immigrant named Michael Malloy, whose resistance to the murder attempts earned him nicknames such as ‘Iron Mike’ and ‘The Rasputin of the Bronx.’ He was eventually killed by the gang, but the plot had long since lost its guile. Their frustration had got the better of them and by the end it seemed as if they were more concerned with finally killing their man than they were with getting away with it. Swiftly arrested, four of them would be sent to the electric chair, where they would not cheat death in the way their victim had done.

Background

Michael Malloy was born in County Donegal, in the north-west of Ireland, probably in the 1870s. By the early 1920s he had emigrated to New York, where he worked as a firefighter for a while, but by the end of the decade he was homeless and alcoholic. He frequented the speakeasies – venues that served illegal alcohol during prohibition – in the Bronx and by 1932 was a regular in one that was run by 27-year-old Tony Marino. 

Marino had an eye for quick money-making schemes. Already raking in a considerable income from his alcohol operation, earlier that year he had befriended a woman named Mabelle Carson and convinced her to sign a $2,000 life insurance policy that named him as the beneficiary. On a freezing night soon after, he had got her blind drunk, soaked a mattress with icy water and left her lying naked on the mattress by an open window. She died overnight and no questions were asked as Marino picked up his money, leaving him to wonder – how many times could I get away with that?

The Plot

It was in July 1932 that he decided Michael Malloy would be his next target. Standing at the bar with his friends, 24-year-old Francis Pasqua and 29-year-old Daniel Kreisberg, Marino gestured at Malloy and complained that he owed him money. If he can’t pay his debts, Pasqua suggested, couldn’t you do to him what you did to Mabelle Carson? Marino paused, before agreeing that it would be a nice little earner. 

That December, the men presented Malloy with some papers that they said would help get Marino elected to local office, and promised to provide him with free drink for the next few days in return. The thrilled Malloy was unaware that the papers he signed were actually life insurance policies that named Marino, Pasqua, Kreisberg and their friend, Joe Murphy, as the beneficiaries in the case of his accidental death. The men stood to gain $3,500 (over $50,000 in today’s money) between them. 

For the next three days, Malloy was given all the drink he wanted, free of charge, and the gang was sure that it would tip him over the edge. But on the fourth morning, to their shock and annoyance, Malloy breezed back into the bar and ordered some more drink. One has to wonder what Malloy was thinking – how exactly had he gone from being in debt to the bar to being best pals with the landlord and having drinks on the house? But Malloy didn’t consider how suspicious it was: all he cared about was the free booze. As far as he was concerned, he’d already died and gone to heaven.

The gang gets desperate

As the trend continued into the new year, Marino was growing impatient and petulantly suggested it would be easier to shoot Malloy in the head. But, not wanting to attract any attention from the authorities, Joe Murphy instead suggested that they start replacing Malloy’s normal drink with wood alcohol. Wood alcohol could cause death even in small quantities and, in an era when it was not uncommon for people to die from poor quality illegal alcohol, Murphy figured that no foul play would be suspected. The gang agreed to go ahead with the plan and served Malloy with wood alcohol one afternoon, but their target just kept knocking the drinks back and ordering more, carrying on into the next day and the day after. Astonished, the gang was forced to think again. 

This time, Pasqua conceived a plan to feed Malloy rotten sardine sandwiches and raw oysters to compliment the wood alcohol, knowing that the mix of oysters and hard spirits would poison him. When this did not work, they filled Malloy’s sandwiches with broken glass and metal, but still the Irishman simply devoured the sandwiches, washed them down with wood alcohol and happily sat there asking for more. 

After this, the men decided that nothing Malloy consumed was going to kill him. The next plan was to carry a passed out Malloy into the freezing January night, cover him with icy water and wait for him to die of exposure. But when the sun rose the next morning, there was Malloy, waiting outside the door for another drink. 

February was now around the corner, which meant the gang would have to pay another monthly installment towards the insurance plans. Hoping to get him before then, they let another friend of theirs, 23-year-old Hershey Green, in on the plan and promised him a cut of $150 to run Malloy over with his car. One afternoon, Pasqua and Murphy held a drunk Malloy upright in a side road while Green raced towards them. Just before Green reached the men, Pasqua and Murphy jumped out of the way and got up to see if the deed had finally been done. Unbelievably, the man who had been too drunk to stand just a few seconds previously had managed to jump out of the way as well. The men immediately repeated the process, but Malloy managed to jump out of the way again. It was a case of third time lucky for the gang as Green finally hit Malloy at 45 miles an hour, but the noise alerted some passers by and the men were not able to make sure he was dead. For a few weeks they heard nothing from the Irishman and were busy trying to find which morgue his body was in so they could collect their money, but they were absolutely stunned in mid-February when a heavily bandaged Michael Malloy turned up at the bar declaring that he was desperate for a drink. He had no memory of the incident.

Getting more than they bargained for

By now the murder plot was not even going to make the gang a profit – they had already spent too much money on paying for the insurance plan, on buying wood alcohol and on giving Malloy free booze, and any money they did receive was going to have to be split five ways. Still, Malloy’s ability to cheat death had infuriated them, and he was going to have to die if only so they could salvage some pride from the whole venture. On the night of February 21, 1933, the gang waited for Malloy to pass out and carried him to a rented room near the bar, where they finally killed him by sticking a gas pipe down his throat. They then paid off a coroner to list his cause of death as pneumonia and set about collecting the insurance money. 

Francis Pasqua collected $800 from the first insurance company, but was shocked when an employee at the second company asked to see the body. Pasqua sheepishly replied that the body had already been buried, which aroused enough suspicion to get the police involved. The New York police had been hearing rumors about ‘Iron Mike’ for the previous few weeks and swiftly added the story up, exhuming Malloy’s body for proper testing. The tests showed that Malloy had been murdered, and Marino, Pasqua, Kriesberg, Murphy and Green were all arrested. They were dubbed ‘The Murder Trust’ by a fascinated press. 

Hershey Green was convicted of the attempted murder of Michael Malloy and sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison. The other four men, who all pointed the finger at each other during their trial, were each convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Marino, Pasqua and Kriesberg were all executed in the electric chair on the same day, June 7, 1934. All three of them were married, while Marino and Kriesberg were both fathers to young children. Joe Murphy was executed by the same method the following month.

Not much is known about Michael Malloy. Nothing is known about his family, his exact age when he died is not known, and he would have just been another anonymous alcoholic in New York if it hadn’t been for a murder plot against him and his bizarre ability to survive it. All that is known about him is that he used to be a fireman, he was very fond of a drink, and he absolutely earned his nickname, ‘Iron Mike.’

Now, you can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here, 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here, and why Tom loves history here.

Finally, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

19th Century War Tourism: After the 1815 Battle of Waterloo

Some people visit the battlefields of the world as tourists; however, such war tourism has a long history. Here, Erica Olson explains how battlefield tourism took place after the 1815 Battle of Waterloo – and how items for sale even included soldiers’ teeth.

Waterloo by Denis Dighton. British 10th Hussars of Vivian's Brigade attacking mixed French troops.

Many history lovers are familiar with Napoleon's Hundred Days leading up to Waterloo and the events of the battle itself, but what happened after is less well known. The battlefield was far from the hallowed mass grave we may expect. An astonishing number of people from various nations, especially England, treated Waterloo as a tourist attraction, treading over the bodies of dead soldiers.

English writer John Scott (1784-1821), traveling only three months after Waterloo, was in a unique position to comment upon the chaotic movement of people throughout Europe at the end of the Napoleonic wars. His 1815 account, Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo, gives us a glimpse into the booming new tourism industry.

According to Scott, English travel to Europe exploded immediately after Waterloo. When asked to sign the guest list for a hotel in Bruges, Scott saw “a host of my countryfolks [sic], of each sex, and every age, profession, residence, and condition, all on the swarm for Brussels.” Some had listed the more precise destination, Field of battle, near Waterloo. Scott was excited to see a list full of familiar English middle-class names such as Johnson, Roberts, Davis, and Jackson, names which “will remain in the archives of the police at Bruges, as the memorials of a most extraordinary time.” What Scott observed was quite a new phenomenon, one that arose after the end of Napoleon’s campaigns: war tourism, on a massive scale.

While tourists recorded “picking objects up” at Waterloo, they probably bought most of their souvenirs from locals, who would have stripped the battlefield of everything valuable within hours [2]. Pistols, swords, and musket balls were especially popular. One notable tourist, Sir Walter Scott, brought back a plethora of such items.

“Waterloo ivory”

A more sinister trade emerged as well. By the early 1800s, Europeans were consuming massive amounts of sugar courtesy of the transatlantic slave trade [3]. Many people had rotting or missing teeth, leading them to seek out individual replacements or full sets of dentures. Historically, dentures were made of elephant, walrus, or hippopotamus ivory, but ivory rotted even more quickly than human teeth. So after Waterloo, scavengers set out for the battlefield armed with pliers, ready to pry out teeth from the mouths of dead soldiers.

Some of the newly arrived English tourists got in on the game. Back in England, the trade in teeth was lucrative, with dentists boasting that they sold genuine “Waterloo ivory”, guaranteed to have come from young, healthy soldiers [4]. Waterloo was the mother lode: more teeth than anyone knew what to do with, just like the mountains of bones, which were ground into the soil as fertilizer – some of the bones were even transported across the Channel to increase the bounty of English fields.

The author of Paris Revisited, John Scott, was surely aware of these morbid activities, as he walked the battlefield himself, yet they didn't dampen his enthusiasm for war tourism. He proudly visited the towns of Flanders, “the great prize-fighting stage of Europe.” As he passed through Bruges, Liege, Malines, Juliers, Tournay, Mons, and Jemappe, he thought of “ famous campaigns, …able military maneuvers, great battles, important treaties, alliances, discords, and devastations” [1]. Death on a grand scale didn't bother him in the least. In his fantasy of war, everyone was heroic and battles belonged in glorious history books.

Scott depicts the mood in Brussels after Waterloo as one of great merriment, where the wounded soldiers coming in for treatment and the tourists coming to see the battlefield “seemed all animated by the influence of a vast holiday.” The joy of being an English war tourist lay in seeing soldiers, just recently come from “the heart of the battle, black with gun-powder and sweat…bleeding, groaning, and dying,” now “out in a pleasurable promenade.” Now that the terror of Napoleon was gone, the British could rejoice. Scott reports that when he went to buy a hat, a British doctor standing nearby told him, “Hats are of no use now but to throw up in the air when we shout!” The influx of tourists were free to view battle as a spectator sport as they turned their eyes away from death and despair. What better place than Waterloo to celebrate?

What do you think of battlefield tourism? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Scott, John. Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816.

2. Plotz, Sophie. “Waterloo: Battlefield Tourism.” National Museums Scotland. Last modified September 20, 2015. https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2015/09/20/waterloo-battlefield-tourism/.

3. Kerley, Paul. “The dentures made from the teeth of dead soldiers at Waterloo.” BBC News Magazine. Last modified June 15, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33085031

4. “Waterloo Teeth.” Age of Revolution. Accessed February 11, 2021. https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/waterloo-teeth-1815-2/