Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?

The Italian military has often been portrayed as having not performed very well in World War Two. But is that true? Here, Daniel Boustead looks at this by considering the Italian wars in the 1930s, their impact on Italy’s performance in World War Two, and how Italy fared during fighting in the war itself.

Italian Troops in Addis Ababa during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in May 1936.

In the years following World War II, the Italian military has been satirized in popular culture as well as historical scholarship. The Italian military was weakened by military conquests in Ethiopia, Spain and Albania before World War II. Their equipment, weapons and leadership were inadequate which caused their numerous defeats. Furthermore, while the 10a Flottiglia MAS was the most successful unit, it pales when compared to British Special Forces and German Special Forces. The unpopularity of the war and lack of Italian military success resulted in Mussolini’s fall from power in July 1943. Civil war followed.  Was Italy’s Military the weakest Axis Power? Let’s examine the facts.

Wars in the 1930s

On October 2, 1935 Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia (then Abyssinia) and did not conquer the country until May 5, 1936, when Italian troops entered the capital of Addis Ababa ([1]). The Ethiopian war cost the Italians about 1,500 men ([2]). The Italian support to Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War (from 1936 to 1939) cost the Italians 3,819 soldiers dead and 8.5 billion lire ([3]). The Italian military conquered the country of Albania in April 1939 ([4]). While the conquest of Albania was a success, it exposed the problems that plagued the Italian Army in the coming conflict. In Albania, the Italian military sent men who had never operated motorcycles to motorcycle companies (5). They sent men who did not even know Morse Code to signal units! (5) A member of the Italian Foreign Minister Ciano’s staff commented about the Italian military’s performance in Albania saying, “If the Albanians had possessed one well-armed fire brigade they could have driven us back into the Adriatic” (5).  By the time Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Italy had drained away the gold it had collected from its citizens during the Ethiopian war of 1935 to 1936 (6). This meant that Italy did not have enough gold to help finance a major conflict (7). These small conflicts combined with the Spanish Civil War debt would result in fatal consequences when Italy entered the war in 1940.

Entering World War II

The Italian military was not ready to go to the war by the time Mussolini declared war on France and Great Britain on June 10, 1940(9). The Fascist Italian military organization was so inept that the Army, Navy, and Air Force would frequently squabble, plot and sometimes spy on one another’s activities (8). Dictator Benito Mussolini’s belief that “Italy was an unsinkable aircraft carrier” and his decision to place all of Italy’s air power under the command of the Italian Air Force, deprived the Royal Italian Navy of an air force and aircraft carriers (8). The Italian Navy became dependent on the Royal Italian Air Force for both long-range reconnaissance and for air cover in its many battles in the Mediterranean (8). The Air Force would fail in their assigned duties at such battles as the Battle of Cape Spada and the Battle of Calabria (8). The military command was flawed because promotion came as often by political favoritism as by military skill (10).  Mussolini not only stifled debate in his military, but even fired one general on the spot for counseling him not to go to war, and he judged his military officers almost solely on “Fascist merits”(10). 

The Royal Italian Army had a lack of uniforms and equipment, which badly compromised their battle readiness (10). The recruits usually were trained less than the required 18 months that was prescribed by Italian law (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Army had rifles that dated back to 1891, horse drawn artillery, no heavy tanks, 70 medium tanks, and 1,500 light tanks that had armor that was so thin machine gun bullets could penetrate them (11). They were ill-equipped, ill-trained, and skeptical of Fascism’s propaganda (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Air Force only had 3,296 fighters and bombers, and they had neither the speed nor the armament to match Allied Fighters (10). The Royal Italian Navy’s ships were also not equipped with radar, which would prove a fatal flaw in various battles to come (12).

1940 to 1941

The Italian military would suffer numerous defeats in 1940 and 1941. The combination of lack of radar, lack of aircraft carriers, poor reconnaissance and air support resulted in 1 out of 2 Royal Italian light cruisers being lost at the Battle of Cape Spada against the British Royal Navy in July, 1940 (13). The Royal Italian Army invaded Egypt on September 13, 1940 (14). The British forces launched Operation Compass to counter the Italian invasion on December 9, 1940 (15). By the time Operation Compass ended in February 1941, the British forces had pushed the Italians 500 miles back into Libya and taken 130,000 Italians as prisoners (16). The Italians were rescued in North Africa when the Germans sent the Afrika Korps commanded by General Erwin Rommel (16).

On October 28, 1940 the Italian Army invaded Greece (17). By the end of December 1940 the Greek Army drove the Italians out of Greece and were controlling more then one quarter of Albania (18). Hitler decided in November 1940, in the immediate aftermath of Mussolini’s invasion of Greece, to also invade Greece. This was not so much to bail out Mussolini but to protect and to prevent British Royal Air Force bombers from bombing the Ploesti Romanian oil fields that were supplying his forces for the invasion of the Soviet Union (19). Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was initially scheduled for May 1941 (19). Indeed, had Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in May 1941 the war in the east might have turned out differently.

On November 11 to 12, 1940 the British Navy launched an aircraft carrier raid on the Italian fleet at Taranto, Italy (20). This raid resulted in three battleships, two cruisers, and two destroyers being sunk or severely damaged (20). They were useless for months (20). The raid on Taranto also forced the Italian Navy to retire to Naples (20). This was too far to be a hindrance against British convoys in the Mediterranean (20). In late March 1941 the British Royal Navy, using intelligence from Bletchley Park’s Ultra and exploiting the Italian’s ship lack of radar, fought the Battle of  Matapan (21). Italy lost three cruisers, two destroyers, and 2,400 men (21). The defeat at the Battle of Matapan was so devastating for the Italian Navy that Mussolini ordered his fleet confined to waters under firm Italian control (22). Fascist Italy’s military also suffered a further defeat on May 5, 1941 when Haile Selassie and his British forces entered the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa (23).

A more successful attack

The 10th MAS Flotilla was formed on March 15, 1941 and consisted of Frogman, Manned Torpedoes, and Assault Motorboats and was renamed Xa Flotilla in autumn 1943 (24). This group in both incarnations sunk, between March 1941 and April 1945, 12 Allied ships and damaged two British Battleships (25). The 10th Flotilla MAS’s units’ greatest success came in December 1941 when their frogman severely damaged the British Battleships HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth (25). This put them out of action for more than a year (25). This action left the British Royal Navy with only three light cruisers, and a handful of destroyers in the east and central Mediterranean, thus altering the balance of naval forces in favor of the Axis (25).

Later in the war

Mussolini was deposed in July 1943, in large part because the Royal Italian Military had suffered numerous defeats, first by the Fascist Grand Council on July 24, 1943 and then by King Victor Emmanuel III on July 25, 1943 (30). The aftermath of Italy’s surrender on September 8, 1943, split the Italian military into two sides, the Kingdom of Italy’s military, which fought for the King, and the other side for Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic (24). Following this, a group of German Paratroopers and SS Soldiers were sent on a raid to rescue deposed Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini at Gran Sasso massif (28). This German Special Forces raid was significant because it allowed Mussolini to rule as head of the German backed Italian Social Republic until his death in April 1945 (29).

The Royal Italian Military’s performance has been much maligned since World War II. Its military was weakened by pre World War II conflicts. Italy was not prepared to go to war in June 1940. The weakness of the Italian military is not a stereotype but an established historical fact. 

What do you think of Italy’s record in World War II? Let us know below.

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

[1] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 367. 

[2] Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia:  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977. 158. 

[3] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 402. 

[4] Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 18. 

6 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 39. 

7 Adams, Henry. Italy at War.  Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 33 to 39. 

9 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 21

8 Adams, Henry. Italy at War . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 53. 

10 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life- Books, Inc. 1982 59.

11 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 58. 

12 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 61. 

13 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 52 to 53. 

14 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 8. 

15 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 26. 

16 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 33 to 35. 

17 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17. 

18 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 19. 

19 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 22

20 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 72 to 75.

21 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 92 to 98. 

22 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 24. 

23Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 101. 

24Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 8 to 42. 

25 Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 16 to 44. 

30 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 156. 

28 McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew43, FG 42 and StG 44. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 43 to 44. 

29 Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under a Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books, 2005. 506. 

References

Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982.

Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005.

Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 

Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977.

Ford, Ken. Campaign: St. Nazaire 1942: The Great Commando Raid. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2001. 

McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles: 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42, and StG 44. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981.

The Three Great Early Influences on Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), sometimes referred to as America’s Da Vinci, was the third President of the USA from 1801-1809, and a great intellect across a wide range of areas. Here, William Floyd Junior tells us about three of his great early educational influences: George Wythe, William Small, and Francis Fauquier.

Thomas Jefferson in London in 1786. By Mather Brown.

President John F. Kennedy addressing a group of Nobel Prize winners at the White House on April 29, 1962 stated, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of human knowledge, that has gathered in the White House with the possible exception when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” It says something about Jefferson that the obelisk that marks his grave at Monticello and lists what he believed were his greatest accomplishments, has no mention of his being President of the United States. Some historians have referred to him as “America’s Da Vinci.” However, Jefferson did not achieve all that he did alone. He had plenty of help along the way and was fortunate in the three remarkable men he met while a student at William and Mary College.

Early years

Thomas Jefferson’s earliest education began with his father Peter, a self-educated man. Young Tom’s first formal education began at the English School at age 5 and then the Latin School at 9. He would then go on to the Reverend Maury, a classical scholar, where he would remain for two years. In March 1760, Jefferson and his slave, Jupiter, packed a wagon and drove 150 miles east to Williamsburg where Thomas would take up his studies at William and Mary. It would be his first real exposure to the outside world. At the college he gained a reputation as an obsessive student, sometimes spending as many as fifteen hours a day in study and three hours practicing the violin.

During his time in Williamsburg, Jefferson would have the very good fortune of meeting three extraordinary men who were living in Williamsburg at the time. They included George Wythe, William Small, and Francis Fauquier, the Royal Governor, all of whom played a huge roll in Jefferson’s education, both inside and outside the classroom. The four would dine regularly at the Governor’s Palace where they would play music and discuss a wide range of topics. Jefferson would remark about their partee quaree, “To the habitual conversations on these occasions I owed much instruction.”

George Wythe

George Wythe (1726-1806) mastered Greek and Latin as a teenager, graduated college at nineteen and was admitted to the bar at twenty. Among Wythe’s many accomplishments included, being a self-taught lawyer, a member of the House of Burgesses and the Virginia State Legislature, delegate to the Continental Congress, assisting in writing a new legal code for the state of Virginia, a judge on Virginia’s Chancery Court, and Chief Justice of Virginia.

After two years at William and Mary, Jefferson would begin a legal apprenticeship with George Wythe that would last five years, an unusually long period during this time, in which the first year was spent at home reading the assigned texts. In addition to the reading of law books, there was a good deal of time reading in the humanities. In 1767, Jefferson would be admitted to the bar of the General Court which would consume his time until 1774, when the work of the Revolution drew him in to politics and diplomacy.

In response to the Stamp Act, Wythe would be the author of a remonstrance sent to the British government in protest. However, the Stamp Act would go into effect in November 1765.

In 1790 Wythe would resign from William and Mary. One of the reasons for his resignation was his need to travel to Richmond four times a year as the single judge on the High Court of Chancery. In the autumn of 1791, with mixed emotions, Wythe would move to Richmond and purchase a home close to the capitol. Judge Wythe would rule on a variety of issues which included rulings against cases on slavery.

In 1806, George Wythe Sweeney, the judge’s grandnephew was living in Wythe’s house. On May 25, 1806, as Wythe was having breakfast, he became violently ill. Lydia Broadnax and Michael Brown, both free African Americans living in Wythe’s house also became ill.  Brown would die on June 1. It is believed that Sweeney thought he would receive a larger share of Wythe’s will by the poisoning of Broadnax and Brown. Before passing away on June 8, Wythe amended his will to disinherit Sweeney. Sweeney was later acquitted of the murder charge. 

George Wythe probably had more direct influence on Jefferson’s thinking, by virtue of the long periods of time they spent together. Jefferson would later say that: “Mr. Wythe continued to be my faithful and beloved mentor in youth, and my most affectionate friend through life.”

William Small

After fifty years of not having seen William Small, Jefferson would write: “It was my great good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my life that Dr. William Small of Scotland was then professor of mathematics, a man most profound in the useful branches of science, with a happy talent of communication, correct, gentlemanly manners & an enlarged and liberal mind. He, most happy for me, became soon attached to me & made me his daily companion when not engaged in the school.” Small’s influence over the young Thomas Jefferson was one of his most outstanding accomplishments in a life filled with outstanding accomplishments.

William Small was born October 13, 1734 in the Scottish town of Carmyllie, Forfarshire at the time of the Enlightenment. He would graduate from Marischal College in 1755, one of the most scientifically and philosophically advanced schools in the country. There is some evidence that Small studied medicine at King’s College after leaving Marischal. 

The College of William and Mary where Small would arrive in 1758 was chartered in 1693 and was practically a reproduction of Oxford and Cambridge in England. Small would teach both mathematics and moral philosophy. He would also introduce to the college the study of the natural sciences and experimental philosophy. He acquainted Jefferson and other students with Sir Isaac Newton and would open the wonders of an ordered universe while demonstrating what the mind can do.

In the six years he spent at William and Mary, Small would do much to liberalize the college. He would do away with the old practice of making students memorize lessons. Instead, he instituted the modern lecture system. It was also believed to be the first time in America when physics principles came into use in the classroom. For a year, Small would be the only recorded master of the philosophical school, which gave him control of the curriculum.

Jefferson continued to be excited by all he was learning and found that Dr. Small had awakened in him a love of mathematics that had begun with his father years earlier. It would remain his favorite subject from then on. Whenever Jefferson travelled, he would carry mathematical instruments, a ruler, and a book of logarithms.

Much to Jefferson’s disappointment, Small would return to England in 1764. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not pleasant. Among his reasons for leaving was the passing of a new rule by the college board affirming the right to remove any member of the faculty at will, something that Small could not accept. In spite of his short time at William and Mary, his influence at the college would have a long-lasting effect.

Back in England, Small would become one of the founders of the Birmingham Hospital. Although, he often felt that medicine was a prison while his real interests were mathematics, mechanics, and chemistry. 

There is some evidence that upon his return, Small may have played a central role in the founding of the Lunar Society. The Society would become the most prominent and influential of any provincial intellectual club. Meetings were normally held on the Sunday closest to the full moon so the members could more easily find their way home. When the members could not meet, they would write to one another and would ship samples and other items such as bones, fossils, vases, and urns. Their inquiries and discussions covered almost every topic imaginable.

Small’s health had been poor since leaving Virginia, possibly suffering from malaria he may have contracted while living in Williamsburg. At the beginning of 1775, Small became increasingly ill and died on February 25, 1775. On May 5, 1775, Jefferson would write to Small, not knowing that he had died months before. The letter had been sent with three dozen bottles of Moderia wine.

Francis Fauquier

Francis Fauquier would be made Lieutenant Governor of the colony of Virginia by a commission given to him in on February 10, 1758. It was the custom at this time that the Governor would remain in England with the Lieutenant Governor residing in the colony.

Thus, would begin Francis Fauquier’s term beginning in 1758 and continuing until his death in Williamsburg on March 3, 1768. Fauquier would bring his wife and elder son, Francis, with him to Virginia where the two would stay until May 1766.

In John Burke’s, “The History of Virginia from its First Settlement to the Present Day,” he describes Francis Fauquier’s arrival in Williamsburg, “as having an effect on the literature of Virginia.” He goes on to write that, “Fauquier was elegant in his manners, correct and classical in conversation and writing. He was a patron of learning and was thought of in Virginia as a model scholar.”  However, Burke would also mention Fauquier’s habit of gambling, which was very popular among the state’s elite.

Francis was the second child of John Francis and his wife, Elizabeth. He was born in late June or early July 1703. The date of Francis’ marriage to Catherine Dalston is not known, but by the start of 1733, a son, Francis, had been born and a second son, William, not long after. Francis would be elected a director of the South Sea Company, and a governor of the Foundling Hospital. He was also elected a “Fellow of the Royal Society.”

As governor, Fauquier would face a number of difficult issues, the most serious of which were the Stamp Act and the French and Indian War. The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1765 would impose a stamp duty on newspapers and legal documents. Colonial opposition to the “Act” led to its repeal in 1766. The French and Indian War (1756-1763) was also known as the Seven Years War. It began with France’s expansion into the Ohio River Valley resulting in a number of battles between the warring parties.

Without a doubt, Fauquier’s most enjoyable times as governor were the dinners he hosted at the Governor’s Palace with his three good friends. It was here that Jefferson would learn the art of living well. At the dinners elegance and good conversation took place, two things he greatly cherished. The older men would encourage Jefferson in his playing of the violin. He would be invited to join Fauquier on the governor’s musical evenings, performing at the palace. Jefferson would later write about the time he spent at the Palace: “I have heard more good sense, more rational, and philosophical conversation than in all my life besides.” The group represented four of the most brilliant minds in Virginia at the time, and perhaps in all of the colonies.

For the remainder of his life Jefferson attempted to replicate those nights he would spend at the Governor’s Palace as a member of the “Partee Quarre.” Whether it was at Monticello, the salons of Paris, the rooms of boarding houses, or the White House, Jefferson encouraged conversation in science, the arts, politics, or other topics of the day.

Francis Fauquier would pass away on March 3, 1768 and was buried in the north isle of Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg.

What do you think of Jefferson’s early educational influences? Let us know below.

Why was the Nazi’s Luftwaffe Air Force in Terminal Decline by September and October 1944?

The Nazi Luftwaffe air force played a key role in World War II, causing havoc as it rampaged through Europe in the early years of the war. However, by 1944 it was in terminal decline. Here, Matt Whittaker looks at the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s decline by focusing on September and October 1944.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 in September 1943. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-487-3066-04 / Boyer / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Introduction

The Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe, was in a critical spot in September and October 1944. Germany was fighting a three-front war each with demands that put pressure on the economy. The Allied bombing campaign had grown since the start of the year, wreaking havoc with economic and oil industry targets. The D-Day landings in June increased the stresses that wrecked the Luftwaffe in the West.

By September, the Germans got an unexpected gift from the Allies: logistics problems. The Allies could not keep their forces sufficiently supplied. This led to a halt to most pursuit, giving their opponents some space. The air war did not slow, however.

The biggest three issues the Luftwaffe faced were:

1.     The Numbers Game

2.     Fuel Shortages

3.     Training Cuts

The Numbers Game

The battles above Normandy and the attempt to slow the Allied bombing campaign drained the Luftwaffe. Air defense squadrons sent west as reinforcements returned at half strength. Such was the ferocity of the battles from June to August that only 175 operational fighters were available to fight by mid-September (1). 

A big contributor was the change in American fighter tactics. Escort fighters were now freed from the bombers to range ahead, clearing any opposition. Luftwaffe groups were broken up before they organized. Airfields were strafed or fighters lurked, waiting to pounce as their opponents landed. The German pilots tangled with increasingly larger American fighter groups with inexperienced pilots and heavily armed, cumbersome bomber destroyers like FW-190s. Many were shot down before even reaching the bombers. 

On September 11, 1944 the Luftwaffe intercepted an American raid heading for oil refineries. 350 fighters were sent against 700 fighters and 1,100 bombers. 305 made contact with the bombers and escorts; 110 were shot down for a loss rate of 36% (2).  A number of bombers were destroyed, but the Americans could accept such losses. Since early 1944 raids of 1,000 plus bombers and escorts were the norm. Interceptions resulted in high losses with many pilots killed in action (KIA).

September and October were the best wartime production months for Germany, despite strategic bombing. Of 3,821 aircraft that were produced in September, 80% were fighters (3). Despite this increase, the loss rate stayed par with deliveries. Gas and pilot shortages kept many of the planes from being utilized.

Fuel Shortages

The worst predicament facing the Luftwaffe by the fall was the lack of fuel. Since the start of the war, the fuel supply was a great concern. Germany possessed few natural sources. Much of the supply came from the Soviet Union, other Axis governments like Romania or, later, synthetic production. Much has been written about the efforts to protect sites like Ploesti from Allied bombing. 

Beginning in January 1944 the American heavy bombers made a concentrated effort to target Axis refineries and synthetic oil plants. By May, the raids had reduced the output from most sources of aviation gas by 90 percent (4).  These deficiencies could not easily be made up due to the damage. The raids, which had only slowed to support the D-Day campaign, were renewed after August. Flight operations drew on existing fuel supplies which were not replenished quickly. Starting in September, the Luftwaffe grounded many squadrons, leaving mostly fighters because of the shortfalls. Spare ground personnel were formed into infantry units; some were used in the fight at Arnhem. 

The Luftwaffe had to operate with 10% of its fuel requirements for September and October. All manner of methods were undertaken to reduce usage. Pilots had orders not to taxi upon landing or takeoff. Planes were moved with teams of oxen to tow planes into position or hangars.  The shortages cut severely into operations, reducing interceptions and ground attack requests. During Operation Market Garden, more Allied aircraft were downed by flak, rather than in combat. Occasional attacks were made against bridgeheads or supply depots, but the Luftwaffe was seldom seen.

Training Cuts

The double problems of fuel scarcity and rising attrition led to increasing cuts in training hours for novice Luftwaffe pilots. Total hours were cut, starting in 1941. This only grew worse, especially as the war expanded further into Russia, Africa, and the Mediterranean. Losses started to exceed the number of pilots graduating flight schools for service. The increasing clashes with more numerous Allied fighters led to a high death rate. By fall, the average lifespan of a fighter pilot was between 8 and 30 days (5). In an attempt to increase the number of active pilots, bomber squadrons were converted to fighters and flight instructors were transferred to the front lines. The German flight schools reduced hours but even more so with the front-line types that were used. Novice pilots got basic and some advanced instruction but much less in the operational models. German pilots averaged 60 hours of training while British RAF pilots had 225 hours (6).  

As with frontline groups, training fuel allotments were cut, feeding the cycle. Perhaps the greatest hindrance was the introduction of fighters like the P-51, which meant that nowhere in Germany was safe for training. The escorts flew ahead of the bomber streams or in free flights, looking for opportunities. Training flights or their airfields were attacked which meant further reductions.

Conclusion

These two crucial months were when the Luftwaffe’s back was broken. Losses in the first six months of the year led to Allied air supremacy. Still, pressure was building on all fronts but more so in the West. The ramping up of the strategic bombing campaign and the consistent targeting of the fighter arm culminated in this timeframe. Airplane manufacturing reached all-time highs in the fall but increased losses, fewer replacement pilots and a dearth of fuel resulted in an unrecoverable spiral.

Despite the best efforts of its leadership, the Luftwaffe of September and October 1944 was outmatched and outgunned. The short respite while the Allies played logistical catch-up from their advance didn’t last. By the end of October, that spiral was too great.

What do you think of the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s weakening in September and October 1944? Let us know below.

References

1 Zaloga, Steven J., Campaign 270 Operation Market Garden The American Airborne Missions (London: Osprey Publishing 2014), p. 1.

2 Caldwell, Donald and Muller, Richard, The Luftwaffe Over Germany Defense of the Reich (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. 2014), p. 452.

 3 February 22, 2013 MILAVIA Military Aviation Specials - The Luftwaffe's Comeback in Autumn 1944

 4 May 24, 2016 Luftwaffe Lovers: The role of synthetic fuel in World War II Germany - implications for today by Dr. Peter W. Becker

 5 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 302

 6 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 452

The Origins of Sesame Street

Sesame Street is an American cultural institution. It started in 1969 and is produced to this day. Here, Douglas Reid looks at the origins of the show.

Then First Lady Barbara Bush on Sesame Street in October 1989.

Do you recall these lines in a song from 1965? 

Counting flowers on the wall,

That don’t bother me at all.

Playing solitaire ‘til dawn,

With a deck of fifty one

Smokin’ cigarettes and

Watchin’ Captain Kangaroo

So don’t tell me I’ve nothing to do”

It is certainly the case that Captain Kangaroo held sway in 1965 but a little green frog was in the wings and he and his muppet gang were about to sweep the clouds away and with them Mr. Bob Keesham, a.k.a. Captain Kangaroo. The prime sweeper was Jim Henson. His early main assistant was Frank Oznowicz, forever after to be known as Frank O. Early additions included Joe Raposo and Caroll Edwin Spinney, who was a child-like man both on and off the set. It can be no surprise that he was Big Bird. Two other major muppets were Cookie Monster (my favorite) and Grover. And the key non-muppet in those early days was Lloyd Morrisette. The next item to be looked at was a name for the show and here is a tale to tell.

A cluster of eight people who made up the Friday afternoon meeting had only one name considered at the time but nobody but nobody liked it – Sesame Street. It was being used tentatively only. Every one hated it. One board member thought it had too many ‘esses.’ Another found it unimaginative. And so on. Then it was decided that until something was agreeable to all they would go with the interim name. No one did and that begs the question, where did the name come from in the first place? 

The name

Just one week earlier Virginia Schoen, a representative of the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW), asked the children to suggest names for the new show and they submitted seven names for her to consider. One of the choices was Sesame Street. And so it prevailed. Virginia never was able to identify the five-year old name-giver. The group had a name for the production. Now it needed a set.

Earlier In the year the CTW had decided that its home base would not be Los Angeles. The unanimous choice was New York. It was felt that the sorts of people needed for this enterprise were to be more easily found here. First a locum was needed.

The board, when first formed, had decided on a set that was a mirror image of contemporary Harlem. A suitable faux Brownstone was erected; complete with stoop and the address for the Brownstone would be 123 Sesame Street. By now it was time to call on good old Joe Reposo for Sesame’s new theme music.

Theme tune

Joe composed the theme music for Sesame Street. It is melodic and simple enough for a child to recognize and even to sing along to but still revealed a musical sophistication. It underscored the footage of joyful children running and the recurring chorus – “Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?” So do you ever wonder where the Children’s Television Workshop finds its stories, banter, plays, etc.? Here is a typical “Solve” achieved by the muppets themselves:

Muppets are sitting around a coffee table pretending they are suits (executives).

“Alright, all right. How about this for a title. ‘The two and two are five show.’”

Conference Leader Muppet, ‘Are you crazy? This is supposed to be an educational show. Two plus two don’t make five.’

First Muppet: they don’t? Then how about the two plus two ain’t five show? 

Second Muppet: This is a show for kids. Right? How’s about we call it the little Kiddie show?

All: Sounds all right! We like it!

Third Muppet: But we ought to say something about the show telling it like it is. Maybe the Nitty-Gritty, Little kiddie Show! 

All: Not bad! Yeah! We like that! 

Fourth Muppet: Yeah but “Little Kiddie” can mean any child up to the age of seven or eight. I think we should aim the show right at the preschooler. 

First Muppet: Well then, how about the Itty – Bitty, Nitty – Gritty, Little Kiddie Show? 

Fifth Muppet: But we shouldn’t aim at either just the city kids, or just the country kids, so we call it the Itty – Bitty, Farm and City, Witty – Ditty, Nitty –Gritty, Dog and Kitty, Pretty Little Kiddie Show. 

Judy Collins

By the mid-seventies the Muppets were in full stride. If there ever was a perfect guest on Sesame Street it was Judy Collins. On the day in 1975 that Judy Collins recorded “The Fisherman’s Song” for Sesame Street, a gaggle of Muppets formed an “old salt chorus, some bedecked in yellow oil-skin slickers. It was a scene right out of Gloucester harbor, with nets and lobster traps strewn about and a lighthouse in the distance. Strumming an autoharp at tempo that recalled a sea shanty, Collins poured out the melody clear and true as the Muppets harmonized and danced about. The puppeteers were Jane Henson, Frank Oz, Richard Hunt and Jerry Nelson, invisible to the eye of the camera, but palpable in presence. 

It was an enchantment of a performance. There are other highlights of the visits of Judy Collins that I recall. There was the operatic-alphabetic duet she sang with Snuffleupagus. To a mock – Mozart score, Collins and Snuffy flowed around the street dancing a mini-minuet. 

Judy Collins credited Sesame Street for extending the depth and breadth of her fan base. “People would come up to me at concerts and tell me how much they loved the Yes and No song I did with Bert and Ernie. They were little children when it first aired. They grew up and started coming to my shows.” For them, during a critically important time in their childhood, Sesame Street was the best of all television. If there is, or has been, anything more in sync with a happy, wholesome, and funny childhood on television I have yet to meet it.

Conclusion

However, some teachers are not best pleased – not all by any means and seldom high school teachers. The perpetrators claim little kids come to them already familiar with basic arithmetic and quite at home with the alphabet. This is bad? Apparently they find it too difficult to blend with their own lesson plans. Neither am I a fan of “lesson plans” but that is for another essay on another day. They act the part of being at odds with something wondrous.

I loved Sesame Street as a little person and as a big person. Now that I have no choice but to always be thoughtful and acting like a serious big person I will attempt to leave this stage with all proper decorum:

Me Like Cookie

Me eat Cookie

UMM-UM-UM-UM-UM

What do you think of Sesame Street? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

The Third Indian Mughal Emperor: Emperor Akbar in Power

The Mughals have left an undeniable imprint upon the Indian landscape; their legacy is seen in the form of culture, architecture and art. Their rule lasted for more than 300 years, from 1526 to 1857. There have been a whole brood of Mughal emperors, but none stood out as much as the first six, the creators of the Mughal legacy. Many of their descendants would take advantage of the riches and power that they had inherited. However, infighting among them paved the way for other princes and ultimately the British to take control.

In part 3-and-a-half, we continue our look at the third Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He reigned from 1556 when he was 13, and was possibly the greatest of the Indian Mughal Emperors. Here, Khadija Tauseef considers his years in power including his military conquests, religious tolerance, his family, his court, and Din-e-Ilahi.

If you missed them, you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here, part 2 on Emperor Humayun here, and the start of part 3 on Emperor Akbar here.

Akbar holding a religious assembly of different faiths in the Ibadat Khana in Fatehpur Sikri.

Upon reaching the age of nineteen, Emperor Akbar finally gained sole power over his empire. His reign was filled with constant warfare because he was establishing and consolidating the Mughal Empire. A way to do that was to establish good relations with other powerful communities. Thus in 1562, Akbar married a Rajput princess, which resulted in creating a union with the Rajput community. The Rajputs were a warrior group and they provided Akbar with a strong army. Therefore, marrying into the Rajput tribe made military and political sense. Akbar even began laying the foundations for religious tolerance in his empire, which would make him popular among his non-Muslim subjects.

Religious tolerance

In 1563, Akbar was out hunting near Mathura, a place of pilgrimage of the Hindus. It was on his trip that he discovered that for Hindus to gain access to their holy place they had to pay a tax to his officers, a practice that had been set up by previous Muslim emperors. Akbar felt that it was unfair for his people to pay just to go to a place of worship, so he passed a law which forbid the practice of such taxation. A year later, in 1564, Akbar abolished Jizya (a tax that was supposed to be paid by non-believers). This action made the Hindu community and others happy because the removal of the Jizya tax meant that now everyone was more equal in the Mughal Empire. 

Many Muslim rulers before Akbar had Hindu wives; however, Akbar was the one who allowed them to practice their religion freely in the Harem. As his reign progressed, Akbar made many concessions to Hindu customs, even taking part in their ceremonies. Akbar began changing his routines, as Bamber Gascoigne writes:

“…introducing their festivals at court and having newly washed and painted cows brought into his presence after Diwali, letting his hair grow long in a Hindu fashion and adopting a Rajput style of turban, even on occasions wearing the tilak, the Hindu sectarial or ornamental mark made on the forehead.”

Such changes began to alarm the orthodox Muslim communities, who thought that Akbar was moving away from his faith; however, there was a political reason behind such changes. Akbar understood that he needed the consent of both religious groups to maintain stable rule. Also, in his youth he had been greatly influenced by his teacher Mir Abdul Latif, who would emphasize the principle of sulh-i-kull or religious tolerance. Akbar would keep these teachings in his mind.

Militarized Reign

In the beginning of Akbar’s reign, his battles had been assisted by regents. Once he gained complete independence, in 1564, he conquered the kingdom of Gondwana. Then in 1567, Akbar turned his attention to Chitor and in October he arrived outside the fort. However, this victory was not to be an easy one, the fort was strongly built and after months of siege, it was only in February 1568 that Akbar and his army finally breeched the gate of the Chitor Fort. Even though victorious, Akbar sullied this victory when he massacred all the innocents residing within the fort. 

There was another hindrance to Akbar’s expansion. Bihar and Bengal were causing problems for the young, ambitious king. But, in 1572, Suleiman Karrani (ruler of Bihar and Bengal) made a weak peace with Akbar. When the two cities were no more a threat, Akbar shifted his focus, and a year later conquered Gujarat. In 1575, Suleiman died, and Akbar used this opportunity to bring Bihar and Bengal under his control.

Threats to Akbar’s reign did not only come from the Hindu kings, but he also faced a threat from his half-brother Hakim. In Kabul, there was a struggle between Hakim and his cousins Suleiman and Shahrukh. Akbar remained alert, keeping his armies ready in case there was a need to fight his relatives. In 1580, Akbar’s fears were realized when Hakim marched on the Punjab and besieged Lahore. Ultimately though, Akbar was victorious in putting an end to the uprisings, which had represented the greatest threat to his empire. 

Warfare was not the only method that Akbar used to win over territory. He steadily extended his control over Rajasthan, by marrying into its ruling houses, thus securing alliances with the Hindu Rajputs.

Family

Akbar married 35 times, the first time in 1552 to Princess Ruqaiah Sultan, at the tender age of 9. Out of the 35, 12 women were Rajput princesses. Akbar may have been married to several princesses by the age of 20; however, there was still no heir to the throne. The lack of heirs caused Akbar to worry about the security of the empire that he was creating, and he was disheartened by the absence of a son. He found hope when he heard of the Sufi saint named Sheikh Salim Chishti who lived near the village of Sikri, some twenty miles from Agra. Akbar walked barefoot to Sikri, dressed in simple clothing. He requested the saint to pray on his behalf and to ask God to grant him a son. The saint replied favorably to the king’s request, saying that he would have three sons. 

In 1569, Akbar’s prayers were answered when a Rajput princess gave birth to Prince Salim (the future Emperor Jahangir). A year later, Prince Murad was born, followed by Prince Daniyal two years later. Akbar’s empire was secure; it finally had the heir (and the spare heir) it longed for.

Court life of Akbar

Akbar’s court was graced by many intellectuals and creatives; he is the first and only Mughal that had the Navratna (nine gems). The nine gems consisted of very talented individuals: Abul Fazl, Faizi, Todar Mal, Abdul Rahim Khan, Tansen, Raja Man Singh, Faqir Aziao Din, Mullah Do Piaza, and Birbal. Abdul Fazl chronicled the life of Emperor Akbar, Tanzen was a great musician, but the most famous of the nine gems was Birbal. He had a very close relationship with Akbar, their friendship has become famous through media and books.  

Akbar was influenced by others throughout his life; therefore, although he continued to grant land and titles to his courtiers, he always kept a close eye upon them to ensure that no one would try to usurp power from him.

Din-e-Ilahi

Akbar’s religious tolerance meant that he wanted religious scholars from different communities to come together for dialogue that would help narrow the gap between them. Therefore, he created the Ibadat-khana, a place where religious debate could be held. Unfortunately, he soon became disillusioned by the attitudes of the scholars who would lose their temper upon minor issues and even abused one another, seeing that no matter how much these scholars argued they could not settle their differences. Akbar had hoped to establish a peace between the different communities but when he saw that would be very difficult, he did something unexpected; he created his own religion. 

Din-i-Ilahi means ‘Religion of God’ or ‘Divine Religion.’ Annemarie Schimmel writes:

“There are widely varying interpretations about din-i-Ilahi. Akbar’s opponents considered it to be merely an ersatz religion, and it does appear to have been a kind of esoteric club for select members.”

In contrast Zeenut Ziad argues that it was an order or brotherhood, rather than a new religion. He writes: “For Muslims like Badauni the Din-I Ilahi seemed to mean that the emperor had willingly and wittingly left Islam and now posed as the founder of a new religion; that is, he had assumed, so to speak, a prophetic role.” 

Din-i-Ilahi was not followed by many people, and so it gradually ended after Akbar’s death in 1605. 

Conclusion

Akbar may not have been the first Mughal to enter India, but he was the one who created a strong empire that was secure for several generations after. He tried to ensure that all his subjects were treated more equally, regardless of their religion. And he expanded the borders of the empire, which ensured that his heirs were left with enough wealth so that they could sustain themselves. 

What do you think of Emperor Akbar? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Khadija’s article on “The Fascinating History of Lahore Fort in Pakistan” here.

Five Amazing Things About King Henry VIII’s ‘Fixer’ - Thomas Cromwell

History has portrayed Thomas Cromwell (circa 1485 to 1540) as the ambitious fixer of King Henry VIII of England. Here, C. M. Schmidlkofer looks at Cromwell’s life, including five interesting aspects.

Thomas Cromwell, 1530s. Painting attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger.

Born a commoner, Cromwell reached unheard of heights of political power under Henry Tudor, who bestowed upon him numerous titles typically reserved for English royalty. By the end of his life in 1540, Cromwell was the most powerful person under the King.

An attorney by trade, Cromwell came into the King’s service after the Lord Chancellor Cardinal Wolsey fell from the King’s grace. Cromwell assisted Wolsey in dissolving numerous monasteries to fund the Cardinal College and The King’s School, Ipswich.

Cromwell was already a member of the Privy Council in 1531 and was subsequently awarded offices starting with Master of the King’s Jewel House in 1932 to Earl of Essex in 1540.

Cromwell worked behind the scenes to pave the way for Lady Anne Boleyn to become Henry’s second wife and queen, to removing her six years later and ultimately to her beheading and arranging Henry’s fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves, which led to his downfall (Henry didn’t like Anne, although he married her anyway, divorcing her not long afterwards). 

But writers such as Hilary Mantel – author of the Wolf Hall trilogy - have dug deep into old letters and documents of the time, resulting in what one may call a “softer” side of this complex and mysterious man.

1.     Cromwell may have had a “thing” for Mary Tudor

There is evidence that Cromwell worked on behalf of King Henry VIII’s displaced first daughter, Mary Tudor, when the King divorced her mother, Queen Catherine of Aragon, after 24 years to marry Anne Boleyn.

Because Mary refused to acknowledge the second marriage and her new status as an illegitimate offspring, displeasing King Henry, she was placed in the service of Boleyn’s aunt as well as her toddler half-sister, Elizabeth, and refused access to her imprisoned mother who refused to accept the divorce. 

Numerous letters between Mary and Cromwell during this time indicate he sometimes acted as an intermediary between Mary and Henry when it came to Catherine’s imprisonment and Mary’s banishment from court. The overall tone indicates a level of compassion and possibly affection.

Once father and daughter reconciled (by Mary finally conceding to Henry’s wishes after Catherine’s death), rumors swirled that Cromwell had an interest in marriage to Lady Mary, which did not please King Henry and concerned Cromwell’s ever-present detractors.

Historians speculate that Lady Mary was godmother to Cromwell’s first child, which would have fit into his plans to secure future postings from the king for his family.

In addition, there is some thought among historians that Lady Mary was godmother to Cromwell’s first grandchild, born in 1537. 

2.     Cromwell was generous 

According to historians, Cromwell was a devoted and loving parent. And he used his powerful positions under King Henry VIII to promote and protect his family, friends and those in service in his enormous household.

Thomas Cranmer was one helped by Cromwell, who engineered Cranmer’s rise to archbishop, thus paving the way for Henry to be created Leader of the Church of England, ultimately leading to Henry’s divorce from Queen Catherine to marry Lady Mary Boleyn. 

When Thomas More, the former Lord Chancellor, was imprisoned in the Tower, it was Cromwell who made sure he had the basic necessities and, according to Mantel, gently tried coaxing his old friend to support the King’s efforts to save his life. More would not abandon his religious leanings, however, and ended up being executed for treason.

It is estimated Cromwell fed from his own kitchen up to 200 people who appeared at his gates daily. He took in the unfortunate and waifs, providing shelter, food and employment and, when not busy with the King’s work, created social and economic reforms to improve conditions for the less fortunate. 

3.     Cromwell’s new laws had some benefits

Cromwell is credited for most of the foundations for England’s departments of state, many of which are still in place today.

His reformations made each parish responsible for its own poor and instituted the practice of registering events such as marriages, deaths and baptisms in parish records. 

His new laws helped cities with sewage and water distribution as well.

While raiding the monasteries, abbeys and nunneries of their wealth to line the King’s pockets, Cromwell also created laws requiring parishes to help the homeless and jobless and new tax laws requiring merchants and noblemen to help fund almshouses.

By founding two courts of Wards and Surveyors, he created a more efficient way for taxation and leasing, and by extending sovereign authority into northern England, Wales and Ireland, he created a politically integrated kingdom.

4.     Cromwell had Protestant Leanings

Despite Cromwell’s devotion to Cardinal Wolsey, he took risks for Protestantism and skillfully promoted Reformers into the Cardinal’s service.

Those promotions consisted of young scholars who were well-paid staff on Wolsey’s Oxford College, now known as Christchurch, and were found to be Protestants to everyone’s surprise.

According to Cromwell’s friend, John Fox, Cromwell was introduced to the Reformation after reading a new translation of the Bible. Erasmus translated the Bible into new Latin from Greek, which created interest in people to look at religion in a new way, and Fox believes that is what started Cromwell on the road to Reformation.

Ultimately, Fox pointed to Cromwell’s final words at the scaffold in 1540, which included no references to the prevailing Catholic beliefs mandated by King Henry.

While he started his speech stating he was dying as a Catholic, he did not request prayers or masses for his soul when he died, which was unusual enough for witnesses to note.

His final prayer indicated Lutheran leanings – which his judgment by God would be by faith alone rather than following the Catholic protocol.

5.     Cromwell was multilingual

In a time when travel outside of the country was highly unusual for the common man, Cromwell spoke fluent French and Italian, and perhaps Greek and Spanish.

Historians credit Cromwell’s stint in the French army and years spent in Italy for learning those languages, but it is unclear how he learned Greek and Spanish, only that he may have thought being able to speak those languages would be useful to him at some point. It is generally agreed Cromwell learned Latin through schooling or reading.

What do you think of Thomas Cromwell? Let us know below.

The Modern Greek State: 1827-1862 – A Bad Start

On March 25, 2021, the modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1827, when Ioannis Capodistrias was appointed governor of the New Greek State, until 1862, the year of the deposition of King Otto I. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

A depiction of King Otto I, leader of Greece from 1832 to 1862.

Introduction

Following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Greek world did not dissolve. It remained organized around its church, with its own aristocracy in Constantinople, serving in the Ottoman administration, and in local communities, responsible for maintaining order and collecting taxes. It also had its own armed groups of kleftes and armatoloi, men that had served in foreign armies, experienced sailors and war ready navy.

This organization of the Greeks was utilized before and during the War of Independence initiated in 1821, when an internal crisis of the Empire required Ottoman forces to fight against the ambitious Ali Pasha of Ioannina. Despite the Ottoman crisis, the time was not favorable. The turbulent period after the French Revolution and the horror of the Napoleonic Wars that followed, made the European powers hostile against any movement that could reignite the previous turmoil. 

Nevertheless, astonishing Greek victories during the first two years of the war and Ottoman atrocities against civilians caused a wave of support for the Greeks among many Europeans. These Philhellenes collected and disposed money and other resources for the success of the war or even came to Greece to fight side by side with the Greeks. In their eyes the rebels were children of antiquities’ Greats, fighting to free themselves from the Ottoman yoke. (Kakouri, 2019) (Kostis, 2018)

The bad start begins

One would expect that the Greeks would try to build on this favorable turn of events. They did not. After 1823, the leading groups of the war (repatriates, local elites and chieftains) engaged in a civil war, fighting for privileges and power in a state that did not even exist yet. At the same time, the sultan agreed with Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to send the latter’s son Ibrahim to suppress the revolt in Greece. 

The Greeks, preoccupied with their own rivalries, had very little to oppose Ibrahim. The turn of events though is another lesson in the primacy of the dynamics of the international system over the forces at the disposal of one of its lesser members. Conflicting interests between Russia and Great Britain regarding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the Protocol of London, co-signed by France, granting autonomy to the Greeks.

The critical issues of the definition of the borders of the autonomous state and obtaining resources for its organization would be tackled by Ioannis Capodistrias, the first governor of the modern Greek State. He was elected by the third National Assembly on April 6, 1827 for a term of seven years. (Evaggelidis T. , 1996) (Divani, 2010)

Ioannis Capodistrias

Ioannis Antonios Capodistrias was born in Corfu in 1776 to a noble family of the island and was a distinguished diplomat at the service of Russia. He arrived in Greece in January 1828 knowing that he had to act fast. The European Powers were proceeding with their plans and French forces were to drive Ibrahim out of the Peloponnese. If Greece wanted to have a say on the definition of its borders, Greek forces had to pursue gains in Central Greece also. Furthermore, law and order had to be restored and basic state functions needed to be established so that Greece could claim (some) self-determination. 

The new Governor worked hard and in a short time managed to reorganize the army, so achieving significant territorial gains in Central Greece. (Malesis, 2018 ) At the same time Great Britain opted for an independent Greece to work as a counterbalance to the Russians who emerged victorious out of a new Russo – Ottoman war (April 1828 to September 1829). Indeed, with another protocol signed on February 3, 1830 Russia, France and Great Britain recognized the independence of the modern Greek State.  

Capodistrias did not only sow the seeds for a national army and navy or deal with foreign policy. In a very short time, he managed to eliminate piracy and improve public safety. He created a national bank and issued national currency, the phoenix. He introduced the farming of maize and potato, products unknown to Greeks at the time, and established an Agricultural School. He also established a Military Academy, monitorial schools and orphanages. He oversaw the imposition of taxes and tariffs. Justice was to be administered by State Courts.

Capodistrias’ was aware of the power games between local elites and anticipated their reaction. In order to restrict their freedom of movement, he succeeded in suspending the force of the constitution voted during the 3rd National Assembly in 1827. The reorganization of the army also aimed at breaking the bonds between the soldiers and local chieftains. At the same time, although Capodistrias made sure that entrusted persons, like his brothers, assumed key positions in the state mechanism, he also appointed some of the elite members to government bodies, like the Senate, or as officers in the army in order to gain their support. 

The Greek notables were seeing ulterior motives in most of the governor’s actions though. He wanted to cut the bonds between the soldiers and their leaders (reorganization of the army). He wanted to keep the people uneducated (Capodistrias considered that, during the first years of the New State, it was more important for the Greeks to learn to read and write and established monitorial schools, but not universities). And finally, he wanted to become a lifelong leader of Greece (suspension of the constitution, appointment of family members to key government positions). Capodistrias’ position was further undermined by the Protocol of 1830, commanding that the independent Greek State would be ruled by a hereditary monarchy. Thus, his rule was temporary. 

 The opposition did not restrain itself to verbal accusations against the government. In fact, it undertook surprisingly harsh actions that were against the interests of Greece - and not only its government. The most striking perhaps was the seizure of principal ships of the Greek fleet by admiral Andreas Miaoulis, a hero of the War of Independence. In order to limit Capodistrias’ abilities for naval operations, in July 1831 Miaoulis blew up the ships bought with the limited resources of the State to guarantee its security. 

Another revolt took place at Mani, in southern Peloponnese, where Petrobey Mavromichalis, another hero of the war was a key figure. Relations between the Mavromichalis clan and Capodistrias were tense because of the attempts to create a centralized state. Mavromichalis was arrested by Capodistrias, found guilty for high treason and put in to jail. The imprisonment of Petrobey brought Konstantinos and Georgios Mavromichalis, the son of Petrobey, to Nafplio, where they were put under police supervision. Nevertheless, they managed to bring their guards to their side and on the morning of September 27, 1831 they assassinated Capodistrias at the entrance of St. Spyridon Church, where he was going to attend Sunday mass.

After the Governor’s assassination the country fell into chaos. The struggle for power intensified as the politico-military factions were antagonizing to better position themselves in view of the arrival of Otto, the second son of King Ludwig of Bavaria, who was appointed by the Great Powers as King of Greece. (Evaggelidis T. , 1894)

King Otto I

What exactly was the state that the Bavarians were called to rule? At the eve of its independence, Greece’s area was 47,500 square kilometers, which is 35% of today’s area. Its population was about 800,000. Out of 30,000,000 hectares of arable land, only 500,000 were cultivated. With the exception of the island of Naxos’ emery, the rest of the country’s mineral wealth (marble, lignite, porphyry, silvery lead etc.) was also not exploited. 

After ten years of war, Greece was also lacking the necessary infrastructure to support its economy (roads, bridges, railways etc.). The merchant fleet was strong but transporting the goods to and from the ports was expensive.  It goes without saying that the country’s industry was also non-existent. However, small investments would suffice to boost sectors like the textile industry, where spinners could be substituted with imported machines.   

Thus, the continuation of Capodistrias’ work was necessary for the country’s potential to be realized. The administration’s mechanisms should set a stable framework to boost domestic and attract foreign investments (organization of the banking system, rationalization of taxation, creation of land registry, restoration of order etc.). The Bavarians, upon arriving in Greece, had a loan of 60,000,000 francs at their disposal, which could help this effort. Their undertakings had poor results though. (About, 2018)    

The struggle between the previous regime and the local elites was known to the Bavarians. King Otto, therefore, distrusted the Greeks. When he arrived, he brought with him his own army of 3,500 German mercenaries and filled the state mechanisms with foreign officials.      

Otto relied on the army for the consolidation of his sovereignty. During the first decade of his reign, military spending made up 50% of total public expenditure. With another 26% going to the repayment of the public debt there was not much left for social policy, e.g., education, or public works to boost the economy. In fact, in 1843 Greece was no longer able to serve the public debt and strict fiscal controls were imposed by the lenders. (Kostis, 2018)

With the army and state mechanism full of foreigners, the Greek chieftains turned to banditry for a living. They often enjoyed the protection of the politicians who used them to embarrass the government on a local scale, portraying their actions as acts of resistance against a repressive monarchy. This kind of political patronage extended to officers of the regular army who were underprivileged compared to their foreign colleagues.

The result was the first major intervention of the army in politics. The Revolution of September 3, 1843 was initiated by units located in Athens. The movement did not aim to overthrow the monarch. The participating military and political elites demanded the removal of the Bavarians from the state institutions and a constitution limiting royal power. Otto had no option but to comply. (Malesis, 2018 )    

The years of constitutional monarchy did not change much though. The Greek elites gained better access to state institutions (Parliament and Senate) and the monarch used the same ‘clientele’ approach against them. All elections after 1844 were won by the government that staged them, an indication that constitutional rights were violated by the parliament majority (e.g., by annulling rivals’ votes) for the promotion of their own interest. There were incidents where state sponsored violence was used by the monarch to promote his preferred candidates, in which case, the opposition often resorted to banditry to ensure their political survival.

To defuse the situation internal problems needed to be ‘exported’ somehow. This is the time of the Great Idea (Megali Idea), when the Greek State portrayed itself as the champion of all still enslaved Greeks with the mission to free them by conquering the territories remaining under Ottoman occupation. Ironically, at the same time, during the meetings of the National Assembly for the adoption of the constitution of 1844, special care was taken to expel and exclude heterocthons (Greeks from abroad settled in the New State) from government positions as their education and distance from local elites made them hard to manipulate. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )

Thus, the King supported uprisings of the Greeks in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856). As a result, France and England, now allies of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, identified Greece with the latter and occupied Piraeus and Athens in April 1854. The Greek insurgents eventually withdrew from the Ottoman territories and the humiliating occupation ended in February 1857. The three political parties of the time, carrying the names English, French and Russian, from the corresponding power they relied on for support, were dissolved after 1854.

The opposition against Otto reached its culmination point in 1862. In October, mainly low-ranking non-commissioned officers of the army supported the uprising that led to the overthrow of Otto. The king was touring the country at the time to gather support, as he was aware of the opposition’s movements. He never made it back to the capital. After consulting with the ambassadors of the Great Powers, he was persuaded to leave the country. Doubts were cast regarding the people’s participation in the uprisings of 1843 and 1862 though. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the common people, also systematically abstaining from the national elections, were preoccupied with a much more important issue at that time. Namely, their survival. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )   

Conclusion

Bad use of available resources, very moderate attempts to develop the country’s economy, oligarchy conflicts, distanced citizens and ‘clientelism’, overweening ambitions and foreign intervention. These are the main characteristics that undermined Greece’s potential during the War of Independence and the first thirty years of the modern Greek State. Their effects remain to this day.

What do you think of the early years of the modern Greek State? Let us know below.

Now read part 2 on the Modern Greek State - 1863-1897, bankruptcy and defeat here.

References

About, Edmond. Otto’s Greece. Athens: Metaixmio (in Greek), 2018.

Divani, Lena. The Territorial Completion of Greece (1830-1947), An Attempt at Local Lore.  Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek), 2010.

Evaggelidis, Triffon. History of Otto, King of Greece (1832-1862). Athens: Aristidis Galanos (in Greek), 1894.

Evaggelidis, Trifon. Ioannis Capodistrias, The history of the Governor of Greece. Athens: Livanis (in Greek), 1996.

Kakouri, Athina. 1821 The Beginning that Was Not Completed, When and How the State that We Live Today was Created. Athens: Patakis (in Greek), 2019.

Kostis, Kostas. History’s Spoiled Children, The Formation of the Modern Greek State. London : Hurst & Company, 2018.

Malesis, Dimitris. “… let the Revolution Begin”, Great Idea & the Army in 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek), 2018.

The World War Two Japanese Soldiers who Kept Fighting Decades After the War was Over

In the period after World War II the military and the public became aware of Japanese soldiers fighting in the Pacific Islands. These soldiers were later named Japanese holdouts. They did not know that World War II had ended, leading to some intriguing stories. Daniel Boustead explains.

Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda (on the right) offering his sword to Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he surrendered in 1974.

Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code contributed not only to Japan’s soldiers’ “fight to the death” spirit but also their refusal to surrender. In addition, Japanese military orders, training, and regulations further reinforced this attitude. Japanese soldiers believed that all surrender orders were a work of American propaganda. Thus, some Japanese soldiers held out years after World War II was over

In the Japanese religion of Shintoism the Japanese Emperor was a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu ([1]). This made Emperor Hirohito a Demi-God, who Japanese soldiers gave their lives to (1). This belief was further supported by the Imperial Receipt on Education of 1880, which stated that the Emperor of Japan is a “deity incarnate” and “…the climax of harmony is the sacrifice of the life of a subject for the Emperor” (2). The Japanese religion of Shintoism elevated dying for the Emperor of Japan to a state of grace (2). This reason is why so many Japanese Military service personnel died in multiple battles in the Pacific and Asian theatres - they fought to the death.

Bushido Code

The Bushido Code was also an important philosophy that dominated the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy’s way of thinking. Bushido (or the way of the warrior) evolved from the 9th to 12th centuries CE and was a mixture of Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism and was followed by the Japanese Samurai (3). Bushido stressed martial spirit, self-sacrifice, loyalty, justice, a sense of shame if dishonored, refined comportment, modesty, frugality, and honor being more important than life itself (3). The Zen Buddhism aspect of Bushido also stressed an indifference to pain as an essential virtue (4). Bushido also strongly emphasized self-discipline, loyalty to one’s superiors, and fearlessness in the face of death (5). The philosophy of Bushido existed long after the Japanese Samurai went away, and it found a ready acceptance in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces (3). Bushido starting appearing in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during the reign of Emperor Meiji, who ruled from 1868 to 1912 (5). Captain Rikibei Inogichi elaborated on Bushido by saying “We must give our lives to the Emperor and Country, this is an inborn feeling. We Japanese base our lives on obedience to the Emperor and Country. On the other hand, we wish for the best place in death, according to Bushido”(2). The tradition of Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code is also captured in the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Anthem “Umi Yukaba”, which emphasized death in battle and no surrender to the enemy (6). Bushido also motivated some Japanese soldiers to disappear and fight years after the war rather then give themselves up. 

Surrender was not an option

The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces regulations, orders and rules also made death preferable and surrender not an option. The 1928 edition of the document Principles of Strategic Command, deliberately expunged the words defense, retreat, and most importantly surrender, because such words were considered detrimental to the morale and marital spirit of the Japanese soldier (3). The 1908 Imperial Japanese Army’s criminal code contained the following provision: “ A commander who allows his unit to surrender without fighting to the last man or concedes a strategic area to the enemy shall be punishable by death”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code contained an additional injunction: “Do not be taken prisoner alive”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army Field Service Code also stated “In defense, always retain the spirit of the attack and maintain freedom of action. Never give up a position, but rather die”(2). Indeed the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code was not just simple regulations for Japanese soldiers; it was the result of lifelong conditioning in a culture revering honor, loyalty, and obedience to superiors above all else (2). This meant that if a Japanese soldier was to surrender or be captured, according to the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code, it meant failure to the Emperor and dishonor to soldiers’ families (2). 

Special orders - Hiroo Onoda

In some cases Japanese soldiers were given special orders. The longest holdout soldier, Hiroo Onoda, was given such an order. It was right before Hiroo Onoda was sent to Lubang to conduct guerilla operations against the Americans (7).  His commanding officer of the Eighth Division Commander, Lieutenant General Yokoyama, conveyed this fateful order to Hiroo Onoda by telling him: “You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily” (7). Furthermore, while it was Hiroo Onoda’s superiors, Major Taniguchi and Major Takahashi, who instructed him to conduct guerilla operations on Lubang, they had no authority to alter Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order (8). Furthermore, Hiroo Onoda told Japanese adventurer Norio Suzuki in 1974 that he would only give himself up by the orders of his immediate superior Major Taniguchi (11). In addition since Hiroo Onoda was not sure that Norio Suzuki was not an enemy agent and thus he could not give away the officers who were above the rank of Major Taniguchi, who were Lieutenant General Yokoyama and Major Takahashi (11). When Major Taniguchi relieved Hiroo Onoda of his duties in 1974 he bypassed Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order because Lieutenant General Yokoyama could not be found (9). Also, Hiroo Onoda was trained to view enemy surrender leaflets as tricks (10). Lastly because Hiroo Onoda was trained in unconventional guerilla warfare, his home was the battlefield and there was no going home (10). All these factors help explain why Japanese holdouts existed after the war.

Onoda finally surrendered to his “superior” Major Taniguchi at Wakayama Point, Lubang Island, Philippines on March 9, 1974 (18). Onoda fought a guerrilla war for many years on Lubang, which resulted in one of his fellow soldiers named Kozuka being killed in a shootout with Filipino Police in October 1972 (19).  After Major Taniguchi read Hiroo Onoda’s surrender order he was briefly in a state of shock because he could not believe Japan had lost the war and the war was over! (18)

Captain Sakae Oba

An early example of a Japanese holdout was Captain Sakae Oba. Oba and his 46 men formerly surrendered to the Americans on December 1, 1945 on the Island of Saipan (12). Sakae Oba had evaded capture by the U.S. Marines patrols for 512 days and was nicknamed “The Fox” by the U.S. Marines (12).  In the period of the battle, Sakae Oba was going to commit suicide after a failed attack against the Americans (13). He then realized that if every Imperial Japanese soldier killed himself there would be no Imperial Japanese Army left, which prevented him from doing so (13). Near the fall of Saipan, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers decided to kill themselves in a suicide attack on the American position, while a contradictory order was issued by Vice Admiral Nagumo, commander of Japanese naval forces assigned to Saipan, that said don’t participate in Lieutenant General Saito’s suicide attack and keep fighting because reinforcements were coming (14). Sakae Oba learned of these contradictory orders at Matansha, and decided and that he and his group of men would continue fighting using Mount Tapotchau as a base of operations - while the vast majority of men there decided to die in a suicide attack (14). On July 7, 1944, while 4,000 Japanese soldiers died in a suicide attack west of Matansha, Sakae Oba moved his forces south toward Mount Tapotchau (15). Captain Sakae Oba was persuaded to surrender in late November 1945, when Major General Umahachi Amo, the former commander of Japanese forces on Saipan, gave him documents from the defunct Imperial Japanese Army, that the war was over and that his group should surrender (16). Just before Sakae Oba was repatriated to Japan, he was feted by the U.S. Marine Officers Club on Saipan to honor him for his skill, courage, and tenacity (16). Captain Sakae Oba continued fighting because he believed the war was continuing and as he was cut off from his command, and therefore should continue the war until communication was reestablished and new orders received from his superiors (17). This was different from other Japanese holdouts who had the “fight until the end” mentality or persisted in disbelief that Japan had lost the war (17).

Conclusion

The Philippines became a notorious center of Japanese holdouts after World War II. Indeed during late 1940s there was a sign outside the capital Manila that warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills (20). More broadly, the phenomenon known as the Japanese holdouts began in the aftermath of World War II. Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code gave the Japanese holdouts the ideological backbone to continue fighting. Japanese military orders, training, and regulations made surrender not an option. Surrender orders were viewed with much suspicion. The common theme of “fight to the death” and not to surrender permeated the Japanese psyche. This inspired the Japanese holdouts to continue to fight long past the end of the war.

What do you think of the World War II Japanese holdouts? Let us know below.

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

[1] Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 30-31.

2 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005. 32 

3 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. Inc, 2005. 31. 

4 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 32. 

5 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books, Inc., 1980. 40. 

6 Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown and Company. 2003. 38. 

7 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland.  Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 42-44. 

8 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 44-45. 

11 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books; Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 200-202. 

9 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry.  Annapolis; Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 13-14. 

10 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War.  56. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

18 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 11-14. 

19 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books. Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 174-175. 

12 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 13. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

13 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 17. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

14 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 18. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

15 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers  Who Refused  to Surrender After the War. 19. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

16 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 23. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

17 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 22. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com . 

20 “Japanese Holdouts:  Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

References

Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown, and Company. 2003.

“Japanese Holdouts: Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

Onoda, Hiroo.  No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War.  Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999.

Rottman, Gordon.  L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005.

Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 

Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

The Fates of Benito Mussolini, his Wife Rachele, and the Mistress Who Wouldn’t Leave his Side

Benito Mussolini, the Italian Fascist leader during World War Two, is infamous for many reasons. But do you know what happened to his wife Rachele Giudi and his loyal mistress Claretta Petacci as World War Two came to an end? David Lehmann explains.

A colorised image of Benito Mussolini.

One of the most notable characters of the Second World War and, indeed, of the 20th century, Benito Mussolini, or as he was better known, Il Duce rarely needs an introduction. The Fascist leader of Italy captivated the world with his bold promises of restoring the Roman Empire, promising to once again return the Mediterranean Sea to its rightful status as Mare Nostorm or “Our sea.” Il Duce’s meteoric rise to power, culminating in 1922, was fueled by his charisma and his bombastic addresses to the public. Using his imposing oratory skills, Mussolini fed the desperate Italian public the steady diet of instilling confidence in his demoralized countrymen and promising a return to Italian glory - ensuring that he was the man who could singularly heal the wounds that had plagued this once great people.

We all know the well-known trope that “opposites attract” in the world of relationships. But when considering a man of Benito Mussolini’s character type, who regularly consumed approximately 98% of the oxygen in the room in order to fuel his ego and oratory style, it was an absolute necessity. Enter Rachele Mussolini or “Donna Rachele”, as she became known to the world. Born Rachele Giudi in 1890, Rachele was first introduced to Benito after being hired to the Mussolini family-owned tavern in Predappio as a kitchen maid. In 1910 the two were joined in less than holy matrimony due to Benito’s anti-clerical stance - but matrimony nonetheless. The two were not formally wed until 1925, well after Benito’s rise to the position of dictator. Rachele resisted relocating to Rome, preferring life outside the capital and would only relocate seven years later. Even then she sustained her avoidance of the limelight, much preferring the life of a homemaker. This contrast to her husband, in addition to a lot of traditional Fascist propaganda, earned her the love and sympathy of the Italian populace who were eagerly consumed by the trope of Mussolini and his traditional wife. Much of what is known about Rachele is understood through the lens of her husband, but her dedication to her children and her husband and commitment to family cannot be overstated. Rachele lived for family and in turn dedicated herself to their care.

A less than perfect union

The marriage of Benito and Rachele most often unfolded in the privacy of their own home. Unfortunately Il Duce’s indiscretions often did not. A well-known philanderer, Mussolini wantonly disregarded the fidelity tenet of marriage and regularly absconded from his marital bed. The explicit details of Il Duce’s escapades came to light with the publishing of the diary of Ercole Borrato, Benito’s longtime driver. The diary depicts a man wanton in his lust who possessed all the efficacy of a less physically restricted JFK, often having him stop while driving to pursue a beautiful woman he observed. Benito would regularly retreat to his beach resort, Castel Porziano, in order to properly concentrate on his less than sanctimonious trysts. 

Rachele seemingly tried her best to deal with her husband’s nature. Once stating, “My husband had a fascination for women. They all wanted him. Sometimes he showed me their letters – from women who wanted to sleep with him or have a baby with him. It always made me laugh.”[1] This was a surprisingly cheery view of the situation. However Borrato’s diary also contains a small glimpse into the pain Rachele must have experienced. In one instance, Benito returned to their home only to find Rachele waiting for him to confront him, chastising him for his lack of fidelity. One can imagine his car was symbolic of her husband’s infidelities. Despite the pain his cheating caused it seems Rachele had a harsher view of Benito’s other great pastime, politics. She once remarked: “You can't be happy in politics, never, because one day things go well, another day they go badly." [2]

Veni, Vidi, Vici - except the opposite

Mussolini’s bold proclamations of a return to Roman glory were soon exposed as the blustering of an overcompensating tyrant. Fascist Italy’s dreams of conquest quickly came to a sputtering halt. First, Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 after months of preparation badly exposed the Italian military. Despite modern weaponry and the use of highly controversial gas bombs, the military struggled to defeat the much more poorly armed Ethiopian forces. Next, after the commencement of the world war and Nazi Germany’s rapid success, Mussolini grew impatient and invaded Greece in 1940. Again, the Italian forces fared poorly against less equipped Greek soldiers. The Italian advance soon flagged and then was shockingly forced to retreat, only to be saved by a Nazi intervention, further shaming Mussolini. One embarrassing defeat after another followed as Mussolini’s image shrunk in the minds of the Italian people. So much so that on July 24, 1943, Mussolini was ousted from power by the Fascist Grand Counsel and imprisoned. The once great man and his family were prisoners of his own populace.

The final apple of his wandering eye

Mussolini and his family were soon freed from their captivity after a daring German rescue. Instead of leaving Italy completely under Nazi control, he agreed to lead a newly created puppet state based in northern Italy. Benito was conscious of the inevitability of his impending defeat though, and helpless to affect change as greater powers used his homeland for their battlefield. Benito’s flagging spirits were buoyed by the presence of one Claretta Petacci. A lover of Benito’s since 1936, Claretta was devoted to Benito, sticking by him through his fall from grace. Following him to his new northern base, Claretta transformed into more than just a fling. Claretta attempted to bolster Benito’s confidence, urging him to retake his country and punish his enemies. This was exactly the kind of support a man like Benito Mussolini preferred at the time. So much so, that as the Allies marched north and partisan Italians decided now was the time to do away with their former dictator, it was Claretta who accompanied him via car in his attempted escape. Abandoning his family, Benito, Claretta and a few supporters attempted to make their way north into Switzerland. Unfortunately for the newly formed family unit they did not get far, with Benito’s face being all too familiar to the general Italian population. The pair were captured on April 27, 1945 and after Claretta’s refusal to abandon Benito, both were summarily executed the next day. 

Rachele and her surviving children were soon captured and handed over to the Allies, spared in sharing her husband’s fate. Rachele eventually settled in her native Predappio and never disavowed her husband’s politics and legacy. While her public sentiments to Benito always remained positive we can never truly know what was in her heart. Being abandoned by her husband in his final drive to freedom must have deeply wounded La Donna. After the war, Rachele fought for the proper burial of her husband’s remains and the return of his personal items. However there was one personal item which she refused, a bed which she dismissed with the comment, “Claretta used it.”[3]

What do you think of the fate of Mussolini’s wife and his mistress? Let us know below.

[1] Rubert Colley. “Rachele Mussolini- A Brief Biography.” April 11, 2015 

[2] J. Y. Smith “Rachele Mussolini Dies, Fascist Dictator's Widow.” October 31, 1979

[3] ID.

Sources

Ben Downing, March 24, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-bed-with-il-duce-1490382122

Patty Agnew December 9, 2004 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/driver-blows-the-whistle-on-mussolini-s-frantic-love-life-1.1169289

J.Y. Smith October 31, 1979 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/10/31/rachele-mussolini-dies-fascist-dictators-widow/06a5db07-fb20-4cfd-bee1-dd59fb6806c1/

October 31, 1979 https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/31/archives/rachele-guidi-mussolini-widow-of-italian-dictator-is-dead-at-89.html

Rubert Colley https://rupertcolley.com/2015/04/11/rachele-mussolini-a-brief-biography/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benito-Mussolini/Role-in-World-War-II

The Story of US Revolutionary War Heroine Sybil Ludington

Sybil Ludington, a sixteen-year-old female, was called into action one rainy night in April 1777 to relay a vital message for the American rebel army in the US Revolutionary War. Here, Tom Daly explains the story of the US Revolutionary War heroine.

Sybil Ludington’s grave (with spelling differences). Source: Anthony22, available here.

A storm was gathering on the evening of April 26, 1777, as a man desperately spurred his horse to the home of Henry Ludington, a colonel in the American rebel army, near the Connecticut-New York border. Dismounting from his horse and struggling for breath, he barely managed to get his words out, but when he did they sparked an extraordinary sequence of events. The man reported to Ludington that British troops had attacked Danbury, a town 15 miles to the south-east that had reserves of food and weapons for the Continental army. He had come to beg for re-enforcements and Ludington quickly agreed, but there was one problem: because it was planting season, he had already sent his men home to their respective farms. Ludington urgently needed to gather his men, but the messenger was unfamiliar with the area and his horse was exhausted. Ludington himself couldn’t go, as he would be needed at his farm to organise the troops when they started arriving. It seemed as if no one would be able to collect the American rebels to defend Danbury anytime soon,  but there was another person present who would rise to the occasion: Henry’s 16-year-old daughter, Sybil Ludington. 

You may have heard of Paul Revere, the man who rode through the night in 1775 to warn American rebels about approaching British troops. But you are less likely to know about Sybil Ludington. She did exactly what Revere did, and then some: she rode twice the distance he did and, unlike him, managed to avoid capture, and her efforts were recognised by George Washington himself. But a combination of gender bias and lack of publicity meant that she faded from the national consciousness, and her heroics were not made the stuff of legend in the way Revere’s actions were.

Upbringing

Sybil Ludington was born in Kent, New York, on April 5, 1761, the eldest of 12 children born to Henry and Abigail Ludington. Henry was a farmer by trade but like many men of the time he also had a military background, serving in the British army in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). 

Sybil was brought up in a loving household and had a peaceful childhood, growing into a pretty young woman with dark hair and blue eyes, but events in the world around her would disrupt her tranquil existence. Tensions were rising in colonial America as people began to resent the fact that they were controlled by a far away government in London, with no right to representation in that government. In 1773 Henry Ludington disavowed his loyalty to Britain, telling his family that when the inevitable war broke out he would pledge his allegiance to the rebels. The war started two years later, and Henry was true to his word, rising to the rank of Colonel in the Continental army and organising rebel troops in his part of New York state.

Sybil’s ride through the night

When the messenger arrived at the Ludington family farm that spring evening in 1777, Sybil was infuriated at his account of British troops looting the homes of civilians. It is not clear who decided that she would alert the militia men – some accounts claim she decided herself, while others suggest it was her father who asked her to. In any case, she was more than willing to help her father’s cause. By now it was dark and rain had started lashing down, but Sybil mounted her horse, which she had affectionately named Star, and rode at full speed into the night. 

It was no easy task to reach the nearly 400 men who were under Henry Ludington’s command, but Sybil and Star rode all night long, covering over 30 miles of wood and farmland. Aside from the poor conditions, Sybil faced the added danger of outlaws and British loyalists who were known to roam the area, and she had only a stick for protection. Still, she courageously pressed on, returning to the family farm as dawn broke the following morning to find hundreds of men gathering under the command of her father. Henry Ludington was relieved and immensely proud of his daughter, embracing her before setting off towards Danbury at the head of his men. 

Unfortunately, Sybil’s heroic mission had come too late to save Danbury, and the British troops had already moved to nearby Ridgefield by the time Ludington’s militia found them. Caught by surprise, the British were forced into a retreat back to Long Island, in what was considered a small but important tactical victory for the rebels. It was a victory that would not have been possible without Sybil Ludington.

Did Sybil get the recognition she deserved?

For a short while Sybil Ludington was hailed as a hero by fellow rebels in New York and Connecticut, and she even earned the praise of George Washington, who sent his congratulations and expressed his deep appreciation. However, the war progressed for several more years and Sybil’s actions were overshadowed by other momentous events.

The war officially ended in 1783, and Sybil celebrated the fact that the American colonies had become the United States of America, independent from Britain. The following year she married a young lawyer, Edward Ogden, and the couple settled in New York where Sybil gave birth to their son, Henry. Edward died in 1799, and Sybil used the money he had left for her to buy a tavern, which she ran successfully. She eventually used the profits from this to buy a house for her son and his family. Her son died in 1838, and she followed him a year later, dying on February 26, 1839 at the age of 77. She was buried next to her beloved father. 

Sybil was mostly forgotten about for the next century. Paul Revere, though certainly a noteworthy man in his own right, had his place in history secured by a publicist, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who wrote a poem about his exploits and turned them into legend. Sybil had no such publicity, and seemed doomed to eternal anonymity. However, in 1961 the Daughters of the American Revolution organisation commissioned a statue in her honour, which now stands proudly on the banks of Lake Glenida in New York, just miles from her old family farm. This surge in publicity led to books being written about her, and in 1975, as part of the US’ celebrations of 200 years as an independent nation, a postage stamp was produced in her honour. It may have been late, but finally Sybil Ludington had some degree of recognition for her valiant efforts on a stormy night in 1777. 

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.