Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 3 – von Braun’s Beliefs

Wernher von Braun came to America from Germany after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. He went on to play a major role in the Cold War’s Space Race with his expertise of rockets. However, views of von Braun are being reassessed as the terrible role he played in Nazi Germany has come to the fore in recent years. Victor Gamma looks at von Braun’s beliefs and how much responsibility he needs to take for Nazi atrocities below.

Read part 1 on Von Braun’s life here, and part 2 on the evidence here.

Von Braun with Fritz Todt, who used forced labor across the parts of Europe occupied by the Nazis. Von Braun is wearing the Nazi party badge on his suit lapel. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-Anh.023-02 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

What about the photos of him wearing a swastika badge or an SS uniform? This does not prove he was an ideological Nazi either. The nature of the regime meant that gestures of at least outward loyalty must be performed. That is a characteristic of a dictatorship. During the Third Reich many people joined the Nazi party for a variety of reasons, some of which had nothing to do with loyalty to party ideology. For instance, the stellar economic performance of the Hitler regime motivated many to support Hitler and join the National Socialist party organization in some capacity. The evidence is fairly clear that this was the case with von Braun. Witnesses testify that he wore the SS uniform on certain occasions when it was required or expedient to do so and no more. In the last years of the war, Hitler grew increasingly paranoid. More and more, he only trusted those “tried and true National Socialists,” such as the SS. The wearing of the SS uniform meant protection for the wearer. Von Braun, having been arrested once, could not give Himmler any excuse to do so again.

The accusation of von Braun as an amoral sycophant devoid of any moral sense does not entirely hold up either. A more accurate view, based on numerous eyewitness testimonies and an understanding of the era, is that von Braun, like so many Germans, did not foresee the extent of the atrocities that would take place, and, once aware they were happening, overlooked them. Nonetheless, at least some of his decisions were at least partially motivated by ethical concerns. When it came time, at the end of the war, to decide which side deserved his rocket secrets, he employed moral reasoning hostile to the atheistic communist regime of Stalin. Commenting on his surrendering to the Americans in May 1945, von Braun stated:

We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided not by the laws of materialism but by Christianity and humanity could such an assurance to the world be best secured.

A study of von Braun’s life reveals that these sentiments reflect a developing personal moral viewpoint that evolved into a strong and fully formed religious belief system in subsequent years. Over time he progressed from a relatively irreligious technician to a man of deep and abiding faith. As director of America’s space effort he stated, "In this age of space flight, when we use the modern tools of science to advance into new regions of human activity, the Bible - this grandiose, stirring history of the gradual revelation and unfolding of the moral law - remains in every way an up-to-date book.” The above quotes are just two of dozens by von Braun.

Additionally, evidence shows plainly that the great rocketeer warmly embraced not only American citizenship but also American values. In April 1955, von Braun and his fellow German scientists became American citizens. Von Braun told the press at the time, “This is the happiest and most significant day in my life. I must say we all became American citizens in our hearts long ago.” By that time, Dr. von Braun’s personal convictions and worldview were antithetical to both the official paganism of the Nazi state or the official atheism of the Soviet Union. Wernher von Braun summed up his philosophy as follows: “The ethical guidelines of religion are the bonds that can hold our civilization together. Without them man can never attain that cherished goal of lasting peace with himself, his God, and his fellowman."

Just how Guilty?

Nonetheless, we cannot completely excuse von Braun from his involvement to some extent with atrocities, even if indirectly. His guilt is beyond doubt. The question rather, is just how guilty? After the war he attempted to portray Germany’s rocket program as unstained by the stain of atrocities going on elsewhere. Unfortunately, the record reveals otherwise. The problem began by 1942. Germany, facing desperate manpower shortages, began turning to prisoner and slave labor to meet its production needs. This included a forced-labor camp for the Peenemunde rocket program set up by the SS. After the Allied bombing of Peenemunde on August 17/18, 1943, the works, along with the laborers, were moved to underground facilities to the south, near Nordhausen, called Mittelwerk. Many of the workers came from the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp or Buchenwald. Need we say more? Up to 20,000 laborers died in those years. But how responsible was von Braun? Did he have a choice when it came to the labor supply? How involved, if at all, was he in the abuse of the workers? 

First, von Braun had nothing to do with the setting up of the entire system of utilizing prison and forced labor to meet rocket production. In Neufeld’s words, “Von Braun was certainly aware of them (prisoner exploitation) but bore no direct responsibility for their conditions.” Others were making the decision as to how to supply and manage Germany’s labor needs. Another understanding needed is that von Braun was not one to “stick his neck out.” He was a conservative, nationalist and one who lived by the axiom “to get along, go along.” Additionally, he, like many others, was most likely influenced by official Nazi propaganda that portrayed the concentration camps as places of punishment for deserving criminals or enemies of the state. General Dornberger, in fact, gave a speech in which he described the in-coming laborers as “murderers, thieves, criminals.” Nonetheless, their true nature as simply means to exploit labor or kill off vast categories of people gradually became fairly common knowledge despite the later notorious German excuse that “we didn't know.” This is the excuse that von Braun employed, which is only partly believable due to the intensity of his work-pace coupled with a conscious effort to avoid knowing too much.  

More to help?

Why didn’t von Braun do more help? Given the nature of the regime, he could hardly be expected to either refuse to work with the system or even to protest strenuously. In his own words he felt helpless to change the situation and claimed that he did at least look into the possibility of taking action: “My spontaneous reaction (on observing the atrocious conditions of the laborers) was to talk to one of the SS guards, only to be told with unmistakable harshness that I should mind my own business, or find myself in the same striped fatigues!" After his arrest in early 1944 it would have been impossible for him to speak up. Before that time, though, was he in a good position as head of rocket development and production, on the basis of production efficiency, to take some action to improve conditions for the workers? It is possible. One major obstacle, though, is that he would have come up against Brigadier General Hans Kammler. This brutal Himmler appointee was in charge of SS construction projects. He had built numerous concentration camps before being placed in charge of the secret weapons programs. It was he who supervised the construction of the new underground facilities to be used to continue the rocket program. Kammler’s attitude toward the slave-labor workforce is summed up by this quote: "Don't worry about the victims. The work must proceed ahead in the shortest time possible." Kammler was known to keep a sharp eye out for ideological deviance, which would have made it difficult for von Braun to push too hard to help the workers. Nonetheless, there is no record that von Braun made any attempt to do so. He stated later that he did not see any way to change the prisoner’s conditions. 

Von Braun’s public voice on the atrocities was not heard until twenty years after the war, when public knowledge about facilities like Dora became so widespread that the rocket engineer could no longer maintain silence. It was not until the late 1960s that von Braun was even called upon to speak directly about alleged atrocities related to slave labor used by Hitler’s rocket program. In February 1969 he testified in a war-crimes case involving former SS personnel from the Mittelwerk-Dora concentration camp. Von Braun stated: “During my visits in the Mittelwerk, I never saw a dead man nor did I ever see a beating or a killing.” There is no way to prove this assertion, despite the claims of surviving prisoners that he “must have” seen atrocities take place. Nevertheless, von Braun, as Technical Director at Peenemunde was kept very well informed of all decisions related to the use of forced labor. Furthermore, he and his team were familiar with the conditions in the labor camps. Additionally, he was involved in decision-making regarding the prisoners. After the air raid on Peenemunde, von Braun was part of the meeting that decided to move the workers to the underground site in western Germany - the Mittelwerk - where conditions for the labor force deteriorated even further. Von Braun admitted that he visited the plant at Mittelwerk several times. He admitted that he recalled the conditions were “repulsive” but that he personally never observed any actual physical abuse of prisoners, although he knew that deaths had occurred there. He claimed to have never visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, where up to 20,000 died. Von Braun’s repeated downplaying or denials do not hold up to scrutiny. For example, in the same 1969 deposition, he claimed that he never received any reports of sabotage. That is technically true, but in his many visits to the Mittelwerk and meetings with the Mittelwerk overseers, the subject of sabotage could hardly have been avoided, since survivors testified that an act of sabotage did take place. 

And yet there is no evidence of any expression of concern from the young engineer about the horrors of the labor camp. The only occasion on which the rocket leader showed concern over prisoners involved his dealings with Professor Charles Sadron, a French scientist who was one of the prisoners in forced-labor. Dr. Sadron testified that on one occasion von Braun approached him to express his regret that such a respected and accomplished scientist was subject to such horrific conditions. He went on to propose that he work in von Braun’s office. In the words of Dr. Sadron, “To be sure, there is no question of accepting. I refused him bluntly. Von Braun excused himself, smiling as he left. I will learn later that, despite my refusal, he tried several times to better my lot, but to no avail.”

What do you think about Wernher von Braun? Let us know below.

Now, read the final part in the series on whether von Braun was a war criminal here.

The Modern Greek State: 1863–1897 – Bankruptcy & Defeat

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 1863 to 1897 and looks at the instability that Greece and the wider region felt over the period before bankruptcy and military defeat came for Greece in the 1890s. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on 1827-1862 here.

A photo of influential Greek politician Charilaos Trikoupis.

Acemoglu and Robinson describe why the establishment of a virtuous cycle of inclusive political and economic institutions is a prerequisite for the prosperity of nations. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) In the previous article though, it was shown that in the first thirty years after its independence, the Modern Greek State did little to suppress the remaining tradition of the extractive institutions of the Ottoman occupation. (Papageorgiou, 2021) It tried to speed up after that by doing too much too fast in a turbulent political scenery. The result was bankruptcy in 1893 and military defeat in 1897.   

Introduction

After the deposition of King Otto I in 1862, the search for a new king of the Greeks begun. Several candidates were considered including the nephew of the Tsar Nikolao and Alfred, the second born son of the English Queen Victoria. British foreign policy was especially interested in avoiding another champion of the Great Idea, namely, the liberation of all Greeks under Ottoman rule by all means, including war. Finally, it was Prince William of Denmark who ascended to the throne under the regal name of George I. To increase its influence, Great Britain ‘offered’ George the Ionian Islands under the condition that they would be rendered demilitarized. This infuriated the locals, but a compromise restricting neutrality to the islands of Corfu and Paxous, facing mainland Epirus still under Ottoman occupation, allowed for the integration of the islands to Greece in 1864. This was the first expansion of Modern Greece. The Ionian Islands added 1,813 square miles to the Greek territories and increased the population by 236,000, among which were significant intellectuals and politicians. A key figure during the negotiations for the integration of the new territories was the debutante 32-year-old politician Charilaos Trikoupis. (Divani, 2010)   

Charilaos Trikoupis

Trikoupis was a shining example of the Greek political oligarchy. (Kostis, 2018) His father Spyridon and uncle A. Mavrokordatos were former prime ministers. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) This is a ‘tradition’ that lasts to this day. The current prime minister of Greece is also the son of a former prime minister. Other members of the Mitsotakis family serve(d) as ministers, members of parliament and mayors of Athens. The father Georgios, the son Andreas and the grandson, also Georgios, of the Papandreou family have all also served as prime ministers in the period from the Second World War to the beginning of the 21st century. The last prime minister of the Papandreou family succeeded Konstantinos Karamanlis who is the nephew of another former prime minister with the same name. So much for the inclusiveness of Greek political institutions.  

Following his service at the Consulate in London and the negotiations for the Ionian Islands, Trikoupis was elected Member of Parliament in 1865. His appointment as minister of foreign affairs in 1866 coincided with another crisis of the early years of modern Greece, the Cretan Revolution. Trikoupis believed that Greece was unable to undertake any military initiative on its own. On the contrary, Athens ought to look for allies in the Balkans and beyond and coordinate its diplomatic and military actions with them. (Klapsis, 2019)  Politically, this is a particularly turbulent period though. Between 1863 and 1875 twenty-two governments were formed. (Malesis, 2018) The system of government after 1864 was Crowned Democracy with the power for the appointment of the government resting in the hands of the king. The latter did not necessarily consider the balance of power in parliament, and it was not unlikely that minority governments were appointed. Thus, coordination for internal and external affairs was lost.   

The gap was filled by National Associations, similar to the Society of Friends (Filiki Eteria) that prepared the War of Independence. They had a diversified membership including university professors, journalists, bankers, politicians and officers of the army pervaded with the Great Idea. (Malesis, 2018) These associations substituted the official state in the conduct of foreign policy. They supplied the Cretan rebels with material resources and organized the dispatch of volunteers so the island. This infuriated the Ottomans as well as the European Powers, although the Greek State officially did not approve of the Associations’ actions after the debacle of 1854, during the Crimean War. At the same time though no action was undertaken to restrain the Associations in fear of the political cost. (Klapsis, 2019)

Trikoupis was describing the National Associations as ‘the fungus of national policy’ and believed that all resources of the nation should be subject to the national center. Foreign policy was to be mandated by the government and not by ‘irresponsible clubs’, he said. (Malesis, 2018)  Thus, as minister of foreign affairs, Trikoupis contributed significantly to the signing of the Greek state’s first alliance treaty with Serbia against the Ottomans (Vöslau, August 1867). (Kostis, 2018)Nevertheless, the king was skeptical, opting for a more moderate approach and refused, at first, to ratify the treaty. (Klapsis, 2019) Furthermore, a few months later George I married the Grand duchess Olga of Russia. This enraged Trikoupis. The Ionian Islands were given as a dowry to the king upon his ascendance to the throne, but now the British and the French had absolutely no reason to endow with Crete the Tsar’s niece. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) By the time the Cretan crisis was settled in 1869 at the Paris Conference, with no gains for Greece, Trikoupis had long resigned his post (December 1867).

1870s

By 1872 Trikoupis was the leader of the ‘Modernist Party’ pursuing political stability. His most famous action to this end is the publication of the article ‘Tis ptaiei?’ (Whose fault, is it?), accusing the king of a lack of respect for the terms of parliament and holding him responsible for the country’s political situation. The king succumbed to the pressure and in August 1875 declared that the principle of declared confidence of Parliament would govern the appointment of the government from that point on. This did not help much though as between 1875 and Trikoupis’ retirement in 1895 another 21 governments were formed. (Kostis, 2018)     

Thus, the quirky foreign policy continued after 1875 during another Balkan crisis initiated by the revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This expanded to Bulgaria in May 1876. Serbia and Montenegro considered that the circumstances were favorable and went to war against the Ottoman Empire in June. Nevertheless, the Ottomans suppressed the revolt and defeated the joint forces of Serbia and Montenegro. Russia intervened and an armistice was signed in November. A conference was held in Constantinople in December, where the Great Powers envisaged increased autonomy for Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. The crisis was not resolved though because the Ottoman government rejected the decisions of the conference.

The intransigent stance of the sultan caused yet another Russo-Turkish war in the spring of 1877. After all, Russia’s intervention in the first place was the result of a secret treaty with Austria–Hungary in July 1876, which, in the case of Serbian victory that year, provided for significant territorial gains not only for the cosignatories, but also for Serbia, Montenegro, the independent Bulgaria and Greece. The latter was to receive Epirus, Thessaly and Crete. Eventually, the content of the treaty became known to Greece, and this caused significant excitement to the public. (Klapsis, 2019)

Greece’s response was similar to that of 1866–69. The realistic policy of neutrality was opposed by the pro-war and anti-ottoman stance of the public forged by the activity of National Associations. The compromise reached by the universal government of the elderly admiral K. Kanaris included military preparation, instigation of revolts in the Ottoman territories and the development of diplomatic initiatives. (Malesis, 2018) In fear of the political cost, the successor of K. Kanaris, A. Koumoundouros, decided to invade Thessaly in early 1878 under the pretense of the protection of the Greek populations in the area. This came to the dismay of both Great Britain, which demanded Greek neutrality, and Russia, which signed an armistice with the Ottomans two days before the Greek invasion and was hoping that this would have come much sooner.

To make things worse, the Treaty of St Stefano in March 1878 between the Russians and the defeated Ottoman Empire attempted to set in motion the plans for the creation of Great Bulgaria and provided for significant gains for Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bosnia–Herzegovina. This would significantly increase Russia’s influence in the Balkans and Greece was to face significant competition in the face of the pan-Slavic movement.

1880s

Luckily, the other Great Powers reacted to the Russian plans and the Treaty of St Stefano was revised in Berlin in the summer of 1878. Despite its disorientated policy, Greece was to negotiate with the Ottoman Empire for the settlement of their borders in Thessaly and Epirus. The Powers intervened once more to overcome the obstructionist tactics of the Ottomans, which delayed the settlement for another two years. Finally, in July 1881 most of Thessaly but only a small part of Epirus around the city of Arta was ceded to Greece. Crete remained under Ottoman rule and Great Britain, for its diplomatic services to the sultan, acquired the right of ‘temporary’ administration of another very important island for Greece, that of Cyprus. (Klapsis, 2019)

At about this time Trikoupis formed, as prime minister, the first ‘long term’ government of Greece from March 1882 to April 1885. This was followed by another one from May 1886 to October 1890. By that time (1882) clientelism weakened the state institutions (Hazony, 2018). In response, Trikoupis expanded the election districts to break the bonds between politicians and their supporters. He also took measures to discourage the participation of army officers in the elections. Stricter rules for hiring and promoting public servants aimed for an increased effectiveness of public administration. 

The most striking feature of Trikoupis’ government though was his extensive program of public works. This included the construction of roads and railways, bridges and ports, the Isthmus of Corinth and land reclamation. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works, 2001) These were prerequisites for the development of the economy and allowed for a rapid deployment of the army. 

Trikoupis took special care of the latter with measures for better training, the reorganization of the officers’ schools and the utilization of the reservists. He also carried out an extensive rearmament program including the construction of several new battleships. (Malesis, 2018) In short, Trikoupis aimed for efficient representation at international level based on a well-administered state of justice, with an efficient economy and strong armed forces. (Klapsis, 2019)

It was very risky. Trikoupis relied on external and internal borrowing to go through with his reform. From 1879 to 1890 Greece took out external loans amounting to 630 million drachmas plus 65 million from internal loans. Although Greece had settled the loans that led to the bankruptcy of 1843, the new ones were agreed under very unfavorable terms with only 72% of the nominal value collected at the end. (Eleftheratos, 2020)   

It was crucial that the economy would grow fast enough to allow for consistent loan servicing. But Greece remained an agricultural country and after the recovery of the French vineyards from phylloxera in 1890, currant exports, which after 1860 accounted for 50–60 % of the total value of Greek exports, decreased dramatically. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The exploitation of the fertile lands of Thessaly also did not bring much for the peasants. Wealthy expatriates bought the large manors from the Ottomans and the feudal system of the empire remained in place. This prepared the way for the peasants’ revolts at the beginning of the 20th century. (Divani, 2010) Trikoupis did not actually get the help he was hoping for from the expatriates’ investments. Although many of them developed philanthropic activity in the country, some were also involved in financial scandals, e.g. that of the Lavrio silver mines, with devastating effects for the general public. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The growing financial problems led to an unprecedented immigration wave, mainly to the USA. (Klapsis, 2019) So much for the inclusiveness of the Greek financial institutions.   

 Thus, the amount of public expenditure going to the service of public debt grew from 9% in the period 1871-1878 to 53% in the years 1887-1892.  Considering that military spending remained high during this period (100 million of the 460 million drachmas of foreign loans that reached Greece were spent on military equipment), it comes as no surprise that from 1887, 70% of the new loans were used to serve the older ones. Taxation was another measure used by Trikoupis to support his program at the cost of his popularity among the people. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

It was the disagreement for taking out yet another loan, for the service of older ones, between king George and Trikoupis that led to the latter’s resignation in 1890. He became prime minister two more times after that (out of seven times in total between 1875 and 1895) but could not prevent state bankruptcy in December 1893. Interestingly, when comparing with recent experience, at the time of the bankruptcy the public debt was 200% of the GDP, somewhat higher than the 182% that led to Greece’s ‘rescue’ by the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF in 2010.[1] (Eleftheratos, 2020) Trikoupis suffered a devastating defeat at the elections of 1895, when he was not elected member of the parliament, retired and died the next year. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016)

From bankruptcy to defeat 

Trikoupis’ archrival was Theodoros Deligiannis. The two alternated in the prime minister’s office, inaugurating bipartisanship in Greece. Deligiannis was often described as anti-Trikoupis aiming to systematically cancel the latter’s work (e.g., the expansion of the election districts, the discouragement of army officers to enter politics and the rules for hiring and promoting public servants) and for this he is blamed by some authors as the main culprit for the bankruptcy of 1893. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) One should keep in mind though that Trikoupis’ governments ruled four times as long as those of Deligiannis and that it was he that took out seven colossal loans. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

There can be no doubt though that Deligiannis’ foreign policy was catastrophic. Back in 1885, when he succeeded Trikoupis for a brief period of one year, he had to handle another Balkan crisis. That was the annexation of Eastern Roumelia by Bulgaria. Under public pressure and with parliamentary support, Deligiannis mobilized the army, but for months he was taking no military initiative, apart from some skirmishes in Thessaly because of some hotheaded army officers. At the same time the Great Powers demanded that Greece demobilize its army and abstain from any war effort. Deligiannis’ indecisiveness finally led to another naval blockade by Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia and his resignation in 1886. (Malesis, 2018)

By 1895, when he was again prime minister, it was Crete’s turn to rise once more. Greece had regained confidence after holding the first Olympic Games of the new era in 1896 and the pattern was once more the same: public pressure under the propaganda of a National Association (Ethiniki Etaireia) for military action, demands for self-restraint from the Great Powers and the government trying to balance in between. To that end, Deligiannis sent the fleet and an army detachment to the island hoping for another naval blockade that would help him save face on the internal front and avoiding, at the same time, war with the Ottoman Empire. (Klapsis, 2019) Things did not go that way though. The Powers asked for a withdrawal of the armed forces of both the Greeks and the Ottomans and opted for an autonomous Crete under the rule of the Sultan. The Ottomans accepted. Deligiannis attempted a catastrophic maneuver: he withdrew the fleet, but not the army suggesting this way that Greece preferred the union with Crete. At the same time guerrillas were sent into Thessaly under the command of officers of the army. (Malesis, 2018) This gave the Ottomans the opportunity they were looking for. In April 1897 they declared war on Greece and having overwhelming numerical superiority the Ottoman army had retaken most of Thessaly within days, stopping only thanks to the intervention of the Powers. In a sign of weakness, Greece was not invited to the peace negotiations of the Powers with the Ottomans and luckily it had to make only small territorial concessions. On the other hand, war reparations to the amount of four million Turkish lira were imposed and to make sure that Greece would honor its obligations to the lenders the Powers set up an international committee to oversee the fiscal policy. (Klapsis, 2019) The International Financial Committee remained in Greece for 81 years - until 1978.

Conclusion

A critical juncture is a major event or confluence of factors disrupting the existing economic or political balance in society. It is a double-edged sword that can cause a sharp turn in the trajectory of a nation. On the one hand it can open the way for breaking the cycle of extractive institutions and enable more inclusive ones to emerge. Or it can intensify the emergence of extractive institutions. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) The 19th century included several such junctures for Greece. Revolution, independence, expansion to the Ionian Island, Thessaly and part of Epirus. Political and economic developments though did not allow for the emergence of inclusive institutions.  

Exclusive institutions do not rule out growth. And indeed, Greece was (inevitably) slowly growing. Cities were developing and the distribution of GDP in different economic sectors was changing. Whereas in 1861, 74% of the economically active population were employed by the primary sector, by 1881 the figure dropped to 69.9% with the secondary sector employing 11.8% and the tertiary sector 18.3%. (Kostis, 2018) The expansion of the road and railway network and the rest of the public works would be Trikoupis’ legacy for the future. However, growth under extractive institutions has moderate results, as it does not allow for creative destruction through innovation. It is therefore not sustainable. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013)

Social and political ills discussed previously (Papageorgiou, 2021) were not cured by the end of the 19th century. To this we can add, new ones like the establishment of para-statal organizations playing a significant role in political developments and officers’ mentality that they constitute a special group increasingly autonomous from the political leadership and with support from the palace. (Malesis, 2018)

What do you think of these years in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

[1] The word ‘rescue’ is in brackets because of the conflicting views regarding the necessity and effectiveness of the implemented policies whose analysis is beyond the scope of this work. 

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

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

Eleftheratos, D. (2020). An Oblique Look at History, 200 Years of Modern Greek Laughter and Cry. Athens: Topos (in Greek).

Hazony, Y. (2018). The Virtue of Nationalism. Basic Books: New York.

Klapsis, A. (2019). Politics and Diplomacy of the Greek National Completion 1821-1923. Athens: Pedio (in Greek).

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

Malesis, D. (2018). '... let the Revolution Begin' Great Idea & the Army in the 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek).

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, May 16). History Is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/5/16/the-modern-greek-state-1827-1862-a-bad-start#.YLe-yqFRVPY

Tricha, L. (2001). Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works. Athens: Kapon (bilingual in Greek and French) .

Tricha, L. (2016). Charilaos Trikoupis. Athens: Polis (in Greek).

The IRA and the Nazis: A Dark Alliance of Convenience

The collaboration between the Nazis and Irish Republican Army (IRA) is one of the little-known stories of World War II. The seeds of the relationship were sown before, during and after World War I, and the co-operation grew as World War II broke out. Daniel Boustead explains.

Sean Russell, IRA Chief of Staff from 1938 to 1939.

Irish independence

In 1912 the Ulster Solemn League and Covenant was signed by thousands of people led by Edward Carson, who were opposed to the British parliament’s Third Home Rule Bill ([1]).  The Protestant opposition to Home Rule was further evidenced by the formation of the Protestant Paramilitary force called the Ulster Volunteer Force, which forced the British government to take notice of Ulster Loyalism as a political and military force! ([2]). The largely Irish Catholic Nationalist forces then staged the Easter Uprising in 1916 against British rule in Ireland which was then put down by the British ([3]). While the Easter Uprising was a failure it left a long-lasting impact on the predominately Irish Catholic Nationalists (4). In 1919 the IRA launched their Irish war of independence against the British ([4]).The war ended on December 6, 1921 when the Anglo-Irish Treaty was signed which partitioned Ireland, into the independent 26 counties in the South to become the Irish Free State and the remaining 6 counties in North were kept under British rule ([5]). The results of the Treaty split the Irish Republican Army into two factions, the Pro-Treaty faction that later became the regular Irish Army and the Anti- Treaty Faction of the IRA ([6]). The effects of Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 caused fierce political divides in Ireland and Great Britain that are still felt to this day. This bitterness would set the Anti-Treaty IRA on the path to collaborate with the Nazis.

Early collaboration

The early collaboration between the Nazis and the IRA started as far as back as 1936 when Anti Treaty IRA member Sean Russell, had sought German support for IRA activities (7). During this time he was engaged in talks with the German Foreign Office, regarding IRA-German cooperation (7).  Sean Russell would later become the Chief of Staff of the Anti-Treaty IRA in 1938 (8). Russell was also one of the “architects” of the S-Plan bombing campaign, against Great Britain along with Irish American, Joseph McGarrity and Jim O’Donovan (9).  Joseph McGarrity had known Sean Russell since the 1920s and it was his organization, Clan Na Gael, who supported and financed Sean Russell’s bombing campaign against Great Britain (9). Sean Russell also had announced an Anti-British bombing campaign in 1936 during a tour of the USA (9). He formerly got approval for his plan at the IRA’s General Army Council or GAC, in April 1938 at a meeting in Dublin (9). From October 1938 training for the S-Plan was commenced in Dublin by bomb making instructors Patrick McGrath and Jim- O’Donovan (9). (Seamus) Jim O’Donovan drew up the blueprint for the “S-Plan”, which called for the destruction of military targets such as communication centers, BBC transmitters, aerodromes, bridges and military installations (10). On December 2, 1938 Oscar C. Phaus, a journalist and founder of the German Bund, returned from America to Germany and was approached by the German intelligence agency the Abwehr (11). Oscar Phaus was also called Oskar Pfaus (12). The Abwehr knew little about the IRA, but felt if they were to conduct bombing attacks against the British the IRA would be a useful ally to the Nazis (11). In February 1939 Pfaus arrived in Ireland in order to liaise with the IRA (12). Pfaus made contact with the IRA’s Army Council and arranged for “S-Plan” architect Jim O’ Donovan to travel to Germany (12). Jim O’Donovan traveled to Germany repeatedly between February and August 1939 (12). In these various visits plans were made for the IRA to assist Germany against Britain through sabotage and espionage in Britain and Northern Ireland (12). The IRA believed that the Nazis could help them achieve a United 32 county Ireland and kick the British out of Ireland – so had partition not existed, the IRA-Nazi alliance would not have existed.

S-Plan

On January 16, 1939 the IRA launched their “S-Plan” campaign by setting off bombs in Manchester, London, and Birmingham (13). By July 1939, British Home Secretary, Samuel Hoare, stated that there had been 127 IRA incidents since January (13). One of these attacks had killed one man in Manchester (13). The worst of the IRA’s S-Plan bombings was in Coventry on August 25, which killed 5 people (13). Adolf Hitler’s initial response to the S-Plan was that he initially refused to fund it, fearing provoking conflict with Great Britain (14). However after Hitler declared war against Great Britain he did agree to send, money, transmitters, and spies to Ireland as a result of the S-Plan (14). On October 29, 1939 the IRA began their radio messages to the Nazis (15). 

The October 29 IRA transmission asked about arms, but the Abwehr could not help as the message had not indicated any likely supply routes (15). This transmitter was later seized by Irish police on the December 29, 1939 raid on Ashgrove House (15). The IRA never succeeded in setting up supply routes, nor did they respond to German requests to cease operations against De Valera’s government and concentrate instead on military installations in Britain and Northern Ireland (15). In February 1940 Abwehr agent Ernst Weber Drohl arrived in Ireland and quickly mislaid his radio transmitter after landing from a U-Boat (12). Drohl was quickly taken in by Irish authorities (12). Abwehr agent Herman Goertz arrived in Ireland in May 1940, and one his many aims was to prompt Northern Irish Republicans into rebellion (12). Hermann Goertz’s efforts also failed and he was quickly detained the following year (12). Shortly after Herman Goertz capture in 1941, the primary Nazi-Republican link, Jim O’Donovan, was interned and as a consequence the IRA-German connection was greatly weakened (12). On August 14, 1940 former IRA Chief of Staff Sean Russell died in the arms of his comrade Frank Ryan hundreds of miles away from Galway aboard a German U-Boat while trying to get back to Ireland (16). Sean Russell and Frank Ryan were sent to Ireland as part of a Nazi sponsored mission called Operation Dove, which was a loosely defined mission, which left Sean Russell to take any action he saw fit in Ireland (16). 

Plan Kathleen

The most noteworthy joint IRA–Nazi venture was called Plan Kathleen and it was written by new IRA Chief of Staff Stephen Hayes in early 1940 (17). Stephen Hayes took over as the leader of IRA after Sean Russell left in early 1940 for the USA to raise funds and drum up support for the IRA (17). Plan Kathleen stated with a Nazi invasion of Northern Ireland with active IRA help (17). The IRA would help the Nazis in this plan by staging uprisings in both Northern Ireland and the Irish Free State as well as overthrowing both the Dublin and Belfast governments and seizing key posts in Ireland (17). Plan Kathleen also stated that Northern Ireland would be conquered by a simultaneous IRA insurgency in Northern Ireland and the landing of German forces (17). 50,000 German soldiers would be dropped in Northern Ireland, while over 30,000 IRA soldiers would be near the Irish and Northern Irish borders near Lough Erne (17). They would then together sweep Northern Ireland and destroy British forces (17). Plan Kathleen was presented in a meeting on May 17, 1940 in the Irish Free State that was chaired by Stephen Hayes (17). German Spy Herman Goertz was present at this safe house meeting (17). The plan fell apart because Stephen Hayes had exaggerated the IRA’s strength of 30,000 men when in reality it only had 5,000 unarmed men that were available to support the proposed invasion (17). The IRA’s Plan Kathleen had also failed to give information on where or how the Northern Irish coast was fortified, how German troops were to be brought to Ireland, or how control of sea approaches were to be obtained (17). 

Plan Kathleen could have worked if the Luftwaffe had consistently bombed and destroyed not only the British radar stations, but also the flimsy wooden huts that housed the operators during the Battle of Britain (18). The IRA and Nazis would then invade Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

Avoiding the alliance

Conversely, the British could have avoided the Nazi-IRA alliance threat by giving back all of Ireland to the Irish in 1921. Great Britain could then have easily moved their Royal Air Force Anti-Submarine bases as well as merchant ship ports out of Northern Ireland (19). They would then establish new bases in the Scottish Islands and the Isle of Man. This would have complemented the Anglo-American base of Iceland, which the British seized in May 1940 (20). The British government offered proposals of Irish reunification provided they joined the war on Great Britain’s side (21). The first was in June 1940 and the second after the Pearl Harbor attack in December 1941 - but both times they were rejected by the neutral Irish government (21).

In order to avoid this alliance, the British government should have given Irish reunification and asked for nothing in return.

What do you think of the IRA’s collaboration with the Nazis 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, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

[1] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 9. 

[2] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 9 to 10. 

[3] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 9 to 11. 

[4] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 11 to 13. 

[5] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 30. 

[6] English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 34 to 35. 

7 English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 63. 

8 English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 60. 

9 English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA.  London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 60 to 61. 

10 Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: Fully Revised and Updated. New York: New York. St. Martin’s Griffin. 2002. 120 and 31. 

11 Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: Fully Revised and Updated. New York: New York. St. Martin’s Griffin. 2002. 212.

12 English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 64. 

13 English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012. 61. 

14 Thomson, Mike. “How De Valera asked UK to smear IRA chief Sean Russell”. Last Updated or Modified March 28th, 2011. BBC News.  Accessed on July 19th, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-12848272 . 

15 Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: Fully Revised and Updated. New York: New York. St. Martin’s Griffin. 2002. 213.

16 Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: Fully Revised and Updated. New York: New York. St. Martin’s Griffin. 2002. 211. 

17 Nazi Collaborators: The IRA. WMK Productions. IMG Entertainment. 2010. 

18 Mosley, Leonard. The Battle of Britain. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1977. 95. 

19 “Northern Ireland in World War Two-Revision 3-GSCE-BBC Bitesize”. BBC. Last Updated or Modified August 27th, 2019. Accessed on August 27th, 2019. https://www.bbc.co/uk/bitesize/guide/z2k9d2p/revision/3

20 Pitt, Barrie. The Battle of the Atlantic. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1977. 136. 

21 Madden, F.J.M. Teach Yourself: The History of Ireland. Chicago: Illinois . Contemporary Books. 2005. 161. 

Bibliography

Coogan, Tim Pat. The IRA: Fully Revised and Updated. New York: New York. St. Martin’s Griffin. 2002. 

English, Richard. Armed Struggle: The History of the IRA. London: UK. Pan Books. 2012.

Madden, F.J.M. Teach Yourself: The History of Ireland. Chicago: Illinois. Contemporary Books. 2005. 

Mosley, Leonard. The Battle of Britain. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1977.

Nazi Collaborators: The IRA.  WMK Productions. IMG Entertainment. 2010. 

“Northern Ireland In World War Two-Revision-3-GSCE-BBC Bitesize”. BBC. Last Updated or Modified August 27th, 2019. Accessed on August 27th, 2019. https://www.bbc.co/uk/bitesize/guide/z2k92p/revision/3 . 

Pitt. Barrie. The Battle of the Atlantic. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1977.

Thomson, Mike. “How De Valera asked UK to smear IRA chief Sean Russell”. Last Updated or Modified March 28th, 2011. BBC News. Accessed on July 19th, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-12848272. 

George Washington: How he Developed and Recognized those around him – Part 2

George Washington played a key role in the lives of many people. In this two-part series we look at how he recognized talent and developed a number of younger men during his life. In part 2 of 2, we look at how Washington developed Henry Knox and Alexander Hamilton, and conclude with 5 key take-aways. Michael Wilhelm explains.

If you missed it you can read part 1 here.

Alexander Hamilton in the uniform of the New York Artillery. By Alonzo Chappel.

The Portly Bookseller 

Henry Knox was born on July 25, 1750. Knox was raised by a single mother and received only a fifth-grade education. Needing to go work to help support the family, he eventually became a bookstore owner in Boston called The London Bookshop. It was in his bookshop that he read the works that would teach him about artillery, thus beginning his preparation for his role in the Continental Army. Knox taught himself to reach French because the French army was the acknowledged leader in artillery siege tactics during that time. He met and immediately fell in love with Lucy Fluckner, who came from aristocratic and Loyalist stock. They married in July 1774. They would have an extremely happy marriage with the exception that 10 or their 13 children died young. He left to join the Revolution at age 25. 

After arriving at Cambridge, Washington used his eye for talent to appoint both Nathanael Greene and Henry Knox to significant roles within the new Continental Army. Washington would describe him as “a big, fat, garrulous, keenly intelligent” man. Knox would serve as chief of artillery through the majority of the war. Probably Knox’s chief claim to fame during the war came quite early. During the siege of Boston, Knox conceived a plan for bringing the cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to bear on the British occupying the city. Fifty-nine of Fort Ticonderoga’s cannons equaling over 119,000 pounds of brass were mobilized by Knox and his men. The trek to Boston was a trip of over 300 miles. He and his men even used sleds where the snow made this the easier way to keep moving. With the deploying of the cannon over Dorchester Heights, the British knew they had no choice but to evacuate the city. 

After the war, it was Knox who proposed the idea of the Society of the Cincinnati, a hereditary organization for the descendants of those who fought in the American Revolution. The Society still has 3,900 members and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. Knox would continue to serve in Washington’s inner circle as the country’s first Secretary of War from 1789-1794. He would assist Washington in the nation’s dealings with the Native American tribes and oversee the establishment of the U.S. Navy. His dwindling financial prospects forced his retirement from government. He retired to the territory of Maine and built a home called Montpelier. He briefly considered coming out of retirement during the Quasi-War with France during the Adams administration. However, when he discovered that Alexander Hamilton would outrank him in the new army, he refused to serve. This is one particular instance when Washington appears to be particularly tone-deaf and out of touch. The relationship seems never to have recovered from the strain. Knox would be honored by the nation by having Fort Knox named in his honor. He died October 25, 1806.[1]

The Clerk from Nevis 

Alexander Hamilton was born in the West Indies in either 1755 or 1757 on the island of Nevis. His illegitimacy would at times make him a target for his political enemies. He was abandoned by his father in 1766. His mother died two years later. He began working as a clerk at a trading company at age 11. He came to some public attention in 1772 after the publication of his description of a hurricane that hit the island. Locals raised money for him to be able to go to America to pursue an education. He studied at King’s College, which is now Columbia University. Before joining the Continental Army, he had defended the Continental Congress’ embargo of British goods in a pamphlet called, “A Full Vindication of the Measures of Congress.” 

He was commissioned to lead an artillery company in the Continental Army and fought in the Battles of Trenton and Princeton. In 1777, he joined Washington’s staff as an aide-de-camp. It was while on Washington’s staff that he showed the ability to think and express the General’s thoughts for him. This made him much depended upon by “His Excellency.” Hamilton could be thin-skinned and imperious. It is likely a testament to Washington’s skill in being able to handle troublesome personalities that they worked so well together, so long. He was so prickly an individual, Jane Freeman states that Hamilton was involved in ten affairs of honor before the duel with Aaron Burr that ended his life.[2] However, he would leave Washington’s staff peeved over a clash when he had kept Washington waiting. Though the true reason may have been that Hamilton had been pressing for a battlefield commission. Washington would assign him to an artillery regiment at the battle of Yorktown in which by all accounts, he fought heroically. 

Hamilton had married into the wealthy Schulyer family when he wed Elizabeth. They would have eight children together. The Schulyer’s were part of the New York aristocracy, so Hamilton passed the bar and set up his law practice in New York. He attended the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. He argued for such a strong central government based on the British model that it is likely that he influenced very few people there. After the Convention had done his work, he collaborated with James Madison and John Jay to produce the Federalist Papers to argue for the ratification of the new Constitution. Though Washington had not taken a very active part in the debate, he had become convinced both through his service in the American Revolution and his own observations of the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, that a new Constitution with some teeth was necessary. He would use his influence to encourage the writers to do their work and lauded the completed effort. Washington waited in the wings with some trepidation regarding the result of what would be the fate of the Constitution. Though all were nearly unanimous in agreement that if the Constitution were ratified, Washington would be the first president. A number of the delegates from Philadelphia contended that the office of president would not be nearly so powerful if this were not the prevailing expectation. 

Peacemaker

On April 30, 1789, Washington was inaugurated as president. He would bring in one of the most talented Cabinet’s the government would ever see. This is true even if one considers only his choice of Secretary of Treasury and Secretary of State. Both Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson would serve in the Washington administration during his first term. It appears that both men seemed to take an immediate dislike to each other. Washington took pains to play peacemaker between them. Jefferson seemed to feel that Hamilton was evil incarnate. However, the reason for this is almost comic in its irony. Jefferson felt that Hamilton had monarchial inclinations. That if he were allowed to succeed, the common people would be eaten up by aristocracy. So, the illegitimate clerk from the West Indies was the champion of banking and wealth interests, while Jefferson, the slave owner, saw himself as the champion of the common man and untainted by his privileged upbringing. To make matters worse, when it came to financial matters such as the creation of the national bank and the assumption of state debts from the American Revolution, Washington backed Hamilton. Jefferson soothed himself with the thought that if he was not duped or out of his mind, Washington would never have done such a thing. 

Though he perhaps would want to dispute the point, it is almost certain that Hamilton would have been a footnote in history had he never come under the tutelage of Washington. Washington appears to have been self-assured enough that neither Hamilton nor Jefferson as talented as they were could intimidate him. Yet, through his association with Washington, Hamilton was able to unleash his monumental talents and prodigious energies on the young nation’s most fundamental questions. His association with Washington opened doors for Hamilton in both the public and private spheres. Indeed, it is worth pondering that the one thing that Hamilton and Jefferson seemed to have been in absolute accord upon was the indispensability of Washington to the fledging county when both wished to resign from the government. 

Washington would call upon Hamilton once again when he finally decided to retire and made certain that those in influence understood, this time there would be no changing his mind. Washington had asked Madison to help with a valedictory address toward the end of his first term. At that time, several advisors had stressed that the young nation would not survive without Washington as the helm. Very much against his wishes, Washington put the address away for another day. However, after the criticism that he has drawn from the Jay Treaty and the Democratic-Republicans during his second term, he would not be moved. First, Washington kept some of the original document in what would become known as his Farewell Address. This made it clear, as just as a reminder, Washington was not leaving just because things had gotten tough, he had just gotten to the point that he was going to do what he had wanted to do for some time. Second, he contacted Hamilton (Madison along with Jefferson had by now gone over to the opposition) for help with the document. This has caused some to question who is the actual author of Washington’s Farewell. On this point, James Madison writes, “arguing that Washington’s friends and allies ‘ought to claim for him the merit only of cherishing the principles and views addressed to his Country, and for the address itself the weight given to it by his sanction; leaving the literary merit, whatever it be, to the friendly pen employed on the occasion; the rather as it was never understood that Washington valued himself on his writing talent, and no secret to some that he occasionally availed himself of the friendship of others who he supposed more practiced than himself in studied composition.”[3]

Madison is certainly correct. Indeed, this is the pattern that is found throughout Washington’s public career. Washington found others who were practiced and more learned than himself and relied on them to express his thoughts for him. This same pattern holds here. Hamilton is the penman but the ideas belong to Washington. The printer who published the Farewell Address for his newspaper (it was never given as an address) noted that Washington was making correction to the text even as it was going to press. This was another collaboration in a lifetime of collaborations by the shrewdest player on the national and international stage. After Hamilton’s death on July 12, 1804, his beloved Elizabeth championed his authorship of the Farewell Address both to rehabilitate her husband’s reputation and enhance it. However, even at that time, those who knew Washington and how he had worked were never convinced. Hamilton referred to Washington when he stated, “’Perhaps no friend of his has more cause to lament on personal account than myself’ he told an associate, saying that Washington had been, ‘an aegis very essential to me.’”[4] Such was a profound understatement. Without Washington, what would we know of Hamilton?

Tying the Ends Together 

1.     It must be admitted that over a lifetime that lasted sixty-seven years, there were ups and downs, and outright failures. Even among the men we considered there were those who caused Washington more headaches than others. Yet, once Washington had moved someone into his inner circle, it took a great many grievances for them to be removed. This patience is not something that Washington is much known for in many of the biographies that have been written. Yet, it does appear to exist, at least to the extent that if he had decided that a young man had potential, he seemed willing to take the long road to see that potential fulfilled. This patience did not even always carry over to those closest to Washington. Indeed, the evidence seems to suggest that Mrs. Washington had no patience with Hamilton whatsoever. In fact, she named a feral cat known around the presidential residence Hamilton. Washington seems to have seen Hamilton’s talent as worthy of a wide berth in his personal life. 

2.     Joseph Ellis gives a wonderful illustration of Washington’s leadership style. “All major decisions were collective occasions, in which advisers, like spokes on a wheel, made contributions, usually in written form. But in the end the final decision, to include the final choice of words, came together at the center, which was always Washington.”[5] In context, Ellis is referring to the writing process of the Farewell Address. However, this image helps to illustrate Washington’s method of making decisions throughout his entire public career. He trusted those that he put in position and expected them to provide him with the best information that they had. In Cabinet proceedings, the different department heads reported on decisions that needed to be made. There was a place for debate and argument. Washington expected that those who espoused a position voice it forcibly. Yet, when he had made a decision and the government or army had moved in a direction, he expected debate to be at an end. In this he was at times, disappointed. This is how he expected it to work in any case. 

3.     Those who came under the tutelage of Washington in a number of cases owe to him their place on the historical stage. He had an eye for talent and he seemed to enjoy using it. From Greene to Knox, to even the Marquis de Lafayette, Washington believed in giving responsibility and then letting others fulfill it. There were times that this led to disappointing results, but in the long run he was often proved right. Thomas Jefferson would find fault with his education, but even he had to admit that Washington’s reasoned conclusions were usually accurate to a remarkable degree. There are very few in the Revolutionary generation who are known to us that were not influenced, assisted, or in some promoted by Washington. It was in many ways, his generation. 

4.     This line of inquiry and investigation brings to the fore an aspect of Washington that our generation often misses, though his generation took it for granted. This involves his personal magnetism. People were drawn to Washington. He was considered by his generation a natural born leader. He was a hit with the ladies, with whom he enjoyed flirting and dancing. Graceful was a word that often described his movements among his contemporaries. What explains this separation of opinion? It likely has to do with the deification that began to occur with the persona of Washington even during his lifetime. You may revere a god but it is difficult to be attracted to one if you are mere mortal who will never measure up. He seems distant and unknowable. Perhaps it is time to attempt to recover at least a glimpse of Washington as his generation saw him. Even a stern a critic of men and the times as Abigail Adams echoed the words of the Queen of Sheba after she had met Solomon, “I felt the half had not been told me.”[6] Why do we still study, write, and think about Washington? Because the half has not yet been told, indeed. 

5.     Finally, it is perfectly true that this line of thought could have been extended much farther. Fans of the Marquis de Lafayette are perhaps disappointed that he did not rate discussion. However, there are some within Washington’s circle who were well on their way before meeting him. Lafayette is, in my view, a case in point. In addition, I have not mentioned the relationship that Washington had with James Madison. These are just two examples of others who might have been included here. I leave these and others for those whose interest has been sparked to pursue. I am sure that I will likely do some of this myself.

Much ink has been spilled over the life of Washington and yet, this will continue to be the case. It is such a stimulating conversation. 

What do you think of George Washington’s ability to develop young men? Let us know below.

[1] General biographical help received at knoxmuseum.org/Henry-Knox/ 

[2] History.com/topics/American-revolution/Alexander-Hamilton 

[3] Avlon, John. Washington’s Farewell: The Founding Father’s Warning to Future Generations. Simon & Schuster, New York: 2017, p. 225. 

[4] Chernow, ibid, p. 811. 

[5] Ellis, Joseph J. Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation. Alfred A. Knopf, New York: 2000, p. 150. 

[6] Chernow, Ibid, p. 195.

George Washington: How he Developed and Recognized those around him – Part 1

George Washington played a key role in the lives of many people. In this two-part series we look at how he recognized talent and developed a number of younger men during his life. In part 1 of 2, we look at who influenced Washington when he was young, and how he developed Joseph Reed and Nathanael Greene. Michael Wilhelm explains.

A 1772 portrait of George Washington by Charles Willson Peale.

Boyhood and Background 

George Washington was born on February 22, 1732, according to the New Style calendar. His parents were Augustine Washington and Mary Ball Washington. Washington was the oldest child born to the union. Augustine had been previously married to Jane Butler. They had four children: Butler (1716), who died in infancy, Lawrence (1718), Augustine, Jr. (1720) and Jane (1722), who died in January 1734 or 1735. Jane Butler Washington died on November 24, 1729, one-month sigh of her 30th birthday. Augustine and Mary were married on March 6, 1731. They had six children: George (1732), Betty (1733), Samuel (1734), John Augustine (1736), Charles (1738), and Mildred (1740). Mildred was the only child of their marriage not to reach adulthood. Lawrence and Augustine Jr. were away at Appleby Grammar school in England, where their father had also been educated. Augustine was not among the elite of the Virginia gentry, yet he had established his family well beyond the reach of poverty by the time of his death. He died on April 12, 1743 at the age of 48 at Ferry Farm. His death was a strange foreshadowing of Washington’s own death near the turn of the century. This event changed Washington’s own prospects at a classical education that his older half-brothers had enjoyed. 

Washington had a somewhat strained relationship with his mother. Though when one reads the evidence, it appears that part of the problem may have been that they were a great deal alike. Mary Washington was by all accounts not someone with whom to trifle. Mary was tasked due to the death of her husband with the management of Ferry Farm, the raising of five children aged five to eleven, and the supervision of the household slaves.[1] “The hypercritical mother produced a son who was overly sensitive to criticism and suffered from a lifelong need for approval. One suspects, in dealing with this querulous woman, George became an overly controlled personality and learned to master his temper and curb his tongue.”[2] His mother, though widowed at 35, would never remarry and make her way in a world where her success was deemed as improbable. George, for his own part was always deferential to his mother but seemed later in life to avoid her if at all possible. His letters were addressed to her as “Honored Madame” and yet, one searches in vain for a word of love or affection from him directed toward her. The man who was known for seeking to always do his duty seemed to learn this trait in his relationship with his mother. 

A Surrogate Father 

“Quite naturally, George turned to older men as sponsors and patrons, cultivating the art of ingratiating himself with influential figures.” [3] The first of these older men that Washington turned to was a natural choice, his older half-brother Lawrence. Lawrence was 14 years Washington’s senior. He also had some advantages that Washington would never be able to enjoy. The first and probably the one that Washington felt most keenly was education. Lawrence had received a classical education, whereas the younger George had to contend himself with the basic grade school curriculum, though he appeared to excel at math. Lawrence served in the War of Jenkins’ Ear (1739-1748) under Admiral Edward Vernon. Vernon would later lend his name to Lawrence’s estate. After his service, Lawrence married Anne Fairfax of Belvoir. This marriage meant that Lawrence had moved into the high society of the Virginia gentry. “It was through his brother’s steadily growing influence and powerful connections that George Washington was able to start getting a foothold in a world that otherwise would have been completely unattainable to him.”[4]

Washington so admired his brother that he desired to follow him into service in His Majesty’s Royal Navy. In fact, Washington seems for years to be on a mission to follow in his brother’s footsteps. Yet in this desire, he was to be disappointed. Mary Ball Washington did not like the idea of her son going off to sea at such a young age (he was about 15). Mrs. Washington would even enlist the help of her brother, Joseph Ball. Answering her letter, Ball stated his view of the young Washington’s prospects in the Navy. His uncle observed that in service they would, “cut him and staple him and use him like a Negro, or rather, like a dog.”[5] His desire being scuttled, Washington turned to surveying. One might well wonder how different American history might have been if George Washington had ended up serving on a ship in His Majesty’s Service. 

During his time in the Navy appears to be when Lawrence contracted tuberculosis. He was seeking relief from the disease in a warmer climate, prompting him to invite Washington on a trip to Barbados in late 1751. While there, one of the most serendipitous events of Washington’s life occurred though it likely did not appear to be such at the time. Washington contracted smallpox and was laid up for some time with it. However, upon his recovery, he was also immune for life from one of the most virulent killers of the 18th century. 

Because Lawrence Washington died in July 1752 from tuberculosis, it can be easy to underestimate the effect he had on his younger half-brother. However, that influence was immense. Lawrence enabled Washington to enter into a level of society he had heretofore never known. His relationship with Lord Fairfax and indeed, the entire Fairfax family sets his life on a different course. It is through the Fairfax family that Washington comes to the attention of Lieutenant Governor Robert Dinwiddie. It is by following in Lawrence’s footsteps that Washington will eventually become Adjutant General in the Militia of Virginia as well as a member of the House of Burgesses. It also through provisions by Lawrence in his will and the deaths of Lawrence’s widow and his infant daughter, that Washington inherits his beloved Mount Vernon. It is not a stretch to begin to trace through Washington’s interaction with the young men that he would encounter throughout his life this tendency. Washington sees a man with talent and draws that man into his circle. It is a pattern that repeats itself over and over. It becomes most pronounced his military family during the American Revolution.

A Penman and Quartermaster 

Joseph Reed was born August 27, 1741. He graduated from The College of New Jersey (later Princeton) and completed his law studies in London. He would meet his wife, Esther de Berdt while there. They would have five children. He had at first hoped for a reconciliation between the colonies and England. He would join the Continental Army in 1775 with the rank of Lt. Col. “Aware of his own limited formal education, Washington selected college graduates who were ‘Pen-men’ as aides, whose facility with language assured that the grammar and syntax of his correspondence was worthy of ‘His Excellency.’”[6] These young men would make up part of his military family and in some cases become as close to Washington as anyone ever would. “His most trusted aides—Joseph Reed was the first, followed by Alexander Hamilton and John Laurens later in the war—became surrogate sons who enjoyed direct access to the general in after-dinner sessions, when Washington liked to encourage conversation as he ate nuts and drank a glass of Madeira.” [7] During the early stages of the war, Reed is shown to have held Washington’s confidence in a profound way. He served both as Washington’s secretary and Quartermaster of the Army. Washington even showed himself distressed when Reed departed camp to attend to his law practice. “’At present my times is so much taken up at my desk that I am obliged to neglect many other essential parts of my duty,’ he pleaded to Reed. ‘It is absolutely necessary therefore for me to have persons that can think for me as well as execute orders.’”[8]

Unfortunately, Reed gave Washington reason to question his estimation of his character, if not his abilities. Reed began to harbor doubts about Washington’s ability as a general. He then proceeded to allow these doubts to be known to certain others, but in particular, General Charles Lee. Lee was second in command of the Army but had always thought he should have been first. He was eccentric and quixotic, never far removed from his company of dogs. Reed confided in a letter to Lee that Washington seemed to be unable to make up his mind in instances and at Long Island had failed to countermand Greene when circumstances called for it. Reed then included a secret codicil in a letter from Washington to Lee. In this secret message, Reed had suggested that Lee and some others should go to Congress and form a new plan for the Army. Washington was being undermined by his own secretary. Washington uncovered what Reed was doing when he inadvertently opened a letter Lee had sent to Reed. He was deeply hurt by this betrayal. Washington explained to Reed that he had opened the letter because it was their manner of doing business due to the nature of his office. Washington simply sent the letter ahead to Reed after letting him know that he had read it. The uncertainty that must have gripped Reed would have been torturous. It took some time for the relationship to be restored, but Washington did allow Reed to remain with him. Though in restoring the relationship, Washington made it clear that what bothered him the most is that Reed had not felt free to share his doubts with him. 

Reed would go on to be elected to the Continental Congress. In addition, he would be elected as President of Pennsylvania twice (the office is nearest to that of governor of the state). Reed, who it will be remembered, at first desired reconciliation with England was accused of traitorous correspondence with them. It was not until after this death that he would be cleared. It may be because of these accusations that he took such a hardline stance against Loyalists. Slavery was abolished in Pennsylvania while he was president. Reed had moved on from his dependent relationship toward Washington, but he never forgot whom has caused his star to rise. He suffered from poor health and died on March 5, 1785.[9]

The Bookworm from Warwick 

Nathanael Greene was a voracious reader who built a massive library on a number of subjects but especially military strategy and history when it appeared that the situation with Great Britain was moving toward war. Greene was raised in a family of practicing Quakers, which caused him some difficulties given his martial activities. Ezra Stiles, future president of Yale University, was responsible for Greene’s early education. He would marry Catherine (Caty) Littlefield in July 1774. The happy couple would have 5 children together. When he joined the Kentish Guards of the Rhode Island militia he was expelled by the Quakers. Greene had had a limp from birth and this limited his advancement in the Guards, though he had been instrumental in their founding. After Lexington and Concord, the Rhode Island Assembly chose Greene as one of the commanders of their three regiments. Thus, he was promoted from private to brigadier general in less than a year. 

It was Greene’s organizational skills that brought him to the attention of George Washington. In August 1776, he was promoted to Major General. He would become Washington’s most trusted advisor and one of his closest friends. He would be appointed Quartermaster in 1778, a position he would hold until the summer of 1780. It was his monumental task to supply the Continental Army with virtually no money to accomplish this. Washington preferred to make decisions with the input of his military family. So, he would call councils of war to discuss strategy and attempt to make decisions from consensus. This was at one and the same time one of Washington’s great strengths and striking weaknesses. At pivotal moments in the New York campaign, Washington made suggestions or followed incorrect advice and put the army in jeopardy. One striking instance of this, was involving the decision to defend or abandon Forts Washington and Lee. Washington had an unenviable task. Though he felt that New York was indefensible with the force that he then possessed, he had been ordered by the Continental Congress to defend it. Though Greene had at first felt they should burn and abandon the city, he had informed Washington that the forts could be defended. Washington listened. However, with their command of the water, the British has very little trouble overrunning the defenders at both forts. Greene took responsibility for the disaster. This was in Washington’s eyes how one kept in his good graces. Do your best, but when you fail, admit it and take responsibility. The relationship barely hit a bump.

When the southern campaign began to heat up in the latter years of the war, Washington appointed Greene head of the Southern Army replacing Horatio Gates. Greene began a hit and run strategy against Cornwallis, with an emphasis on run. Greene, with his understanding of supply, made it his objective to push Cornwallis farther and farther away from his supply. Greene also waited to engage until he had handpicked a patch of ground that he was ready to defend. The ground in question was known as Guilford Courthouse. Greene set his forces in three defensive lines near the farm of Joseph Hoskins straddling both side of New Garden Road in what is now Greensboro, NC. The militia that made up most of Greene’s first line fired one shot at the advancing British and began to run. This has led to speculation that had they not run so quickly, that the result of the battle might have been much different. However, though technically a defeat for the American forces, the battle of Guilford Courthouse was certainly an unmitigated disaster for the British. The 2nd and 3rd American lines with the help of experienced Continental soldiers fought fiercely. In fact, at the American 3rd line, Cornwallis gave the order to fire grapeshot into the mass of soldiers, even though it was a certainty that his own men would be hit. The casualty report for the British was that they had lost 25 percent of their force either killed or wounded. Charles James Fox told the British Parliament that, “Another such victory would ruin the British Army.”[10] This more than anything may be Greene’s legacy. He greatly increased the cost of victory. It proved to be a cost they soon decided that they no longer could pay. It is far from coincidental that Guilford Courthouse occurred only 6 months before the final major battle at Yorktown. It can be stated that the stars aligned so that Cornwallis had been boxed in for the climatic battle. Yet it should be acknowledged, that much of Cornwallis’ desperation was engineered by Greene and his ragtag force. 

On the Greene Monument that stands where the 2nd American line was positioned at Guilford Courthouse National Military Park, there are two testimonials to him and his contribution at the battle. The first comes from his friend and mentor, George Washington: “It is with a pleasure to which friendship alone is susceptible to that I congratulate you on the glorious end you have put the hostilities in the southern states.” This from Cornwallis: “Greene is as dangerous as Washington. I never feel secure when he is in my neighborhood.”[11] Washington had technically not “discovered” Greene. The Rhode Island Assembly had done that. But Washington certainly made Greene a national rather than a regional figure. Their relationship was based on a mutual respect and a trust that honestly, did not come easily for Washington. He believed Greene had earned it. Though he would have much preferred to keep Greene near him just in the interests of friendship, there is reason to believe that promoting Greene to head of the Southern Army may have been Washington’s best decision of the war. Unfortunately, much like Joseph Reed, Greene did not long survive the war. He died in Georgia at a plantation gifted to him by that state on June 19, 1786. He was likely a victim of sunstroke. Washington would help Caty with the care and education of her children. It remains an unanswerable question of history what role Greene might have placed in the future career of Washington had he been alive to see it.[12]

This brings us to basically the halfway point of the current analysis. Both Reed and Greene were privileged to a side of Washington that many did not see. He was capable of depth in regard and concern, as his relationship with both men attests. Nor was this all. In the second installment, we will examine two more younger men whom Washington would recognize as talented and capable. He would open doors for them as he opened doors of opportunity for this penman and his general.  

Now, read part 2 on how Washington developed and recognised those around him here.

[1] Chernow, Ron. Washington: A Life.  New York: The Penguin Group, 2010. 

[2] Ibid, p. 11.  

[3] Ibid, p. 10. 

[4] mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/lawrence-washington.

[5] Ellis, Joseph E. His Excellency: George Washington. New York: Alfred K. Knopf 2004. p. 9.  

[6] Ibid, p. 80. 

[7] Ibid. 

[8] Chernow, p. 217. 

[9] General Biographical information from revolutionary-war.net/joseph-reed/. 

[10] https://www.dwhike.com/History/Revolutionary-War/Guilford-Courthouse-NC/

[11]https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=h2DOyPQP&id=6F184706B907B23588B8ED6A8E795DDFFB4D0415&thid=OIP.h2DOyPQPKmFkOTnVw9GsQgHaFH&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2f4.bp.blogspot.com%2f-vJLOZMiLKsM%2fUjPK-LaGw-I%2fAAAAAAAAEaM%2f-SaxUStXPdo%2fs1600%2fGuilford%2bCourthouse%2bGreenes%2bStatue.jpg&exph=1104&expw=1600&q=Battle+of+Guilford+Courthouse+Statue&simid=607987878111478537&ck=0F1C3CF0207680D2F19DA6DFB6D94CA0&selectedIndex=8&ajaxhist=0

[12] General biographical help received at ehistory.osu.edu/biographies/nathanael-greene 

How Many Sources are in the Gospels?

To access the authenticity of events or the existence of historical figures, it is best to have as many independent sources that date as close to the fact as possible. When it comes to the existence of the historical Jesus, we have multiple independent sources, from the New Testament, Jewish sources (e.g., Josephus), and pagan Roman historians. However, this article will focus on the sources for the four canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Jack Wilkin explains.

St. Mark as painted by Andrea Mantegna in 1448.

Authors

Firstly, it is worth noting the Gospels were not written by who they say they were written by. For example, for several reasons the Gospel of John was not written by John the Apostle. Firstly, the literacy rate in first-century Palestine was incredibly low, with only about 3% of Jews being literate at the time (Hezser, 2001) and far further than that would have been able to write a book as well-crafted as the Gospels in excellent Greek, especially given that the disciples were lower-class Aramaic-speaking rural peasants from Galilee, not upper-class Greek-speaking urban elites.

Furthermore, the Gospel accounts are written anonymously, and all the disciples are mentioned in the third person. If John indeed wrote John, do you think he would mention himself in the third person? John is considered to have been written around 90-110 CE (Lincoln, 2005, p. 18), so if we say that John was 18 at his youngest when he meets Jesus in 30 CE, he would have been between 78 to 98 when the Gospel was written which is possible but highly unlikely. Finally, the text was only identified as John by Bishop Irenaeus in the later second century (Lindars et al., 2000, p. 41). All the Gospels were anonymous and were later assigned their authors by Christian theologians (see the works of Bart Ehrman).

Similarities

The Synoptic Gospels of Mathew, Mark and Luke share many of the same stories and, in some cases, even the same word choices. This has led scholars to conclude that Matthew and Luke almost certainly used Mark as a source. Mark is the oldest of the Gospels being written down around 70 CE, so within around 40 years of Jesus' alleged death in 33 CE. Both Matthew and Luke were written by 80-85 CE, by which point Mark had been circulating for over a decade, so the timeline adds up. 

Even though Matthew and Luke used Mark, both accounts also contain stories not found in Mark, such as the Lord's Prayer (Mat. 6:9-13 = Luke 11:2-4) and the Beatitudes (Matt. 5:3-12 = Luke 6:20-22). The simplest explanation for this is that these stories come from another, yet unfortunately now lost, theoretic sayings Gospel, like the Gospel of Thomas, called Q (from the German Quelle meaning source). Furthermore, some lines of text also share the same wording (Mat. 6:24 = Luke 16:13 and Mat. 7:7-8 = Luke 11:9-10), which cannot be a mere coincidence, so it must have come from a shared source. 

Comparing the Synoptic Gospels, Matthew burrowed more heavily from Mark than Luke, with Luke being more reliant on Q. However, both Luke and Matthew also contain stories that are unique to that Gospel. For example, Luke has the Parable of the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32) and the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37), while Matthew has the Magi at the Nativity (Mat. 2:1-12) and the Parable of the Sheep and Goats at Judgment Day (Mat. 25:31-46). As an example of this, it is believed that both source accounts relied on older traditions (Luke's is called L and Matthews is creatively called M).  It is unknown if L and M were made of a single written/oral account, multiple written /oral accounts made up by the authors or a combination of them. Even Mark is thought to have been a combination of oral and even older written traditions with the Passions of Christ predating Mark perhaps back to 50 CE or even earlier. The idea that the Synoptics share four sources was first theorized by English Anglican theologian Burnett Hillman Streeter in his acclaimed book The Four Gospels: a Study of Origins published in 1924.

Even the Gospels' themselves freely admit that they are dependent on earlier sources. The introduction to Luke (1:1-4) states: 

"Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.  With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught."

John

The final Gospel is John. John is the outsider of the Gospels as it does not seem to burrow from the Synoptics, and when they depict the same events, they are radically different and, at times, contradictory. But even John is not considered by New Testament scholars to be a single source, with Bart Ehrman (2012, p.82) commenting:

"… scholars have long suspected that John had at his dispersal an earlier written account of Jesus' miracles (the so-called Signs Source), at least two accounts of Jesus' long speeches (the Discourse Sources), and possibly another Passion source as well."

So how many independent sources are represented by the four Gospels? The answer, or at least the one presented in this article, is at least eight. That on its own is a considerable number of sources, especially given that Mark, M, L, and possibly the earlier accounts Luke is based on may have derived from multiple oral and now-lost written accounts. That is eight-plus sources for the existence of a historical Jesus dating from within a hundred years of his death. This article does not include the Gospel of Thomas, which is sometimes viewed as independent of the canonical Gospels, the letters of Paul (58 CE) that predate Mark's writing and is also independent, and the other books in the New Testament (Acts, etc.) as these are also independent of the Gospels. 

Do you agree with the article? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Casey, M. 2002. An Aramaic Approach to Q: Sources for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Ehrman, B.D. 2005. Misquoting Jesus: the story behind who changed the Bible and why. Harper One, New York.

Ehrman, B.D. 2012. Did Jesus exist: the historical argument for Jesus of Nazareth. Harper One, New York. 

Hezser, C. 2001. Jewish literacy in Roman Palestine. Mohr Siebeck, Tüblingen. 

Lincoln, A. 2005. Gospel according to St John: Black's New Testament commentaries. Bloomsbury Publishing, London. 

Lindars, B., Edwards, R. and Court, J. M. 2000. The Johannine literature. A&C Black, London

Steeter, B.H. 1928. The Four Gospels: a study of origins. Macmillan, London

The Introduction of the Gatling Gun — And How It Changed Military Strategy

As long as there have been human beings, there has been war. What started as small-scale conflicts over resources, mates or land evolved into massive country and globe-spanning wars that took millions of lives and years or decades to recover from. We started by killing each other with rocks and sticks and evolved to firearms and atomic bombs. 

One of the biggest turning points in military strategy and the history of war was the introduction of the Gatling gun. This automatic weapon changed the way we look at combat as a whole and military strategy in particular. Dylan Berger explains.

The British Army with Gatling Guns during the Second Anglo-Afghan War.

Introducing the Gatling Gun

Most of the weapons used during the U.S. Civil War were single-shot rifles and handguns. Even skilled and practiced soldiers couldn’t fire more than two to three shots every minute. Repeating rifles helped alleviate some of those problems, but they were still limited to the number of internal rounds each gun could hold. 

Handguns became more popular, but their accuracy was limited to about 50 yards. Modern handgun accuracy, with drills and practice, has a much farther range.

In 1861, Richard Jordan Gatling invented the first rapid-firing multiple-barrel rifle, which now bears his name. The first versions operated using a hand crank and were capable of firing up to 450 rounds a minute. The first incarnation of this automatic rifle only had one barrel that was prone to overheating. Gatling solved this problem by incorporating first six and then 10 rotating barrels that moved around a central axis.

The first Gatling gun — or rather, the first 12 Gatling guns — were used during the Siege of Petersburg, Virginia, between June 1864 and April 1865. Eight more were fitted on gunboats, but the U.S. Army didn’t start utilizing them until 1866, after they were demonstrated to be effective in combat. They weren’t used much during the Civil War because operators and military experts worried about wasting too much ammo, which was already in short supply.

After their introduction, the Gatling gun was used worldwide, including by the British Army during its various wars in Africa and by U.S. forces during the Spanish-American and Philippine-American wars. They were also used during the 1870s, to devastating effect, against Native American populations in the Midwest. This mechanical monstrosity, at the time, spelled utter destruction for those unprepared or who didn’t match its technology or speed.

The crank-operated Gatling gun was replaced by the Maxim gun, a recoil-operated machine gun, in 1884. Like its predecessor, the Maxim gun is named for its inventor — Sir Hiram Stevens Maxim.

New Strategies Became Necessary

When you’re facing off against an opponent attacking with single-shot or even repeating rifles, the strategies are fairly straightforward. Opponents that suddenly bring to bear a gun that can fire 450 rounds per minute requires a change in your plan. Clustering soldiers in tight formations that could rotate as needed to reload and fire was no longer a viable strategy because a Gatling gun could decimate such a group in seconds.

Military commanders did not learn how to counter these weapons until well into World War I. The standard military tactic of the Great War was the infantry charge. This was effective against rifles and armed infantrymen, but once machine guns hit the field, soldiers were cut down as soon as they left their trenches. The introduction of these automatic weapons led to a four-year stalemate and finally broke the deadlock in 1918 that led to the end of the war.

Automatic Weapons Have Evolved

We’ve come a long way since Gatling first introduced his coffee-grinder gun, and automatic weapons have evolved. Many of the design elements of those early examples were incorporated into modern weapons. The Vulcan minigun, often colloquially known as “Puff the Magic Dragon,” is a helicopter-mounted version of the original Gatling gun. It is belt-fed and is capable of firing a whopping 6,000 rounds per minute. A larger version that shoots 20 mm rounds is used as a tool for anti-aircraft defense.

The Vulcan minigun is still used today, often as a tool for counterinsurgency missions in Central America. In many ways, pitting the population of a Central American village against a Vulcan minigun is not much different than what the U.S. and Britain did with Gatling’s original design against native and tribal populations in the late 1800s.

The Future of Military Strategy

Military strategy has often been slow to evolve when new technology is adopted. The tendency to order infantry charges in the face of machine guns during World War I is proof of that. If a new game-changing weapon takes the field, only time will tell what the future of military strategy might look like.

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

Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 2 – The Evidence

Wernher von Braun came to America from Germany after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. He went on to play a major role in the Cold War’s Space Race with his expertise of rockets. However, views of von Braun are being reassessed as the terrible role he played in Nazi Germany has come to the fore in recent years. Victor Gamma looks at the case for and against von Braun below.

Read part 1 on Von Braun’s life here.

Wernher von Braun in civilian clothes, with members of the Nazi military in May 1941 in Peenemunde. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-Anh.024-03 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

So what shall we think of the man who probably more than any other was responsible for the unforgettable “Giant Leap'' made by Neil Armstrong that famous day in July 1969? Does von Braun deserve to be condemned for the part he played in the war? Was he, as Lehrer indicated, a hypocrite unworthy of admiration? Or was he a visionary, modern-day Columbus who should be providing inspiration for future generations? Let’s look at the record.

Von Braun's links to the Third Reich began early in the 1930s. Even before Hitler attained power, he and other gifted rocketeers captured the attention of the German military. Specifically, Germany at that time was on the lookout for weapons that would not violate the Treaty of Versailles. Artillery Captain Walter Dornberger was impressed with von Braun and chose him to lead Germany’s rocket artillery unit. Shortly after Hitler took power in 1933, all rocket experiments not under the direct control of the German military were banned. Now the only way for the ambitious young von Braun to continue his research was to work for the German Army. Thus sponsored by the new regime, von Braun and his team developed what was essentially a hobby into the modern science of rocketry - a shift that would soon dramatically alter the course of history. The next step was to find the ideal location, isolated and next to lots of space where failed rocket launches could crash. That place was Peenemunde on the Baltic Sea, where the team moved in 1937 with von Braun as technical director and where the rocket work was kept secret. It was here that his reputation was made and the seeds of later controversy were planted. 

If one were to look only at the surface of von Braun’s record during the Hitler years, the results seem a damning, open-and-shut case. He not only joined the Nazi Party before the war, he was involved with the dreaded SS as early as 1933. As a member of the organization, labeled “criminal” at the Nuremberg Trials, he rose to the rank of SS-Sturmbannführer (major). During his service he earned the War merit cross, first class with Swords and then the Knights Cross of the War Merit Cross with Swords. He then proceeded to play an instrumental role in a weapon that was used in indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian targets, built by enforced labor. The working conditions of the laborers, mostly concentration camp prisoners, were characterized by terrible atrocities. All in all, it looks like a watertight case against the hero of the moon landing. However, as any good detective or historian knows, only looking at surface facts does not tell the whole story. A more thorough investigations reveals that the great engineer had a more complex and ambivalent relationship with the Nazi regime than the above facts indicate. 

Reluctant Nazi, Eager Opportunist

Throughout his post-war career, von Braun consistently attempted to downplay his involvement with the labor-camp atrocities and to portray his several encounters with Hitler as unpleasant. In his 1947 army affidavit von Braun was both coy and forthright at the same time. He attempted to diminish his membership and activities in the NSDAP and the SS. Much of this checks out. His early involvement with the SS was as a member of an SS horse-riding school - a quite harmless endeavor. He left the school after one year. He asserted that he was “demanded” to join the National Socialist Party in 1939 (two years later than he actually did). He explained that refusal to do so would have meant the end of his career with rockets, which is true. Therefore he decided to join. His involvement in the party, he maintained, was largely symbolic and did not involve any political activity. In the words of his biographer Neufeld, “... in every case it (joining the party or the SS) appears to be because of external pressure. There isn’t much evidence that he joined voluntarily or shared the racist, anti-Semitic ideology of the party.” As for the SS, von Braun claimed that his membership in the SS came about when he was approached by a colonel Mueller to join. He consulted with his superior and long-time mentor, Major General Dr. Dornberger, who informed him that, once again, a refusal to join would mean the end of his work with rockets. Himmler, always scheming for power, only wanted von Braun to join as a ploy to gain control over the rocket program. The young rocketeer was in no position to refuse. Thus he became SS with the rank of lieutenant. In his own words, “I received a written promotion every year. At the war’s end I had the rank of a “Sturmbannführer” (major). But nobody ever requested me to report to anyone or to do anything with the SS.” He explained that the only occasion he actually used his rank was to help in the evacuation of the rocket program from Peenamunde to a safer location in southern Germany. His account is corroborated by the available facts. There is no evidence that during his time in the SS he did anything more than send in his monthly dues.

Political fighting

The record displays abundant evidence that, rather than seeking to advance the Nazi agenda, von Braun's priorities were science, rockets and space exploration. According to Neufeld, “He was not ideologically very interested in Nazi ideas.” In fact, his obsession with space travel instead of defense was just the opportunity needed by Himmler to attempt a take-over of the rocket program. The chaotically administered Third Reich was characterized by constant infighting and struggles for power. SS Chief Himmler had cast his eyes on the prestigious field of war production, including rockets. To gain leverage, Himmler had von Braun and his team under surveillance from October 1943. The young engineer and his colleagues were unenthusiastic enough about the National Socialist agenda to provide Himmler what he needed. The SS compiled a file on him and his colleagues, claiming that they were overheard complaining about the use of rockets as a combat weapon instead of for space exploration and making “defeatist” remarks about the war’s progress. In March 1944, without hearing the charges, von Braun was suddenly imprisoned for two weeks. The accusations involved sabotaging or delaying the effort to develop the rocket as an effective weapon in the war effort. The charges were dropped and von Braun was released after Hitler was persuaded that their prisoner was simply too valuable to lose. His arrest does not prove that von Braun was an active opponent of the Nazi regime. It does help corroborate, however, that he was far from a die-hard follower of Hitler. In fact, after his brief incarceration by the Gestapo, the Third Reich’s Wunderkind grew increasingly alienated from the Nazi regime. Fellow engineer Peter Wegener, who worked with him in the last two years of the war, noticed von Braun changing attitude toward the Third Reich: “von Braun joked in small groups about meetings with government leaders and extended his attitude later to the SS. It became obvious to me that he disliked Hitler and all that Hitler did.”

This incident does not absolve von Braun of war-crimes, but it does corroborates the rocket team leader’s claim that he was not a genuine Nazi but rather simply interested in rockets. His behavior at war’s end is also consistent with this view. Rather than hand his blueprints over to the SS, he ordered them hidden in an abandoned mine. After his surrender he cooperated with American authorities, who rescued 14 tons of V-2 documents. Fellow rocket enthusiast William Ley said of him, “I found no reason to regard von Braun as an outspoken anti-Nazi. But just as little, if not even less, did I find him to be a Nazi. In my opinion the man simply wanted to build rockets, period.” He simply took advantage of any opportunity to promote his vision, even if it meant turning a blind eye to the suffering of others. But he, unlike other war criminals, was never eager to contribute to that suffering or to use rocketry to rain destruction upon mankind. After a visit to a 1939 launch, Albert Speer observed, “For him (von Braun) and his team, this was not the development of a weapon, but a step into the future of technology.”

Rockets for the Fatherland

Von Braun’s own politics were typical of the aristocratic, East Prussian class into which he had been born. The engineer shared the hyper-conservative political views of his background. Aristocratic Germans had little use for the vulgar, radical Nazis and viewed them with ridicule. However, as the Nazis restored German stability, prosperity and national pride, the members of this class acknowledged the benefits of the regime and supported it in one way or another, nor were they shy about taking advantage of opportunities offered. This was especially true for von Braun. For him the Nazis offered the only way he could continue pursuing his dream of space travel. This explains his war record as well as his basic sense of patriotic duty, which led him to overlook the moral shortcomings of the regime in order to do his part to help his country. Without diminishing Mr. Salz' suffering, it is simply inaccurate to say that von Braun wanted to “develop a wonder weapon.” After successful launches of the V-2 against Paris and London, von Braun made a short speech to his team: “Let's not forget...that this is only the beginning of a new era, the era of rocket-powered flight. It seems that this is another demonstration of the sad fact that so often important new developments get nowhere until they are first applied as weapons.” As for his work for the “final victory,” although serving a terrible regime, he, like millions of other Germans, saw their service as patriotic duty, not war crimes. As one of von Braun’s colleagues put it: “Most of us were pretty sore about the heavy bombing of Germany-the loss of German civilians, mother, fathers, or relatives. When the first V-2 hit London, we had champagne. And why not? We were at war, and although we weren’t Nazis, we still had a Fatherland to fight for.”

What do you think about Wernher von Braun? Let us know below.

Now, read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple William McKinley’s statue in Arcata, California here.

The Challenges of Preserving American’s Historic Buildings

As in many places, there are significant challenges in preserving America’s historic buildings. Here, Jennifer Gedding looks at these challenges and what can be done to address them.

The art deco Hall of Waters in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. Source: Americasroof, available here.

America has an astonishing array of fantastic architecture, often designed for business, despite its relatively short history. Until 1987, protecting these sites was a difficult task; however, as one National Public Radio (NPR) feature highlights, the introduction of the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) has led to just 5% of historic nationwide properties undergoing serious decline. This is not an automatic process, however; to the contrary, the work of the NTHP relies on the vigilant work of interested citizens. According to NPR, historic buildings fight against development, climate change and neglect, and only determination will stop them from being lost to time.

Historic renovation

Most urgent on the list of architectural tasks for the American public is the preservation of its most at-risk historic buildings. As the Smithsonian magazine outlines, even remarkably historic and famous buildings are under threat. One key example of the renovation challenge is presented by the art deco Hall of Waters in Excelsior Springs, Missouri. Composed of historic baths and springs, the Halls have nevertheless fallen into disrepair. Renovation isn’t as simple as a quick fix, however. The process of preserving historic buildings has to be balanced against modern regulations and technology, and is actually a very highly skilled job. Conservators provide knowledge that those engaged in preservation can use to stick to the various rules and guidelines determining the use and upkeep of a building. Over the years, this process can become extremely complex and finely detailed, hence the drawn-out process of preserving some historic structures.

Pressure of development

An esoteric threat to classic examples of architecture comes in the form of new developments. The USA of course needs new development to keep moving forward - the infrastructure of old is sometimes not up to the standards required in the modern day, and it is only natural to seek change. However, a balance can be struck. In Los Angeles, Apple has announced the opening of a new, ultra-high-tech store within a restored building - the iconic Tower Theatre. This shows how the cutting edge of technology and commercial enterprise can absolutely mesh with a priority for keeping old buildings alive.

The climate change challenge

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (AHCP) lists climate change as one of the primary threats to historic buildings - but that historic buildings also offer a huge opportunity. The materials used to make buildings are often impacted by changes in climate and environmental hazards - for instance, sandstone buildings can be very susceptible to acid rain. This makes preservation that much harder - but also, more worthwhile. According to the AHCP, preserving older buildings helps to restrict the impact of climate change. The most environmentally friendly building is the one that has already been built, preventing the extraction of resources and pollution of the atmosphere.

In that way, preservation of old buildings is, in itself, preservation of the environment and the urban landscape. These buildings are the key to ensuring that history is preserved and that a little extra is done to combat climate change. The difficulties of achieving this are certainly worth addressing for the payoff.

What do you think of the need to preserve historical buildings? Let us know below.

Why Could you be Sent to an ‘Insane Asylum’ in 19th Century America?

‘Insane asylums’ were the 19th century forerunners of today’s psychiatric hospitals, but people were sent to them for sometimes quite different reasons to today. Here, Casey Hakenson looks at some disturbing cases of why and how people, including women, African Americans, and Native Americans, were sent to ‘insane asylums’ in 19th century America.

Elizabeth Packard, who was sent to the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane in 1860.

Before the 19th century, the only options to institutionalize a person with mental illness were jails and almshouses, where the conditions were often disturbing and dehumanizing. So, in the 19th century, ‘insane asylums’ came along. These institutions were created by reformers to be positive places where ‘lunatics’ could be cured, and ‘idiots’ taught. Yet, almost immediately, people began to be confined to these homes for some of the most benign symptoms. As these ‘homes’ rose in popularity throughout the 1800s, the number of people committed continued to rise as fewer and fewer patients were ever able to leave.

Elizabeth Packard

Let’s begin with one of the most famous instances of imprisonment. Elizabeth Packard was married to a Calvinist minister named Theophilus. Everything seemed to be going well until Elizabeth became interested in popular religious beliefs, such as Swedenborgianism, perfectionism, and spiritualism. These differences resulted in explosive arguments that culminated in her standing up in church while he was preaching and announcing she would be attending services elsewhere. Theophilus began to question his wife’s sanity (or at least claim he did) and had a doctor, J.W. Brown, visit their home disguised as a sewing machine salesman to diagnose Elizabeth. Brown concluded Elizabeth was insane because of her hostility towards her husband and her unorthodox beliefs. Elizabeth Packard spent three years at the Illinois State Hospital for the Insane (from 1860-1863) until her oldest son turned 21 years old and was able to release her. 

The truth of the matter was that in the 19th century, it was often quite easy for a man to institutionalize his wife or daughter. In some U.S. states, the man did not have to present any proof; he only needed the consent of the superintendent of the asylum. Many women were locked up for such erroneous reasons as over-education, PMS, being unmarried, or displaying what was considered over-sexual behavior such as masturbating.

One example of this was Alice Christina Abbot, committed to Taunton State Hospital in Massachusetts in 1867 for allegedly poisoning her stepfather. A bit of background: 17-year-old Alice had recently accused her stepfather of sexual abuse, an allegation that the courts dismissed. The defenses’ primary evidence against her? She didn’t seem upset that her stepfather was dead. (Hmmm. I wonder why…)

African Americans and Native Americans

Yet, of course, women weren’t the only group that were institutionalized for pseudo-scientific reasons. When the U.S. Civil War ended, there was an uptick in the institutionalization of African Americans, who many claimed would delve into insanity caused by their new freedom. African American people, like women and other disenfranchised groups, could be committed for basically any reason. A white employer or community member could claim an African American person was insane, and the accused had little resource to defend themselves in court. In fact, at Central Hospital in Virginia, an all-African American mental asylum, there were no records of anyone willingly institutionalizing themselves. Making matters even worse for the inmates, some doctors claimed that African American people needed to do hard labor to stay mentally sane. For example, at Central, they were put to work on the asylum’s large farm and performing domestic chores. (Sounds like a certain something that had just been outlawed…) And, like many who were confined to these hospitals, a large percentage died from illnesses contracted from overcrowding. 

Native Americans were prone to a similar fate since they were often diagnosed and committed by the white reservation agents who were put in place by the government - men who usually had little to no medical training. Native Americans, too, could be confined for an array of offenses, such as refusing their government’s assimilation tactics, or in one man’s case, a 1913 accusation of ‘horse-stealing mania.’ Native Americans, like other asylum patients, were often treated to conditions akin to torture, sterilized, experimented on, and usually died in these places of ‘healing’. 

A few more examples from a ‘reasons for admission’ list from Weston Hospital in Lewis County, West Virginia were:

-Bad Company

-Bad Habits

-Business Nerves

-Crime

-Death of Sons in the War

-Deranged Masturbation

-Desertion by Husband

-Disappointment 

-Domestic Trouble

-Doubt about Mother’s Ancestry

-Feebleness of Intellect 

-Female Disease

-Hard Study

-Imaginary Female Trouble

-Laziness

-Medicine to Prevent Conception

-Menstrual Deranged

-Novel Reading

-Parents were Cousins

-Political or Religious Excitement 

-Suppressed Masturbation

So, what could you get institutionalized for in the not-so-distant past? Anything, really. 

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

References

Brice, Anne. “How the U.S. Government Created an ‘Insane Asylum’ to Imprison Native Americans.” Berkeley News, 19 Nov. 2020, https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/11/19/ using-disability-to-imprison-native-americans/. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

Charleston, L.J. “Outrageous Ways to be Admitted to an Insane Asylum in the 19th Century.” News.com.au, 18 Aug. 2019, https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/true- stories/outrageous-ways-to-be-admitted-to-an-insane-asylum-in-the-19th-century/news-story/e590c54e3469606d1b2330a52c3d8f6b. Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“Elizabeth Packard: Advocate for the Rights of Married Women.” History of American Women, https://www.womenhistoryblog.com/2013/01/elizabeth-packard.html.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

“How Victorian Women were Oppressed through the Use of Psychiatry.” The Atlantic, https://www.theatlantic.com/sponsored/netflix-2017/how-victorian-women-were- oppressed-through-the-use-of-psychiatry/1607/. Accessed 1 July 2021.

“Packard, Elizabeth (1816-1897).” Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/women/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/packard-elizabeth-1816-1897.  Accessed 30 June 2021. 

Peterson, Britt. “A Virginia Mental Institution for Black Patients, Opened After the Civil War, Yields a Trove of Disturbing Records.” The Washington Post, 29 March 2021,  https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/magazine/black-asylum-files-reveal-racism/2021/03/26/ebfb2eda-6d78-11eb-9ead-673168d5b874_story.html. Accessed 1  July 2021. 

 Tabler, Dave. “125 Reasons You’ll Get Sent to the Lunatic Asylum.” AppalachianHistory.net, 4 December 2008, https://www.appalachianhistory.net/2008/12/125-reasons- youll-get-sent-to-lunatic.html. Accessed 1 July 2021. 

“The Growth of the Asylum.” Historic England, https://historicengland.org.uk/research/inclusive-heritage/disability-history/1832-1914/the-growth-of-the-asylum/. Accessed  1 July 2021.