Moral Principle and Political Reality in US History

An issue that often arises in a detailed exchange on the American experience is equality of opportunity. In many cases, it strikes a dynamic chord with many observers in our society. The essential tension that is inherent in this issue is one of moral principle v. political reality. Here, David Huff considers this in the US by looking at Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon B. Johnson, and the present day.

Former President Lyndon B. Johnson (on the left) and then Vice President Spiro Agnew (on the right, with sunglasses) view the lift off of Apollo 11 in 1969.

Many societies throughout history have grappled with how to reconcile equality of opportunities with the harsh political of their times. On the whole, societies, particularly in their infancy, have sacrificed equality of opportunity for the sake of political expediency.

In the American experience, the Founding Fathers were more concerned about ensuring the survival of the American Republic than achieving social, political and economic equality in society. The achievement of equality of women, Native Americans and African Americans were left for future generations to undertake.

Fortunately, the United States heeded history's call to action. The patrician reforms of former President Franklin D. Roosevelt, the civil rights struggle of the 1960s and the continual call for the creation of an adequate and equitable health-care system are indicative of the potent force that equality of opportunity has played in our society.

The Role of Federal Government v. Private Enterprise

Although I concur that people should not be given a free handout, I believe in offering an individual a hand-up. Furthermore, I think that it is the government's responsibility to ensure that if social inequities get our of hand, constructive remedies should be enacted to ameliorate the situation.

Clearly, the accounting scandals in private enterprise during the past forty years underscore that government ought to play a greater role in preventing the gross pursuit of money and power which results in excessive greed and corruption.

A hallmark of a civilized society is one in which a heightened social consciousness for the welfare of others plays a role in shaping a nation's character.  A government that embraces the political mantra that no social obligation is germane will stagnate and erode, becoming frozen by its own indifference and intolerance. If enterprising and wealthy individuals have the rare privilege of escaping the bonds of everyday existence to see life from an entirely different perspective, why not share some of that resourceful knowledge with others in society?

Abraham Lincoln's Role in Shaping American Society

As a nation, we have been blessed by a number of remarkable individuals who played an influential role in shaping the American consciousness. A central figure during the nineteenth century was Abraham Lincoln, who demonstrated tremendous courage and resilience during the bloody and painful struggle of the American Civil War. Determined, shrewd, and tough, Lincoln not only managed to keep the United States together, but also abolished the long-standing institution of slavery. His accomplishments set into motion profound changes that altered the cultural fabric of the American South.

Above all, Lincoln, by the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and his memorable Second Inaugural Address in 1865 raised the social and political consciousness of our nation. 

FDR's Impact on American Society

Another figure who played a prominent role in shaping the American consciousness was Franklin D. Roosevelt.  Elected president in 1932, Roosevelt initiated patrician reforms under his New Deal programs, which alleviated some of the human misery caused by the Great Depression. 

Although experimental in nature, his progressive reforms called for the federal government to play an active role in the social welfare of Americans.  The creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps, Works Progress Administration, which generated many job creation programs, the Soil Conservation Service, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Rural Electrification Act, and the Social Security Act, as well as the president's willingness to embrace collective bargaining power for labor, are all indicative of FDR's sweeping reforms that transformed the fabric of American society. 

The Emergence of the Kennedy Family and Lyndon B. Johnson

On January 20, 1961, John F. Kennedy became the nation's 35th President of the United States. Both JFK and his wife, Jacqueline, as well as Lyndon B. Johnson played a profound impact on the transformation of American society. During his tenure, President Kennedy created the Peace Corps, introduced Civil Rights legislation and Medicare and Medicaid reform bills to Congress in order to provide greater health-care coverage and basic human rights to African Americans throughout our nation, and signed the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty in 1963.

In addition, Mrs. Kennedy taught the nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense of fashion with a strong sense of scholarship. Furthermore, intertwined with Mrs. Kennedy's interest in fashion was her commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities, her commitment to the restoration of the White House, her push to host a dinner of the Nobel Laureates in 1962 and her avid interest in hosting youth concerts to encourage young people to study classical music. In my opinion, all of her efforts were indicative of her genuine desire that American civilization should be committed to the idea of developing a rich and diverse cultural identify of its own.

On November 22, 1963, President John F. Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas. It was a tragedy that shook the nation and the world. However, Lyndon B. Johnson, who became the 36th President of the United States, was determined to continue the progressive reform efforts that the Kennedy Administration had undertaken. Under his able leadership, President Johnson pushed through Congress an impressive legislative package, which included the Civil Rights Bill of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed the Medicare and Medicaid packages into law in 1965, and provided aid to education, urban renewal, beautification, conservation, and Head Start.

Unfortunately, Lyndon Johnson chose to enlarge significantly America's commitment to South Vietnam in July 1965. The president's determination that the United States could fight a costly war in Southeast Asia while enlarging the social welfare state at home led to the development of a choiceless society. In his mind, President Johnson thought we could adopt a two-prong strategy: conduct a war in Vietnam while enacting major social and economic reforms at home, which he called The Great Society. As a result, his willingness to engage simultaneously in the Vietnam War and The Great Society raised expectations beyond what the Federal Government could promise the American people. To that end, a powerful conservative movement began to take shape under the re-emergence of Richard M. Nixon and the 1966 election of Ronald Reagan as Governor of California. In sum, Lyndon Johnson was a tragedy in the real sense. He was the central figure in a struggle of moral importance that ended in ruin. 

Contemporary America

Now, at the dawn of 2022, that United States is in search of itself. In the wake of COVID-19, political division, economic uncertainty, social turmoil, and an inadequate healthcare system, many Americans realize that we need to revitalize our political, economic, and social institutions in order to provide greater opportunities for our fellow citizens. Only if Americans demand greater corporate accountability, insist that their elected leaders focus on strengthening America's economic infrastructure, push for the creation of a National Commission on Violence to examine the underlying problems that cause people, particularly youth, to choose self-destruction rather personal development, and demand a reduction in the national debt that is approaching 30 trillion dollars can we ever hope to restore our country to a healthy order.

In particular, in regard to the national debt, if the debt continues to climb, at some point investors will lose confidence in the government's ability to pay back borrowed funds. In essence, the higher the debt-to-Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ratio, the less likely the country will pay back its debt and the higher its risk of default, which could cause a financial panic in the domestic and international markets. At this point, we will not be able to pay off the interest on the debt let alone the principal itself.

To attain positive change requires people, especially young voters, to play an active role in the political process. Perhaps the answer lies not only in parents instilling a sense of self-esteem and personal responsibility in their children, but also society encouraging youth to pursue higher education, community involvement, and state and federal campaign participation.

We must recognize that it is a matter of personal conscience, historical perspective and the inherit belief that equality of opportunity is a struggle of moral importance that as a nation we cannot afford to relinquish. After all, the future of our democracy, our way of life is contingent upon young voter's thoughtful engagement and passionate participation in the American political system. It is their future and their children's future that hang in the balance. 

Conclusion

Finally, the American people need to remember that our country's destiny is a journey, not a destination. It is a journey the American people have learned to savor, cherish and treasure. Our collective journey is filled with roadblocks and amazing achievements that provide the impetus for us to understand fully ourselves and those we love. With the passage of time. our country must learn to embrace faith that looks through adversity and enables us to flourish and thrive.

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

Now read David’s article on Jackie Kennedy’s influence on the arts here.

Hand-washing in Hospitals: Ignaz Semmelweis’ Great Contribution to Medicine

As individuals in society, we live by structure and regimes that are either taught or acquired through our environments. The practice of hand-washing and the sterilization of surgical equipment in hospitals are procedures that we expect and universally accepted as best practices. The recent Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has reminded us of the importance of sanitation and cleanliness to prevent disease and ultimately save lives. However, the importance of hand-washing was not common practice throughout many hospitals before the nineteenth century. Here, Amy Chandler explains Ignaz Semmelweis’ important discovery about hand-washing in the nineteenth century.

An 1860 copper plate picture of Ignaz Semmelweis.

Physician and gynaecologist Ignaz Semmelweis discovered the importance and life-saving impact of hand-washing within maternity wards in the 1850s. Semmelweis’ “discovery exceeded the forces of his genius. It was, perhaps, the root cause of all his misfortunes”, and in an ironic tragedy, Semmelweis died of the same illness that he devoted his career to preventing.[1]This article will explore Semmelweis’ contribution to medical practice in the nineteenth century and analyze how he failed to achieve public and international support for his discovery. Many contributing factors failed to propel Semmelweis into the sphere of revolutionizing and respecting theories in science and medicine, such as failing to publish his hand-washing theory and methodology, fleeing Vienna and the lack of support from his contemporary doctors. How did Ignaz Semmelweis simultaneously revolutionize surgical procedures and fail to convince his contemporary physicians?

17th century

During the seventeenth century, many hospitals in Europe became overwhelmed with cases of childbed fever (also known as 'puerperal fever') that women contracted during childbirth and suffered from days after birth.[2] Symptoms of puerperal fever included severe abdominal pain, fever and debility, and the result was commonly death for many women.[3] By the start of the nineteenth century, puerperal fever was a common and deadly disease that many women feared when entering maternity wards. The cause of this disease was bacteria infecting women during childbirth, but the understanding of how bacteria and disease spread was non-existent until the 1870s. Throughout history, there have been many different attempts to identify the cause of illness and disease, for example, the widely recognized theory of miasma. Miasma was considered “poisonous emanations, from putrefying carcasses, rotting vegetation or molds, and invisible dust particles inside dwellings” that was understood to be within the air that we breathe.[4] Therefore disease and illnesses were thought to be caused by ‘bad air’ or foul smells. By the end of the nineteenth century, the work of Louis Pasteur and his discovery of Germ theory replaced and progressed thinking around the cause of disease. The lack of knowledge around the causation of disease and the spread of infection made Semmelweis’ discovery imperative to progressing medical and scientific ideology. Semmelweis' ideas were often ignored, apart from support from close colleagues, which eventually led to his professional and personal demise.

Semmelweis’ discovery 

In 1846, Semmelweis was appointed as an assistant professor in the maternity ward at Vienna General Hospital. Semmelweis undertook the challenge to understand and answer why mortality rates were so high within the Vienna General Hospital. The high mortality rates in the maternity ward of Vienna General hospital represented a widespread problem across Europe. Therefore, the cause of the disease was a universal substance and not specific to Vienna medical practice but widespread malpractice of the nineteenth century.

During Semmelweis’ employment in Vienna, mortality cases continued to increase, and so did Semmelweis’ concern and desire to discover the causation of illness. The maternal ward offered two divisions of maternity clinics; male physicians controlled one division, and female midwives staffed the other clinic.[5] In 1846 both of these divisions included similar patients demographics, but the statistics present that the male-staffed clinics had 13.10% of maternal deaths from puerperal fever, while the second division only suffered 2.03% of puerperal fever deaths.[6] From these statistics, it is evident that the cause of the illness originated and increased with the medical professionals within the first division that increased mortality rates. Semmelweis undertook a methodological approach to identify and inevitably reduce mortality rates and, as a result, to improve the lives of his patients, professional practice and contribute to disease theory. Semmelweis’ position as a gynaecologist and physician placed him in an advantageous position to discover the root cause of the mortality rates and implement policies to improve practice. Semmelweis had the opportunity to conduct research, medical knowledge and resources to identify the cause of puerperal fever. Historically, midwifery was recognized as a female role that expanded in the eighteenth century, with an increased number of male physicians and surgeons becoming involved within midwifery.[7]

A turning point in Semmelweis’ thinking was when his friend and colleague, Jacob Kolletschka, died from a puerperal fever after wounding himself during a dissection.[8] The autopsy results confirmed that Kolletschka contracted the same illness that many women suffered in the maternity wards. The contemporary theory of miasma formed the foundations of Semmelweis’ theory by speculating that “decaying animal-organic matter” caused the puerperal fever.[9] The causation of infections became evident to Semmelweis after he observed that student physicians worked in the dissection rooms and then directly, without changing their clothes or sanitizing their hands, entered the maternity wards.[10] The correlation between the two clinic divisions and the student's behavior emphasized that the male physicians were the carriers, to a point, of puerperal fever on their unwashed hands and clothes. 

What did Semmelweis do with his newfound knowledge?

During this period, disinfectants that we are familiar with in contemporary society did not exist, nor was the knowledge of using chemicals to remove bacteria from surfaces. The concept of bacteria was not known or explored until many years after Semmelweis’ death. Therefore, methods to combat the unpleasant odors from miasmas included fire, sunlight, strong aromas and chemicals.[11] Semmelweis utilized his knowledge of miasma theory by attempting to eliminate foul odors transferred between the dissection room and the maternity ward by the physicians. For Semmelweis, the most potent smelling chemical available at the Vienna General Hospital was a solution of chlorinated lime. Under the supervision and authority of Semmelweis, physicians were ordered to wash their hands with this solution before entering the maternity wards. Inevitably, mortality rates in the maternity wards began to decrease, which supported Semmelweis’ theory. However, Semmelweis only understood that the solution reduced the number of cases and was unable to explain why hand-washing was so effective.

Semmelweis’ hand-washing policy was unpopular and faced opposition within the hospital, with individuals complaining of the burning sensations on their hands from vigorously washing and exposing their skin to the chlorinated lime solution.[12]Despite declining mortality rates, Semmelweis could not explain why the chlorinated solution was so effective as he did not realize hand-washing removed the bacteria causing disease. Furthermore, Semmelweis did not publish his findings or share his work for many years, which contributed to the lack of support amongst contemporary physicians for adopting the sanitation procedure. For some physicians, Semmelweis’ discovery lacked evidence to be understood fully, and in 1849 Semmelweis’ position within Vienna General Hospital was terminated. The Ministry of Education also declined the proposal to investigate Semmelweis’ theories further and gain evidence to support using chlorinated lime within medical practice.[13]

By 1851, Semmelweis left Vienna and returned to Hungary to continue his work by implementing his chlorinated lime regime and enforcing good ventilation, sterile linen, bandages and surgical equipment for his patients.[14] Eventually, in 1861, Semmelweis published his findings in The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever. However, towards the end of Semmelweis’ career, his mental health began to decline, resulting in a mental breakdown in 1865, and his wife admitted Semmelweis into a mental hospital in Lazarettgasse. Unfortunately, Semmelweis died from blood poisoning after appropriate anti-septic methods were not enforced. 

Conclusion

Semmelweis’ tragic death in some way proved that his theory of using a chlorinated lime solution to avoid puerperal fever was effective in preventing severe infection. Semmelweis’ lack of willingness to share his findings with his contemporaries reduced his hand-washing theory's credibility, while also lack of evidence and widespread enforcement of hand-washing isolated his results to be limited and circumstantial. In some ways, Semmelweis’ courage to challenge popular and pre-established views placed him in a difficult and unfavorable position because he was directly criticizing the work of his contemporaries by insinuating that their practice caused the deaths of many patients. This idea in itself was that doctors who dedicated their professional careers to saving lives and being seen as saviors against diseases were also the cause and carrier of such diseases they treated. Hindsight is a valuable asset we possess after years of scientific discoveries, but we have to praise Semmelweis for his work within the boundaries of knowledge of the time. The knowledge of bacteria was non-existent therefore working within the realms of miasma theory and Semmelweis’ methodologically eliminating factors in his study was to some extent revolutionary given the circumstances and knowledge of the time. Semmelweis’ ideas were brushed aside as unsupported ramblings, which contributed to the decline of his professional career. However, Semmelweis has now gained the status that his work deserves as a pioneer of modern medicine and sanitation procedures within medical environments. Semmelweis' work continues to help save lives today.

What do you think of Ignaz Semmelweis? Let us know below.

1.              D. Pittet and  B. Allegranzi, ‘Preventing sepsis in healthcare - 200 years after the birth of Ignac Semmelweis'. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, vol .23 (2018), p.2.

[2] J. Simmons, Doctors & Discoveries: Lives that created today’s medicine (New York, Houghton Miffin Company,2002),p.167. 

[3] C. Hallett, ‘The attempt to understand puerperal fever in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: the influence of inflammation theory’. Med Hist. vol. 49 (2005), p. 1. 

[4] A. Kannadan,’History of the Miasma Theory of Disease’. Essai, vol. 16 (2018),p. 41. 

[5] Simmons, op.cit.,p.166. 

[6] Ibid.,p.166.

[7] Hallett,op.cit.,p.4. 

[8] Simmons, op.cit.,p.166.

[9] Ibid.,p.166. 

[10] Ibid.,p.166.  

[11] G. Risse. ‘Before Germs: Decay, Smell, and Contagion in the Work of Ignaz Semmelweis on Puerperal Fever’,unpublished,(2015),p.3.

[12] Ibid.,p.3.  

[13] Ibid.,pp.3-4. 

[14] Simmons, op.cit.,p.167. 

Bibliography 

Hallett, C, ‘The attempt to understand puerperal fever in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries: the influence of inflammation theory’. Med Hist, vol.49, no.1, January 2005, pp. 1-28.

Kannadan, A, ’History of the Miasma Theory of Disease’. Essai, vol. 16, no. 18, 2018, pp.41-43.

Persson, J, ‘Semmelweis’s methodology from the modern stand-point: intervention studies and causal ontology’, Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences,vol.40, no.3, 2009, pp.204-209. 

Pittet, D and Allegranzi, B, ‘Preventing sepsis in healthcare - 200 years after the birth of Ignac Semmelweis'. Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin, vol. 23, no. 18, May 2018, pp.1-5. 

Risse, G. ‘Before Germs: Decay, Smell, and Contagion in the Work of Ignaz Semmelweis on Puerperal Fever’, unpublished, 2015,pp.1-8. 

Simmons, J. Doctors & Discoveries: Lives that created today’s medicine (New York, Houghton Miffin Company,2002). 

How a Once Threatened Language is now the Seventh most Spoken in the World

Written by prominent columnist, Abdul Gaffar Chowdhury, the popular ‘Ekushey Song’ (Song of February 2t) was dedicated to his friends, who raised their voices against the oppression and laid down their lives to save our mother tongue – Bangla. Those who speak Bangla can never forget the day of February 21. Before making it through the International Mother Language Day, the Bengali language had to go through a bloody chapter in history, 70 years ago in 1952.

Rezaul Karim Reza explains. 

Khawaja Nazimuddin in 1948.

“My Brothers’ Blood Spattered 21st February

Can I forget the Twenty – First February?”

The Language Movement

Just after the fall of the British Empire in the Indian Subcontinent, two new countries emerged on the world map: India and Pakistan. Pakistan had two wings – West Pakistan and East Pakistan (Bangladesh today). There were no land borders between the two wings of Pakistan, and there were huge linguistic and cultural differences among the people of the United Pakistan.  

To eliminate the differences, especially the language, on March 21, 1948 in Dhaka, the founding father and then the Governor General of Pakistan, Muhammad Ali Jinnah declared “Urdu and only Urdu” will be the state language of Pakistan. The declaration sparked protest among the predominantly Bengali speaking people, especially in East Pakistan where more than 90% of people used Bangla as their first language; whereas only 7% used Urdu as the first language.   

But the Pakistani government did not move an inch from their decision on making Urdu the state language. On January 27, 1952 in Dhaka, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, Khawaja Nazimuddin, repeated Ali’s Urdu only policy and warned that there will be no compromise with it.

This time, people from all walks of life burst into anger. They demanded Bangla as the state language of East Pakistan. The angry protestors chanted ‘We Want Mother Tongue Bangla,’ bringing festoons and placards and marching through the roads. The students of Dhaka University called a General Strike on February 21, 1952.

When they brought out the procession on that day as planned, police reacted with massive crackdowns, including mass arrests and firing. Police killed several protestors and arrested many of their leaders.

As the news of the police brutality spread across the country, many more people gathered in the city of Dhaka and staged another protest rally. Again, police fired on and killed the protestors. Among the killings, Salam, Barkat, Rafique, Jabber, and Shafiur had been identified as the young students.

The Achievement

The significance of ‘Vasha Andolon’ or the language movement in 1952 left many a lasting legacy. In fact, the spirit of the movement embedded Bangladesh’s independence in 1971.

Today, the five students killed on that fateful day are recognized as ‘Language Martyr.’ In recognition of the sacrifice of the protestors for the language, a Martyr Monument has been erected on the spot of Dhaka University where they were shot dead. In addition, one of Asia’s largest book fairs known as ‘Ekushey Boy Mela’ or 21st February Book Fair is observed to commemorate the sacrifice of the protestors every year on February 21st in Dhaka, Bangladesh.

To remember the day, the most prestigious Bengali award, Ekusey Padak or 21st February Prize is given to many distinguished candidates for their contribution to certain fields, especially in linguistic and cultural diversity in the country every year.

Once a dying language, Bangla is now the world’s 7th most spoken language. The language movement motivated the people of East Pakistan to fight for their identity and a country of their own – Bangladesh. And it happened in 1971 – Bangladesh was born after a nine month bloody struggle. 

The legacy of the language movement did not always stay within the country; after the independence of Bangladesh, the recognition of the language movement went beyond the border. 

In 1999, the UNESCO announced that there should be an International Mother Language Day in reconnection of the struggle of the Bengali speaking people and their language – Bangla. The day has been observed to promote awareness of cultural and linguistic diversity around the world since its first observance in 2000.

As I read somewhere, learning a language is like discovering a new country, killing it could be losing a culture, a tradition, an identity, and a whole nation. But, Bangladesh survived both. Today, I take great pride in speaking Bangla as my mother tongue and living in an independent country – Bangladesh.

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

An Introductory History of Women in Cycling

When thinking about the history of cycling, we often remember the glory days of the Tour de France or the Olympics. Unfortunately, this means that too often the history of women's cycling is overlooked. Elisha explains.

Kittie Knox in the 1890s.

Bicycles played an important role in the women's movement of the early 20th century. Bikes gave women a new freedom after being long accustomed to relying solely on men for transport. The innovation of the bicycle gave women more control over where they went and when, bikes were easy to access and relatively inexpensive. What’s more, women soon found that more traditional outfits like corsets, bustlets and long skirts made riding a bicycle a challenge. This prompted a change in women's fashion which included lighter skirts, bloomers and even trousers. Bicycles helped pave the way for women today.

A recognized sport for women

Cycling as a sport (for men) officially began in the summer of 1868 with a 1,200-meter race near Paris between the fountains and entrance of Saint Cloud Park. The first Olympic race took place the following year with a men's individual road race. Women’s road events were not introduced into the Olympics until the summer of 1984 and women’s cycling was barely even considered a sport until the 1990s. Despite this, women were cycling long before then.

The new woman

Bicycles came to symbolize independence amongst women representing the quintessential ‘new woman’ of the late 19th century. In 1895, suffragette leader Elizabeth Candy Stanton said “the bicycle will inspire women with more courage, self respect, self reliance” predicting the power of the bicycle. Echoing Stanton’s claim was Susan B Anthony who played a key role in the suffragette movement. She said ‘’Let me tell you what I think about cycling. I think it has done more to emancipate women than anything else in the world.’’

First woman to adopt bloomers

In the 1890s, many women were still not riding bikes, but this didn't stop Kittie Knox, a young seamstress from Boston. Kittie Knox became the first African American to be accepted into the league of American wheelmen. Unfortunately, in the years that followed, Kittie was largely discriminated against, but this didn’t stop her from riding, in fact she became well known for her unique choice of cycling attire. Cycling led to a shift away from the restrictive and modest fashion of the Victorian era and led to a new era of exposed ankles. Kittie was one of the first women to adopt men’s bloomers which is significant because it was the first step in the right direction toward women eventually proudly wearing bicycle shorts in public with no skirt required.

First woman to cycle around the world

The first woman to ride a bicycle is said to be Annie Londonderry around 1896. Annie reportedly completed the cycling challenge in 15 months, whether she made it the whole way around the world via bicycle is debatable though. Apparently Annie was rather liberal with her use of trains and ferries, which made the expedition significantly easier. Interestingly, she made a bit of money through sponsorship where she attached posters and banners to her bike to advertise various companies.

Earliest female cycling journalist 

In 1891, Beatrice Ethel Grimshaw began her career as the first female cycling journalist (on record). She started her writing career after finishing her studies at 21 years old when she ran away to Dublin. In Dublin she began a career as a journalist for R.J. Mecredy’s Irish cyclist where she went on to become an editor. She participated in cycling when she was out of the office, where she reportedly did casual century rides. After a life in the cycling industry, she traded in her bike for a life of travel.

Women in cycling today

Today, despite the efforts of the bicycle industry to get more women into cycling, women only make up just under 25% of riders. Safety is said to be the number one concern that puts women off cycling. One feminist bicycle influencer is the Cycle Maintenance Academy a team of avid cyclists and experienced bicycle repair experts.

Notably, cycling actually demonstrates a clear inequality between men and women as in some countries women are still forbidden from riding bikes due to concerns regarding modesty. In other countries, women were only recently allowed to cycle. It wasn't until 2013 when women were allowed to cycle in Saudi Arabia and reports show that women still cannot cycle in the streets of Iran. Although there may not be specific laws that prohibit women from cycling, there are ‘religious rules’ that must be respected.

What do you think of women cycling in history? Let us know below.

US Cold War Propaganda: The Failures of the CIA in its Radio Broadcasts to Albania in the Early Cold War – Part 2

The US had a variety of ways to influence citizens behind the ‘iron curtain’ during the Cold War. One of those was radio broadcasts. Here, Richard Cummings, author of a recent book Cold War Frequencies (Amazon US | Amazon UK), continues the catastrophic story of how the CIA got a vessel ready to broadcast in Albania in the early 1950s. Here, Richard looks at what happened when the ship was close to Albania.

Read part 1 on how the U.S. prepared for the mission here.

Enver Hoxha, First Secretary of Albania from 1946 to 1985. Shown here in1944.

The JUANITA arrived in Greece on March 25, 1951, to perform the following mission under Project BGSPEED:

The JUANITA was equipped to broadcast on the medium wave band into Albania, utilizing the skip wave technique. When the JUANITA was purchased, there was no certainty that any country would grant permission for her to operate within that country's coastal waters. Therefore, it was understood that the broadcasts might have to be conducted from the open sea, that the vessel obtained for this role would have to be sufficiently seaworthy for open sea operations, and the equipment capable of broadcasting from a considerable distance at sea. 

This skip wave, which exists both day and night, becomes effective as darkness falls and the ionosphere descends and becomes ineffective as the sun rises and the ionosphere ascends.) During the night hours, the beam from the antenna strikes the ionosphere. It bounces back to earth, permitting reception much farther from the transmitter than is normally possible by ground wave--which follows the ground sixty or seventy miles or so, depending on terrain, and grounds out.) 

Problems

After the JUANITA arrived in Greece, serious problems began; below is a summary of these problems, extracted from declassified OPC and CIA reports -- in no particular order of importance.

·       A contract engineer was sent to Greece to review the JUANITA operation. He wrote: “The JUANITA was intended to broadcast medium wave--skip wave into its target from 175-300 miles, came to light during a meeting with Washington communications men two days before my departure to Athens. On arrival in Athens, I found that the men (operations and communications) had been unacquainted with this intention. They expressed surprise that Washington intended to depend on skip wave, for they believed skip wave had never been depended on before for medium wave broadcast.”

·       The Albanian area is greater than the noise level off the U.S. east coast. Radio stations in the Balkans make a Babel of voices, move up
 and down the dial, and operate
with many times the power the JUANITA was given

·       A chance, ever-present in open sea operation, of a wave through the wheelhouse door or the hatch over the transmitting room threatened to fry the communications men at their posts and disable the equipment permanently

·       There is no ventilation in the transmitting room. The heat and smell when the equipment in operation is intense enough to cause sickness, a condition aggravated by semi-tropical weather and the violent movement of the ship

·       The vessel was delivered in the U.S. with its original wiring, which is of the house type and unsuitable for marine use. The vessel's house-type wiring causes repeated fires. This is evidenced by numerous minor fires which have occurred onboard and the extreme difficulty that the engineer has had in maintaining electric current throughout the vessel

·       At anchor in a sheltered island cove, one finds oneself a few hundred yards from village dwellings. After the fall of darkness, the large white yacht, whose presence has brought excitement to the otherwise dreary existence of the islanders, lights up (when transmitting) like a Christmas tree. Spreader and running lights glow, and brilliant flashes play about the rigging.

Conclusions

One conclusion of the JUANITA'S history was: "It was not necessary to buy a yacht, equip her, operate her, sail her across the Atlantic, and maintain her in Greece for half a year to demonstrate that her transmitting equipment would not work."

In one OPC report, there was this commentary:

I wish to reiterate my belief that there need be
no apologies by anyone for a decision now to liquidate this particular experiment. It has provided some people
with valuable experiences and has taught several lessons that could not have been learned without the basic proposition being tried out in actual practice. It has, however, taken up a great deal of time that might better now be directed to more pressing and fruitful activities. 

In March 1952, Acting Assistant Director for Policy Coordination wrote a memorandum to the Assistant Director, Office of Communications, in which he summarized the principal failures of Project BGSPEED, part of which read:

Many things have gone wrong in the implementation of this project, and it was terminated in October 1951. No actual broadcasting ever took place. Much of the onus for the failure can be attributed to shortcomings within OPC. These include lack of seasoned judgment from various OPC officers concerned with the project, lack
of continuous, adequate supervision, unfortunate selection of a vessel: etc. On the other head, the communications equipment provided proved inadequate for the contemplated operation. This constitutes an expensive lesson for OPC. 

The JUANITA, purchased for $80,000 in 1951, was sold in May 1953 for $10,000. 

Although Project BGSPEED was considered a failure, that did not stop OPC from beginning clandestine psychological warfare broadcasts into Albania as the Voice of Free Albania (often interchanged with Radio Free Albania) from the CIA radio transmitting site near Athens, Greece at 10 p.m. local time on September 18, 1951.

This article is based on Chapter 5 of Richard’s book: Cold War Frequencies: CIA Clandestine Radio Broadcasting to the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, published in 2021 by McFarland & Co. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

From Emigrant to Viceroy: The Life of Ambrosio O’Higgins

The improbable lives of Ambrosio O’Higgins and his son, Bernardo, would change the history of South America forever. Two men, father and son, both strivers and achievers. Two men who did not take the traditional paths to power and high office. Two men, who through a series of improbable events, would both become, in their own ways, among the founders of the nation of Chile.  The chain of events would begin, of all places, in County Sligo in Ireland.

Erick Redington starts this series on the O’Higgins family by looking at Ambrosio O’Higgins’ extraordinary life, and how he went from an emigrant to Chile to Viceroy.

Ambrosio O’Higgins.

The Ireland that Ambrose O’Higgins was born into was a sad one for the formerly great noble Irish families. During the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, the O’Higgins family had lost its land due to confiscations by Oliver Cromwell and the English Commonwealth government. This reduced the members of the family to poverty and working for others, mainly Protestant settlers who were given the Irish lands to break the power of the landed, Catholic, Irish aristocracy. Irish Catholics were subject to laws restricting religious, political, and property rights to encourage conversion and assimilation. Despite this, many of the O’Higgins clan refused to convert and assimilate.

From the time when Henry VIII declared the creation of the Church of England and began to enforce Protestantism on his kingdom, official persecution of Catholics caused many Irish to emigrate. Many of these Irish were looking primarily for the right to worship as Catholics. This caused many to look to, arguably, the most rigorously Catholic nation in Europe, Spain. The Spanish government was more than happy to take in Irish men and women seeking refuge from religious persecution.

To Spain

While religion was the primary motivation, there were others as well. Spain in the 16th and 17th centuries owned a large proportion of the Western Hemisphere. The modern northern border of California to the southern tip of South America at Tierra del Fuego was largely Spanish territory (Brazil and a few other territories excepted). This was the land of Cortes and Pizzaro, the Aztecs and the Inca. It was also the riches of the Potosí mine, so rich in silver that it caused hyper-inflation in Europe and the gold of Mexico. There were limitless economic possibilities in the Spanish Empire. A combination of the push factors of persecution and land confiscation in Ireland and the pull factors of Catholic freedom and economic opportunity led many Irish to choose emigration to Spain. A young Ambrose would be just one of thousands of these emigrants.

Probably born in 1720, though no one really knows for sure, young Ambrose O’Higgins was forced to work on the farms and estates of others to earn his living. Much of the early life of Ambrose is unknown. Although he would make much in later life about his lineage from the great O’Neill family and would even commission a genealogical survey, little can really be known for sure. What is known is that Ambrose begins appearing in the historical records in 1757 after leaving Spain for South America, when he was about 37 years old. Later, he would claim that he first arrived in Cádiz in 1751. Cádiz was a window to the world for young Ambrose. It was one of the home ports for the Spanish Navy, one of the largest in the world. It was also one of the primary ports for trade with the new world. Every year, hundreds of ships would arrive carrying the wealth of the New World. In Cádiz, Ambrose was able to find work, and his natural brilliance and energy would show to his employers. In 1756, Ambrose, now Ambrosio, left Spain for South America. This appears to be a business trip, an assignment for the bank in Cádiz he worked for. In a time of slow communications and the ease of a person disappearing, this was a position of trust the bank gave to Ambrosio. They must have recognized some drive and talent in him to send him off.

While on this first trip to South America, Ambrosio would see many of the great cities of South America: Buenos Aires, Asunción, and Lima. For a man with business acumen and a striving mentality, the possibilities young Ambrosio saw were endless. When he returned to Spain several years later, after his business trip was over, he petitioned the Spanish government to grant him permission to trade in the colonies. The Spain of the 1760s was rife with corruption and sloth due to administrative decay. Without patrons, Ambrosio would have a difficult time gaining official sanction. Another Irishman, John Garland, was a military engineer being transferred to the Captaincy-General of Chile, an administrative division of the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. Garland, recognizing the talent and drive of his friend, offered him a position on his staff, which Ambrosio readily accepted. The problem for a young, relatively poor civil servant in Spain at the time was the cost of maintaining office. As corruption was almost expected, salaries were very low. To pay for his transit to America, and then over the Andes Mountains, Ambrosio would bring to South America goods from the mother country to sell to the colonials. This would be the start of Ambrosio’s fortune. 

Chile

When he arrived in South America, Garland wanted to take the trip to Chile at a leisurely pace. Given the pace of travel in the 1760s, crossing the Andes in winter would be difficult at best and suicidal at worst. Ambrosio, however, had drive. Whether it was bravery or foolhardiness is up for debate, but regardless, Ambrosio crossed the Andes in winter with only a few porters for the baggage and arrived at his destination. For most people, a difficult journey would simply be another chapter in the story, an interesting anecdote and nothing else. For Ambrosio, it would set him on the path to all the heights he would achieve. 

Ambrosio’s assignment took him to Chile, a mountainous strip of territory on the western coast of South America. Overland travel between La Plata and Chile was difficult at the best of times due to the difficult terrain. One of the primary reasons for the separate political administration of Chile was due to its isolation from the colonial authorities in Buenos Aires. Ambrosio’s idea was to develop a way to keep the passes open in winter to safeguard travelers and keep trade open all year around. It sounds like a small idea to modern ears, but for the people of Chile, it was a matter of life and death. Due to transport and logistical issues, Chile was the most remote and underdeveloped of Spain’s American colonies. If Ambrosio could succeed in opening the Andes, the vast natural resources of Chile could be transformed into vast amounts of wealth. For a man with a natural business acumen, the attractiveness of this prospect seems obvious. For the Spanish government, improving communications between La Plata and Chile would have the benefit of tying the area to the colonial administration in Buenos Aires. A further benefit would be military. The movement of troops would be much easier with open roads and waystations. The primary route of travel and communication was through the Straits of Magellan, one of the most notoriously bad seas to sail in the world. 

Ambrosio was not only looking for business possibilities. He was, after all, part of a military organization. In Chile, the primary military threat to the colony was the Araucanians. For over 200 years by this point, the Spanish and the Araucanians had had repeated wars and raids. The Araucanians were never able to drive out the Spanish, and the Spanish never had the strength to destroy the natives. Ambrosio participated in many of the battles against the Araucanians. In battle after battle, Ambrosio would distinguish himself leading troops from the front. Ambrosio would steadily rise through the ranks and would be noted for development of innovative cavalry tactics fighting the natives. His fame would only grow when he received a head wound during a fight where the Araucanians were surprised by his innovative tactics and routed at Lautaro. Despite the near-constant fighting with the Araucanians, Ambrosio was not in favor of destroying the Araucanians. Although many in the Spanish colonial administration would press for a policy of extermination against the natives. As he rose through the ranks of administration, Ambrosio pressed for more trade with the Araucanians. He had a great deal of respect for their culture and was an avid devotee of their handwoven blankets and the ponchos that were so common to the area. Although he was a man of his time and believed in the “civilizing” mission of the Spanish, as colonial administrators went, Ambrosio was forward thinking in his relations with the local tribes. This is not to say that he was a pacifist. He would go on to order multiple reprisal expeditions against local tribes in response to raids. He had no qualms about extending Spanish imperial control further into tribal lands.

During one of Ambrosio’s many trips to southern Chile at this time, he would be a houseguest of a friend of his, Simon Riquelme, a landowner near the city of Los Angeles. In a story as old as time, the young teenage daughter of Riquelme, Isabel, was impressed by the powerful and dashing Ambrosio. Ambrosio, being a man of power and wealth, also had an eye for women. Despite being over 30 years his junior, Isabel would become pregnant from the liaison between the two, and in 1778, a boy named Bernardo Riquelme was born. According to Bernardo, later in life, Isabel only yielded to Ambrosio’s advances when he promised to seek permission from the royal court to marry her. Although Ambrosio would provide some financial support for this illegitimate son, especially when it came to education, Ambrosio would never deign to meet this young boy who would have the same brilliance and energy of his father. This will not be the last we hear of young Bernardo. 

Moving up

Ambrosio moved further up the ladder when he was promoted to Governor of the province of Concepción. Concepción province was the location of the capital of Chile and was a prestigious post for a man who started as a poor immigrant. While Governor of Concepción, Ambrosio would have contact with the French explorer the Comte de la Perouse. Although Ambrosio would have an adversarial relationship with the explorer, the research he conducted led the British to plan an expedition to Chile to conquer the region. Although this expedition would be redirected to Montevideo, the scare would give Ambrosio the impetus to recommend improvements to the defense of his province. Ambrosio’s noted ability, as well as his sound recommendations would lead the king, Carlos III to ennoble him as the 1st Barón de Ballinar in 1787 appoint him as the Captain-General of Chile in 1788. In 30 years, an Irish refugee had risen to the highest office in the Spanish colonial administration of Chile. 

Ambrosio wasted no time. He dusted off his old plan to create stations in the Andes to improve communications with Buenos Aires. After all these years, he had not forgotten. A postal service was created. Defenses were reinforced. Surveys were made to determine the mineral and agricultural wealth of Chile. He would make frequent inspections and tours to see for himself that there was always activity. New towns were founded. Imports were encouraged, despite the resistance of local manufacturers. The success that Ambrosio had in developing the region around the city of Osorno would lead to King Carlos IV making him Marquis de Osorno in 1796. There were military tasks that Ambrosio undertook where he could showcase his skills. He ordered the development of old fortifications and construction of new ones in Southern Chile. Military roads were constructed between Santiago, Valparaíso, and Concepción. Routes were opened in Araucanian and Mapuche territory. Perhaps the greatest reform Ambrosio undertook while Captain-General was to abolish the encomienda system. This system, which combined many of the worst aspects of manorialism and slavery, required the native populations of Chile to provide labor to landowners they were bound to. Under Ambrosio’s rule, Chile rose from being a colonial backwater to highly developed colonial jewel. It was at this time that the foundations of the economic and political growth of Chile in the years after independence were formed.

Viceroy of Peru

Due to the impressive accomplishments of Ambrosio in his governorship of Chile, in 1795 he was promoted to be the Viceroy of Peru. Lima, the seat of the viceroyalty, had been the home of Spanish administration in South America for over 250 years. Peru is where a large amount of the mineral wealth of the Americas was extracted for Spain. Only Mexico provided more to Spain than Peru. This wealth kept the corrupt and incompetent Spanish court afloat. Entrusting this responsibility to Ambrosio is a window into both the importance of the office and the opinion the court held of Ambrosio. 

Unfortunately, Ambrosio would not have quite the success in Peru as he had in Chile. By 1795, the French Revolutionary Wars had started, and Spain would play an active part, first as an enemy of France, then its ally. Spain needed all the money it could get its hands on to fight the British, especially the Royal Navy. The money for internal improvements and building projects would not be there for Ambrosio, unless it were for fortifications. The great plan he developed, to link Lima and the old Incan capital, Cuzco, by road would never come to fruition. The Spain of the cartoonishly incompetent and corrupt pair of Carlos IV and his prime minister, Manuel Godoy, was not the enlightened despotism of the reformer Carlos III.  What could have been the ultimate capstone to his career was a disappointing and frustrating denouement. In 1801, Ambrosio died. 

The life of Ambrosio O’Higgins was extraordinary for its time. He rose from a family of Irish tenant farmers to a twice ennobled colonial administrator in the Spanish Empire. Emigrant to Viceroy. Through sheer drive, energy, and competence, Ambrosio O’Higgins wrote one of the most unique chapters in the history of South America. However, this story does not end with his death. Toward the end of his life, Ambrosio declared in his will that his illegitimate son, Bernardo Riquelme, to be his heir. It would be this penniless young man who would take his father’s legacy, and his last name, to become Bernardo O’Higgins, the father of an independent Chile. 

What do you think of Ambrosio O’Higgins’ life? Let us know below.

Now, read part 2 about the early life of Ambrosio’s son, Bernardo O’Higgins, here.

References

Clissold, Stephen. Bernardo O’Higgins and the Independence of Chile. Frederick A. Praeger, Inc., Publishers, 1968.

Fanning, Tim. Paisanos: The Forgotten Irish Who Changed the Face of Latin America. Gill Books, 2016.

Kinsbruner, Jay. Bernardo O’Higgins. Twayne Publishers, Inc., 1968.

The US Response to Aggression Against China in the 1930s: The Stimson Doctrine

If a stronger country invades and conquers part or all of a weaker one in an act of aggression, the United States usually does not accept or recognize this act as lawful. This is known as the Stimson Doctrine. Think of the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, or Russia’s 2014 invasion of the Crimea. Such was not always how the U.S has approached such situations before the twentieth century. The U.S. would recognize acts of power as facts of life. Peter Deane explains.

Henry Stimson. Source: Harris & Ewing, available here.

U.S. Secretary of State John M. Hay’s Open Door Policy set the background in 1899. The U.S. intended to preserve the territorial integrity of China. At the time, other powers seemed to respect it; however this changed over time.

1915

Japan issued the Twenty-One Demands to China with the goal to obtain control of large portions of China’s infrastructure. With the European powers occupied with World War One, and the Japanese Empire an allied nation, they made no effort to oppose it. China had no choice other than war to the acceptance of the demands.

Secretary of State William J. Bryan was strongly opposed to them as a contravention of the Open Door Policy. Rebuffed by the European powers, he wished then to act unilaterally. He was also a sincere pacifist and wished to do nothing hostile. The State Department issued a note: the U.S. would not recognize the legality of any of the demands, or officially accept them as true. In other words, nonrecognition of any Japanese treaty that infringed on China’s sovereignty. At the time the State Department saw it as a weak expedient—no threat of force or sanction lay behind it—but the best one available. This attack on Japan’s authority did nothing to impair the empire’s power. Japan disregarded the note. 

1931

On September 18, the “Mukden Incident” occurred. Mukden was a railway station in Manchuria, a north Chinese province. The Japanese army alleged that Chinese soldiers used explosives to damage one section of track of a Japanese owned railroad. A later League of Nations investigation found the “Incident” to be a Japanese Army fabrication. 

However the Mukden Incident provoked public outcry among the Japanese and provided the pretext for the Japanese army to advance against nearby Chinese army forces, which were disorganized and easily defeated. They successfully expanded their attack across all Manchuria in the following weeks. 

Manchuria was a resource-rich province adjacent to Japanese-controlled Korea. Many of the Twenty-One Demands had pertained to Manchuria, such as railroad control. The Japanese Empire benefited greatly from influence over Manchuria, and stood to gain still more with absolute control. Japanese occupation of an entire Chinese province was thinly veiled with the formation of a new nation called Manchukuo.

In this way, from the standpoint of international law, stood the Nine-Power Treaty of 1922, which guaranteed China’s territorial integrity, the Kellogg-Briand Treaty (Pact of Paris) and the League of Nations. Both China and Japan were signatories and members, respectively. The U.S. was a signatory of both treaties but not a League member. 

The Kellogg-Briand Pact was a 1928 treaty with over fifty signatories. Each agreed to renounce war and military aggression as national policy. Such a lovely idea. But sad to say, the Treaty had no teeth. Violation carried no penalty. Other signatories could respond ad lib. 

Secretary of State Henry L. Stimson raised the issue of response in Cabinet meetings. President Herbert C. Hoover, although he had much foreign policy experience, was otherwise occupied. By this time the Depression was worsening steadily, beyond prior ones, with no end in sight. 

Hoover was a man of Quaker roots and, while not a pacifist, he shrank from the idea of the use of military force. He saw the U.S. armed forces as a purely defensive tool. In a Cabinet meeting on October 9, Stimson learned that Hoover’s main concern about the crisis was to avoid conflict and not allow “under any circumstances anybody to deposit that baby in our lap.” Perhaps the League of Nations would act somehow.

The European powers faced declining economies too and were in no hurry to act. The League opted to appoint a commission (the Lytton Commission) to investigate the Mukden Incident, over Japanese protest. That decision effectively stalled any League response for months. 

Stimson felt the need to do something. Repeatedly he raised the issue of the “weapon” of economic sanctions against Japan. But Hoover had very strong opinions against the use of sanctions because of the civilian suffering they could cause. Also, the U.S. could ill afford to close a foreign market for its goods. Sanctions were warfare conducted by other means and could lead to military conflict (as they did ten years later). He had famously worked to relieve hunger in Europe due to WWI and wished to inflict privation on no one. Hoover grew testy over the issue. 

Hoover suggested instead, in the November 9 Cabinet meeting, that Bryan’s strategy of nonrecognition be used. Stimson adopted this idea and worked out a formulation with State Department staff. This he brought back to the Cabinet to some opposition. Both the Secretaries of War and the Navy opposed it as risky; the Administration was not prepared to put force behind any move that might antagonize Japan. But Stimson and Hoover agreed. It committed the U.S. to nothing. Others could join in if they wished.

1932

Stimson’s staff finished the final draft. “The American Government … does not intend to recognize any situation, treaty or agreement which may be brought about by means contrary to the covenants and obligations of…” standing agreements. 

This was delivered first to the embassies of China and Japan on January 7, and then copies sent to the other Nine Power Treaty signatories. The Chinese and Japanese ambassadors were first informed of its content in person.  Neither reacted strongly. 

In February, Stimson made the policy public by writing an open letter to the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It said in part:

“One cannot discuss the possibility of modifying or abrogating … provisions of the Nine Power Treaty without considering at the same time the other promises upon which they were really dependent.” 

The United States could cease compliance with treaties too. But everyone knew that such was an empty threat at a time when the U.S. was attempting to shrink its own navy to save money. Given this reality, the Cabinet officers opposed felt it worse than useless to make an empty threat. 

Stimson was stunned when the British government reacted coolly to the note, rather than support and echo its message. Ultimately the British did support it, publicly at the League of Nations. This coincided with the Lytton Commission’s report that the Mukden incident was a fabrication. This led to the prompt departure of the Japanese from the League of Nations. 

“Manchukuo” gained little in the way of diplomatic recognition in the following years, but Japanese aggression was not swayed by world opinion.

President Hoover faced re-election and was not fond of the term “Stimson Doctrine”. It had been his suggestion originally. But the term stuck, to the Secretary’s quiet satisfaction. The Doctrine has remained a basic principle of American foreign policy since then. 

What do you think of the Stimson Doctrine and China? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Fausold, M. L. The Presidency of Herbert C. Hoover. Lawrence, KA; University of Kansas Press, 1985

Ferrell, R. H. American Diplomacy in the Great Depression: Hoover-Stimson Foreign Policy, 1929-1933. New Haven, CT; Yale University Press, 1957

Hoover, H. The Memoirs of Herbert Hoover: The Cabinet and the Presidency, 1920-1933. New York, NY; The Macmillan Co., 1952

Jeansonne, G. The Life of Herbert Hoover: Fighting Quaker, 1928-1933. New York, NY; Palgrave Macmillan, 2012

Stimson, H. L. and Bundy, McG. On Active Service in Peace and War. New York, NY; Harper Bros., 1947

Wheeler, G. E. Admiral William Veazie Pratt, U.S. Navy: A Sailor’s Life. Washington, DC; Naval History Division, Department of the Navy, 1974

Nazi Germany’s Helicopters in World War 2

It is little known that Germany produced helicopters in World War II. Here, Daniel Boustead discussed the successes and failures of the helicopters that Nazi Germany produced – as well as how the Nazis ultimately saw little benefit from them.

The Flettner Fl 282 helicopter at trials after World War II. It has the US military star marking.

The German helicopters of World War II are one of the little-known weapons of the Nazi German arsenal. These aircrafts were created to serve a specific military purpose and they did have some success in the role they were assigned. However, these roles were largely irrelevant because it bled the Third Reich dry of its resources and diverted time away from much needed weapons projects. Furthermore, these helicopters had some flaws which destroyed their effectiveness as weapons and as pieces of equipment for military use. The German helicopters were just another example of the Nazi wasteful squandering of precious time and resources that would ultimately yield no results or change the outcome of the war.

Helicopters in the war

The Third’s Reich’s helicopters that served in combat did have some successes.  The FA-330 “Bachstelze” was a small gyroplane helicopter which was designed for the use as a submarine-based reconnaissance aircraft ([1]). The FA-330 Bachstelze (Wagtail) accomplished its job of reconnaissance by being towed behind a surfaced submarine or U-Boat ([2]). The FA-330 was attached to the submarine by a steel cable working from a winch on the deck (2). The airstream of the ship or submarine supposed to suffice to allow the FA 330 to lift up (3). The FA-330 would hold an altitude of 440 feet and could see about 25 miles with the assistance powerful binoculars and report back to the U-Boat by telephone (2).  A total of some 200 FA-330s were built (3). As early as February 1943, the FA-330s were used successfully with the Type IX D2 U-Boat’s which were operating in the Far East (1). The FA-330s were also used in the Southern Atlantic and Indian Oceans where aircraft patrols were not common at the time (2). The FA 330 was also used by U-Boats in the Gulf of Aden (4). The U-Boat U-861 used the FA-330 gyro kite to patrol in the Indian Ocean off Madagascar. In the aftermath of the Japanese permitting the establishment of a German U-Boat base at Penang Malaya (in the summer of 1943), the Germans exchanged the FA-330 for a small Japanese float plane. On another occasion at the U-Boat base at Surabaya (Java) an FA-330 gyro kite was exchanged for a Japanese floatplane to supplement the two Arado reconnaissance aircraft which kept watch over the harbor.

Another German helicopter which made its impact during World War II was the Flettner FL 282. From November 1942 until the end of January 1943, the FL 282 conducted service trials mining operations on the German minelayer Drache alongside the ship Bulgaria in the central Aegean Sea (5). The service trials tests were successful as noted by the Naval Inspectorate report from February 10, 1943, which stated “The Fl 282 can now be operated successfully as a shipboard aircraft for patrol and anti-submarine tasks, even from small ships”. By 1943 the FL 282s were routinely being used by the Kriegsmarine for convoy protection and reconnaissance (6). The FL 282 would fly from platforms above gun turrets of convoy escort vessels in the Aegean, Baltic, and Mediterranean Seas. The Fl 282 was successful in searching Allied submarines and summoning other Luftwaffe aircraft to attack the U-Boats (7). In this case Fl-282s encountered and spotted U-Boats and other Luftwaffe aircraft during the fleet exercises which were done in conjunction with the 21st U-Boat Flotilla in Danzig Bay and north of Gotland Island from April 24, 1943, to May 15, 1943 (8). At the end of February 1945 FL 282s spotted the attack of the Red Army’s 1stand 2nd White Russian Front in Far Pomerania at the right time (7). However, because of the weakness of the German army units, their report could not stop the further Soviet advance. In 1945 surviving Fl 282s were stationed with the Luftwaffe’s only operational helicopter squadron the Transportstaffel (transport squadron) 40 at Rangsdorf and Ainring at Mulhdorf, Bavaria in their role as artillery spotters (8). The FL-282s of the Transportstaffel 40 made many flights during this time into and out of besieged and encircled towns transporting dispatches, mail and key personnel (9).

Diverting resources

In spite of the success of the German Helicopters, their deployment and development diverted precious resources away from more essential and important weapons programs. The most important weapon that the German Luftwaffe needed from 1942 to 1945 was something that would destroy the Anglo-American bombing raids over Germany and Austria. This was destroying German war production and the many of the Third Reich’s cities. The factories in Munich and Eisenach, that produced the Fl 282, were destroyed by Allied bombing (8). The Anglo-Americans also bombed the Flettner Johannisthal factory that produced the Fl-282 Helicopter. The fact that these factories existed for production of the Fl-282 showcase that these factories were diverting away precious people and materiel away from more important weapons projects.

The aircraft that was the perfect choice to destroy Allied Bombers and their Fighter escorts was the German ME 262 Jet. The ME 262 Jet Fighter had a maximum speed of 540 miles per hour at 19,685 feet (10). The ME 262 Jet Fighter was equipped with four 30 millimeter MK 108 cannons (11). On May 22, 1943, German Fighter Ace Adolf Galland tested the ME 262 Jet and felt it could allow the Luftwaffe a qualitative superiority over the Allied quantitative superiority (12).  According to a detailed analysis of the records of combat from August 1944 to May 1945, ME-262 Jets contributed to the losses of 52 bombers and 10 fighters that belonged to the Eighth Army Air Force (13). This means that a total of 62 aircraft from the Eighth Army Air Force were lost by the ME 262 Jets from August 1944 to May 1945, while 200 ME 262 Jet Fighters were destroyed during this period of time (13). Even though these figures may be exaggerated, they at least set the terms upon which the ME 262s combat performance has to be evaluated (13).

Options

In contrast the German helicopters of that period were not shooting down any enemy aircraft, making the need for their existence less necessary. However Nazi Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler destroyed the ME 262 Jet Fighter’s chances of success by his Fuhrerbefehl or Leader Order of June 8, 1944, which limited the ME 262’s role to a bomber, a role it wasn’t suited for (14). Hitler’s fateful order hastened the demise of the Third Reich because it delayed the ME 262s production and introduction to combat.

Another aeronautical weapon that could have halted the Allied air supremacy over the Third Reich was the X-4 air-to-air missile. By 1943 it was becoming apparent that existing aircraft machine guns and cannons were insufficiently lethal against Allied Heavy Bombers (15). The X-4 missile was developed and it was a wire-guided system (16). The guidance system used a pair of trailing wires derived from the Dortmund/Duisberg system developed earlier for anti-ship missiles. After the launch, the pilot tracked the missile by following its tracer flare and steered the missile using a Knirps joystick control. The warhead was triggered either by a Rheinmetall-Borsig Kranich acoustic proximity fuse or an impact fuse. The ME 262 Jet was supposed to have four X-4 Missiles per plane. The X-4 program was cancelled on February 6, 1945, by Kammler’s edict which shut down many of the German missile programs. The Nazi Luftwaffe’s entire production should have focused on producing only the ME-262 Jet and the X-4 air-to-air missile.

Faults with the helicopters

The major German helicopters also had some faults which reduced their effectiveness as weapons. In May, 1943 U-Boat losses reached 41 U-Boats that were lost at sea and the losses continued to get worse after that point (17). The reason for these losses were improved Allied radar technology, long-range airplanes, breaking the German Enigma Code, better anti-submarine weapons, and better anti-submarine warfare tactics. These losses were to become apparent in the Indian Ocean and Southern Atlantic, when Allied long range aircraft appeared in these areas (2). This forced the U-Boats to crash dive quickly in these areas which resulted in them not be able to recover the FA-330 autogyro pilot from the ocean (2). The fact that the U-Boat war was effectively lost after “Black May” 1943 eliminated the need for the FA-330 Autogyro. On January 3, 1943, while the Fl-282s were undergoing test trials, they were attacked by Allied Bombers and Torpedo planes (5). Though no damage or casualties were sustained, a statement was issued in the aftermath of this incident. The ship that received the statement was the “Aegean”, which requested, “to permit the operation of the two valuable FL 282s only when there is no prospect of enemy countermeasures”. The means it could be destroyed while on a ship.  In 1945 when the Fl-282’s were operating at the Berlin-Rangsdorf they fell victim to Soviet fighters and Soviet flak (7). The fact that the FL-282 could be shot down by anti-aircraft guns or fighter planes further reduced its effectiveness as a weapon (7). 

The Nazi helicopters received very little attention in the period of World War II and thereafter. The aircrafts were designed for a specific role. However, these roles became irrelevant because the Third Reich was being bombed into submission. The aircraft that was most needed to stem the tide for the Luftwaffe was the ME-262 Jet Fighter to destroy the Allied Air onslaught and not a helicopter. The Nazi helicopter projects were mainly ineffective, and it wasted the Nazis resources which could have been used for more ME 262-Jets and X-4 air-to-air missiles. 

What do you think of German helicopters in World War II? Let us know below.

Now, you can read 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] Nowarra , Heinz J. German Helicopters 1928-1945. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Publishing. 1990. 37. 

[2] “The Focke Achgelis FA 330 Bachstelze(Wagtail)”. Uboat.net. Accessed on November 29th, 2021. https://uboat.net/technical/bachstelze.htm

3 Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters WW2. Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon. Com. November  29th, 2021. 24. 

4 Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters of World War 2.  Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon.com.  November 29th, 2021. 30. 

5 Johnston, David. Translator. The Luftwaffe Profile Series No. 6: Flettner FL 282. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1996. 27. 

6 Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters of World War 2. Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon.com. November 29th, 2021. 65. 

7 Nowarra, Heniz J. German Helicopters 1928-1945. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History  Publishing. 1990. 28. 

8 Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters of World War 2. Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon.com. November 29th, 2021. 72. 

9 Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters of World War 2. Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon.com. November 29th, 2021. 72 to 73. 

10 Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 118. 

11 Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 130. 

12 Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 32 to 33.  

13 Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 55. 

14 Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 36. 

15 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz-X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 40. 

16 Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz-X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 40 to 41. 

17 Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of Raiders of the Deep. Washington;  District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000. 129. 

Works Cited Page

Boyne, Walter J. Messerschmitt ME 262: Arrow to the Future. Atlgen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History/Aviation History Publishing Ltd. 1994. 

Johnston, David. Translator. The Luftwaffe Profiles Series No.6: Flettner FL 282. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1996.

Lindberg, Leo. German Helicopters of World War 2. Middletown: Delaware. “Self-Published” and available on Amazon.com. November 29th, 2021.

Miller, David. U-Boats: The Illustrated History of the Raiders of the Deep. Washington: District of Columbia. Brassey’s. 2000.

Nowarra, Heinz J. German Helicopters 1928-1945. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Military History Publishing. 1990.

“The Focke Achgelis FA 330 Bachstelze (Wagtail)”. Uboat.net. Accessed on November 29th, 2021. https://uboat.net/technical/bachstelze.htm

Zaloga, Steven J. German Guided Missiles of World War II: Fritz X to Wasserfall and X-4. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2019. 

India: A Nation since Time Immemorial

In this article, Apeksha Srivastava highlights the territorial and cultural continuity in the idea of India centuries before the British colonized it.

Sir John Strachey on the left with his brother Sir Richard in 1876.

Sir John Strachey, an English civil servant in British India, had said at the University of Cambridge in 1888, “What is India? ... There is no such country, and this is the first and most essential fact about India that can be learned. India is a name, which we give to a great region including a multitude of different countries. There is no general Indian term that corresponds to it.”[1]

Such statements bring us face to face with the Europe of the past times that represented non-western cultures as a series of ‘lacks’ that it supposedly possessed. Since India lacked several progressive qualities, it was the White Man’s Burden to civilize this barbaric, non-white Other. It was upon the British to modernize and unify India for the first time. According to historian David Ludden, “... India was never what it is today in a geographical, demographic, or cultural sense, before 1947”[1].

The Indian Notion of Nation

Providing arguments against this misassumption, Dr. Shonaleeka Kaul [2,3] (Associate Professor, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University) talked about texts like the Rāmāyaṇa, Mahābhārata, and Mahapuranas (starting 5th century BCE), Chinese pilgrim Xuan Zang, Shankaracharya’s voyages, Greek ambassador Megasthenes, geographer Ptolemy (Roman Empire), the Tamil epic Silappadikaram, astronomer Varahamihira (Brihat-Samhita), Arab traveler Al-Biruni, Mughal historian Abu Fazl (16th century CE), Jain and Tibetan texts. All of them have emphasized a significant territorial and cultural continuity in the idea of India across centuries (Bharata, Bharatvarsha, Yindu, Indu, Indika, Indói, Hind, Jambudvipa [name given by Ashoka], Hindustan, Bharatakshetra, Bharata Khanda, Phags-Yul, [French-Inde; Dutch-Indië]). Their definitions of the Indian notion of nation talk about a vast and diverse land surrounded by lofty mountains and seas/oceans. India has been one entity centuries before the British.

Timeless Indianness

According to some scholars, one of the oldest names associated with the Indian subcontinent was Meluhha. It was mentioned in the Akkadian texts of ancient Mesopotamia in terms of the trade relations of the Harappans (3rd millennium BCE). In the words of archaeologist Jane R. McIntosh, “The imports from Meluha mentioned in Sumerian and Akkadian texts, such as timbers, carnelian, and ivory, match the resources of the Harappan realms.”[4] This timeless Indianness traveled all the way to pre-colonial India, strengthened as one entity. As stated by the Chinese pilgrim Li Daoyuan (527 CE), “From here (Mathura) to the south all (the country) is Middle-India (Madhyadeśa).”[5]. Marco Polo, a Venetian merchant, explorer, and writer who traveled through Asia along the Silk Route in the 1270s, mentioned, “... the great province of Maabar ... a part of the continent of greater India, as it is termed, being the noblest and richest country in the world”[6].

Majestic & Sacred

Turning landmarks into sacred spots have been a powerful device in unifying the idea of India. The strategic placement of a majority of mahā Shaktipīthas and upapīthas across India has broadly identified this nation with the divine body of Sati (the Mother Goddess)[7]. According to the legend, Daksha, Sati’s father, did not invite her to a yagna (religious ceremony). Although her husband, God Shiva, tried to convince her not to go, she went to the ceremony. There, Daksha insulted Shiva in front of her. Unable to bear this, Sati jumped into the sacred fire of the yagna. Later, a livid Shiva carried Sati’s burnt body and roamed around the universe with it, out of grief and sorrow. To prevent the destruction of the universe because of Shiva’s anger, Vishnu used his Sudarshana Chakra (weapon) to cut Sati’s body, parts of which fell on the Indian subcontinent to become sacred sites.

India: A Sacred Geography by Diana Eck “investigates a particular idea of India that is shaped ... by the extensive and intricate interrelation of geography and mythology that has produced this vast landscape of tīrthas ... at least 2000 years old, ... enacted in the practice of pilgrimage for many centuries”[1]. The Chār Dhām (visiting these four pilgrimage sites in India is believed to help achieve salvation), Kumbhamela (celebrated approximately every 12 years at four river-bank pilgrimage places in India), 12 Jyotirlingas (devotional representations of god Shiva), Sapta puri (seven holy pilgrimage centers in India), and others trace Bharatavarsha way before the British. The Bhārāta Mātā Temples in Varanasi (1936) and Hardvār (1983) contain maps of India, indicating its holy places. Above the Hardvār-temple map is the image of Mother India (the Nation’s Goddess). Radhakumud Mookerji, an Indian historian and a noted Indian nationalist during British colonial rule, associated the Rigveda (dated roughly between 1500–1000 BCE) river hymns with the “first national conception of Indian unity such as it was.” Furthermore, there are several overlaps and intersects between India’s Hindu and Muslim sacred landscapes. The Buddhists, Jains, Sikhs, and Christians also developed several shrines in India over centuries, emphasizing the religious unanimity of this land.

Unity & Pluralism: Two Sides of a Coin

According to the British ethnographer and colonial administrator, Sir Herbert Hope Risley, “underlying uniformity of life from the Himalayas to Cape Comorin, there is in fact an Indian character, a general Indian personality, which we cannot resolve into its component elements”[8]. In India, unity and pluralism are inseparable. This aspect is visible today on Indian currency notes containing several scripts, the national emblem (an adaptation of the Lion Capital of Ashoka from 280 BCE), postage stamps with images of stupas (hemispherical structures containing relics of Buddhist monks or nuns), and other artifacts. These diverse ancient symbols denote a unified India for us.

Trees have also defined India since times immemorial. There are references to it since the Indus Civilization. According to the Puranas, the Bargad or banyan tree, native to the Indian subcontinent, symbolizes the Trimūrti: Gods Brahma (roots), Vishnu (bark), and Shiva (branches)[9]. The tree represents longevity and fertility. Married women celebrate the Vat-Savitri vrat, a religious ritual involving Banyan worship, for their husbands’ long and prosperous life in several regions of India. Buddhist scriptures mention its self-arising nature comparable to the way kāma overcomes humans [10]. Alexander was amazed to see this tree, during his plunder journey in India, that provided shelter to his large army of 7,000 men [11]. Ayurveda talks about its medicinal properties. Banyan trees offer a vast canopy of leaves that block out the sun and have been serving as natural meeting places in many Indian villages for a very long time. Today, the Banyan is the national tree of India, unifying the past and present. 

The idea of India is ancient. It is a diverse thought unified by one consciousness. Although not exactly the same in boundaries and concepts during different times, there seems to be a lot in common about this notion of India as a nation held by various religions, residents, foreign travelers, and chroniclers. The Indian concept of oneness has time and time again embraced that vast diversity, which some people thought would never let India be united as one entity.

You can read more from Apeksha on feminine national personification in the UK, India, and France here.

Apeksha Srivastava completed her Master’s degree from the Indian Institute of Technology Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. She is currently an aspiring writer and a second-year Ph.D. student at this institute. This article is from an assignment she submitted for the semester-long course, Perspectives on Indian Civilization.

References

1.     Eck, D. L. (2012). India: A sacred geography. Harmony.

2.     The New Indian Express. The Idea of India: A Historical Corrective. Retrieved on 18 January 2022.

3.     The New Indian Express. The Idea of India: A Historical Corrective-II. Retrieved on 18 January 2022.

4.     The Indian Express. From Meluha to Hindustan, the many names of India and Bharat. Retrieved on 19 January 2022.

5.     Sen, T. (2006). The travel records of Chinese pilgrims Faxian, Xuanzang, and Yijing. Education about Asia, 11(3), 24-33.

6.     Polo, M. (1854). The Travels of Marco Polo the Venetian: The Translation of Marsden Revised with a Selection of His Notes(No. 33). Bohn.

7.     The New Indian Express. Motherlodes of Power: The story of India's 'Shakti Peethas.' Retrieved on 19 January 2022.

8.     Risley, H., & Crooke, W. (1999). The people of India. Asian Educational Services.

9.     Cultural India. National Tree. Retrieved on 19 January 2022.

10.  KÛLAVAGGA. (5) SÛKILOMASUTTA. Retrieved from https://www.sacred-texts.com/bud/sbe10/sbe1034.htm.

11.  Varanasi, S., & Narayana, A. (2007). Medico-historical review of Nyagrŏdha (Ficus bengalensis Linn.). Bulletin of the Indian Institute of History of Medicine (Hyderabad), 37(2), 167–178.

Henry Ford’s Calamitous Rainforest Utopia: Fordlândia

Fordlândia was an idea of the great carmaker Henry Ford in the 1920s. He set-up a base in the Brazilian Amazon with the aim of producing rubber for car tires. In this excellent piece, Felix Debieux looks at what happened at Fordlândia – and how grand ambitions ultimately turned to failure.

Water tower and warehouse building in Fordlândia, Brazil in 2010. Source: Amit Evron, available here.

What do Ford, Firestone and Goodyear have in common? You would be right to say that they are all major players in today’s automotive industry. What is not so well remembered, however, is their shared historical interest in the Amazon rainforest. In the second half of the 1920s, clandestine explorations were conducted by engineers and geologists from Britain and North America who hoped to find oil, precious minerals, and promising locations for rubber plantations. Each sought to tempt the automotive giants to the jungle with land capable of growing the crucial raw material they needed to make their product: tires. 

Following negotiations with Amazonian state governments for concessions, each speculator was convinced that they had secured the rights to exploit the most valuable territory. By 1927, one speculator successfully acquired 2.5 million acres – an area 82% the size of Connecticut - on the Tapajós River in the Amazonian state of Pará. As an indication of the vastness and remoteness of the area, he not only managed to plant half a million rubber seedlings, but also arranged for an armed security force to protect the operation from rival speculators. Later, this land was acquired by American industrial magnate Henry Ford who set out to grow a new supply of rubber. Rubber, however, is only part of the story. Indeed, this marked the beginning of a bizarre socio-economic experiment in the Amazon spearheaded by America’s premier innovator. In his day, Ford’s name was every bit as evocative as the glimmering promise of technological revolution as Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg, and he planned to build an American city smack in the middle of the jungle. Like other empire builders preceding him, he would name the city after himself: Fordlândia. 

Ford’s motivation: an industrialist in the jungle

Henry Ford’s foray into the jungle was, first and foremost, a pragmatic move. In 1922, exports of rubber from Asian plantations were made much more difficult by the Stevenson Plan. Concocted by British and French planters, the Stevenson Plan created an artificial global rubber shortage and succeeded in inflating its price on the international market. As the consumer of 70% of the world’s rubber supply, manufacturers operating in North America were left with little choice but to seek alternative sources. While Firestone decided to invest in Liberian plantations, and Goodyear planted in Sumatra and the Philippines, Ford cast his eye on South America. 

In growing his own supply, Ford believed that he could establish a rubber autarchy: a system of total self-sufficiency from rubber seedling through to tires. For Ford, this must have seemed entirely feasible. After all, the Ford Motor Company during the 1920s controlled nearly every raw material that constituted the manufacture of a motorcar. The glass, the wood, the iron; everything except latex produced by rubber trees. Alongside Ford’s other innovations, anything must have seemed possible. Indeed, this was the man who:

§  Had by 1926 established the Ford Air Transport Service: the first private contractor to deliver mail for the U.S government.

§  Had transformed a bankrupt Michigan railway into a temporarily successful operation.

§  Had developed revolutionary new glassmaking techniques. 

§  Had improved coalmining technology.

How hard could running a rubber plantation be?

Doomed from the start? A legacy of failure in the Amazon

Preceding Henry Ford’s Amazonian enterprise was a catalogue of foreign projects aimed at extracting the region’s wealth. Many of these schemes were highly problematic but did not register in Ford’s planning. Take Lt. Matthew Fontaine Maury as an example. Back in the 1850s, the Director of the U.S. Naval Observatory promoted North American occupation of the Amazon drainage as a dumping group for southern planters and their slaves. At a time when Brazil guarded its northern regions from foreign trade and navigation, Brazilians suspected that Maury’s ideas would mean the forceful opening of the Amazon to U.S. colonialism. 

Suspicions of colonialism continued into the 1860s, when a scientific expedition led by Louis and Elizabeth Agassiz influenced Emperor Dom Pedro II to open up the Brazilian Amazon to international trade and navigation. The threat of foreign exploitation emerged again at the turn of the century, when the Anglo-American ‘Bolivian Syndicate’ put forward an idea to develop a rich rubber territory disputed by Bolivia and Brazil. While Brazilian’s were certainly wary of North American colonialism, there was also a legacy of disappointment rooted in the repeated failure of development projects. At best, foreign projects were over-ambitious and ill-conceived. At worst, they were exploitative.

Ford remained oblivious to the enduring stigma of failure surrounding the region’s development. Indeed, several calamitous infrastructure projects pointed to major geographical and public health obstacles inherent to the Amazon. Perhaps the best example of the difficulties a foreign enterprise might encounter was the 226-mile Madeira-Mamoré Railway. During the construction of what became known as the ‘Devil’s Road’, a combination of malaria, yellow fever and other causes claimed the lives of anywhere between 6,000 and 30,000 men. Of greater relevance to Ford, however, was the bad reputation, which Amazonian rubber production had acquired among Brazilians. Labor exploitation, whether through debt peonage or outright slavery, played a major part in the industry’s notoriety. Again, the region’s history did not bode well for Ford.

Putting the conscience in capitalism

Given the stigma surrounding North American interest in the Amazon, it is not surprising to learn that Brazilians questioned Henry Ford’s motives. Many feared that Ford might use the contractual privileges of his concession to undermine national and state sovereignty. What distinguished Ford from other foreigners, however, were his reputation as a reformer of industry and his enlightened social and economic ideas. Indeed, his biography My Life and Work (published in Portuguese in 1926) went a long way to reassure literate Brazilians that Ford represented capitalism with a conscience. 

Emphasizing Ford’s benevolent intentions for the region were his allies in the Brazilian government and the press, who helped to cultivate the image of Ford as a reformer. It was claimed that Ford would transform the Amazon and bring about unprecedented benefits for its impoverished workers. Ford packaged his offer with a promise to develop the region and to manufacture tires and other rubber articles in Brazil. A little showmanship, too, was considered. Reportedly, Ford toyed with the idea of journeying to Pará with Charles Lindberg, who at the time was planning a 9,000-mile tour of Latin America aboard his famous plane: The Spirit of St. Louis. Ultimately, a combination of lobbying and a careful public relations campaign helped to convince Brazilians of Ford’s honest intentions. 

A sign of things to come

In December 1928, Henry Ford’s freighters – the Lake Ormac and the Lake Farge – arrived at the site of what would become Fordlândia to begin construction. On board the ships were an entire railway, a disassembled warehouse, a tugboat, and an arsenal of equipment needed to build a self-sufficient rubber plantation. It was not long before the first signs of trouble appeared. When the plantation manager quit his post and returned home to the U.S., the project was left in the hands of Danish sea captain Einard Oxholm who knew nothing about growing rubber. Ford, who wholeheartedly believed that any man could quickly master a field outside of his own expertise, decided that the Dane was the right person for the job. Unfortunately for Oxholm, his reputation for integrity gave Brazilian and European entrepreneurs all the encouragement they needed to overcharge the plantation for key supplies and services. 

Just one month later, Ford had already spent more than $1.5 million and had virtually nothing to show for it. What is more, 95% of the rubber tree seedlings planted by the end of 1929 were either dying or dead. These were huge problems which defied a solution. Indeed, even the very land on which Fordlândia was constructed was a poor choice. The site, again chosen by a man with zero agricultural experience, was hilly, prone to erosion, and miles away from any settlement. Instead of kitting his plantation with managers and every piece of available technology, Ford would have been better served had he employed biologists who understood the rainforest. Not a single one was consulted in the planning process.

During this period of waste and incompetent management, Brazilian officials struggled to reconcile Ford’s reputation for efficiency with the chaos on show at Fordlândia. How was Ford, an industrial genius, making such a hash of this project? One observer reported that:

“There is a complete lack of organisation at the property. No one knows what the whole picture should be. Waste is terrible… I can well understand the Minister of Agriculture in Rio should think we are crazy… At present, it is like dropping money into a sewer”.

While the physical plantation reached impressive proportions, this was in reality a façade for a failing operation.

Experimenting with an agro-industrial utopia

While the rubber plantation continued to stutter, Henry Ford pushed for a diversification of activities at Fordlândia. Seeking to deliver his promised social and economic benefits, Ford’s plantation would boast comfortable employee housing, a school, a well-equipped modern hospital, a power plant, a sanitary water supply, thirty miles of road and reportedly the largest sawmill in Brazil. Plans were made to export lumber, to produce wooden auto parts for export, and to manufacture tiles and bricks. In addition, there were also plans for both a tire factory and a city with the capacity for 10,000 Brazilians. By the end of 1930, Fordlândia’s landmark structure was complete: a water tower, which stood as a beacon of Ford’s ‘civilizing’ project. This increased breadth of operations represented key pillars of Ford’s personal philosophy: small-town America, and the marriage of agriculture and industry. 

Ford’s nostalgia for an agrarian, small-town America was a prevalent feature of Fordlândia. While he certainly did promise to develop the Amazon, the improved life he envisioned for his workers was very specific and closely resembled the Midwestern towns of his childhood. Having grown up on a farm, the industrialist believed that there was a symbiotic relationship between agriculture and industry. Mechanization, he thought, would not only reduce the waste and drudgery of antiquated farming, but it would also free up the farmer to work in the factory and provide spare time for agricultural pursuits. Fordlândia presented an opportunity to make his unique vision of an agro-industrial utopia a reality. As Ford himself put it in his Ford Evening Hour Sermonettes, this would be a world in which workers had “one foot in industry and one foot on the land”. However, he would eventually learn that the culture he longed for could not so easily be transplanted into the jungle.

Rumble in the jungle: a clash of cultures

For all their suspicions of U.S colonialism, Brazilians and their dependents living at Fordlândia did receive the amenities and provisions promised to them. Indeed, Fordlândia was always about much more than rubber, with Henry Ford seeking to recreate an idyllic American society founded on his own morals and values. Amazonians employed by Ford received a free home, free medical and dental care, recreational facilities, and a wage ranging from the equivalent of thirty-three to sixty-six cents per day. This was at least twice the wages paid elsewhere in the region. Furthermore, workers were able to buy food and other supplies at prices subsidized by Ford. Other free provisions included pasteurized baby milk and burials at the company cemetery. From cradle to grave, workers could expect to live comfortably under Ford’s paternalism.

On the face of it, Fordlândia represented a capitalist’s paradise. However, Ford never succeeding in imposing his alien philosophy on the Amazon; the region’s ingrained cultural and economic traditions were not so easily replaced. Indeed, Brazilians simply did not understand Ford’s idealized vision of small-town America. One example is Ford’s attempt to supplant the traditional role of patrão, which in Brazilian society served as both boss and indulgent parent to the workers. The patrão not only held workers in debt servitude, but he also supported as a godfather and protector figure. The position certainly did not fit the Ford mold of efficiency, and was not suited to the modern employer-employee relationships which Fordlândia hoped to instill. 

Brazilian work culture remained an enigma to Ford. His obsession with timesaving and efficiency served only to annoy his workers who would not accept a rigid work regime. Most disliked the way they were treated - being required to wear ID badges and work through the afternoon under the sweltering sun - and refused to work. Unfamiliar food, such as canned goods and hamburgers, caused further discontent. The tipping point came in 1930 when the plantation dining hall shifted from waited service to cafeteria-style self-service. This change, intended to reduce lunch breaks, would quickly backfire. Workers queuing in line with their trays complained that they were not waiters. Foremen were equally furious, realizing that the new system meant eating in the same manner as their workers. Anger descended into rioting. Workers, armed with shotguns and machetes, and proceeded to rampage through the plantation and chase Fordlândia’s managers (and the town’s cook) into the jungle for a few days until the Brazilian Army arrived to quash the revolt. 

Not understanding Brazilian dining preferences was one thing, but there were other facets of the local culture which persistently baffled Ford. High wages, for instance, failed to ensure that workers would stick around because there was no consumer society in the Amazon on which to spend hard-earned cash. Workers might commit for a few weeks but would then disappear back into the rainforest to work on their own land. While this infuriated Fordlândia’s managers, the cultural disconnect was just as glaring outside of the workplace. Indeed, Ford had very specific ideas about how a society should function, and the sorts of activities people should enjoy. One example was square dancing. Having met his wife at a square dance, Ford decided it would be a good idea to build a large dance hall at the plantation. Although this proved to be unpopular, it was not as unpopular as Ford’s decision to prohibit alcohol. Even though drinking was perfectly legal in Brazil, Ford was a teetotaller and did not see a place for alcohol in his utopia. Like many cultural impositions in Fordlândia, prohibition failed too. Workers continued to drink their customary cachaça, and many travelled down river to a nearby bar and brothel on the aptly named ‘Island of Innocence’.

A predictable end

What became of Fordlândia? After the riot, Fordlândia experienced somewhat of a change in fortune. At long last a successful manager was found in Archibald Johnston, who pushed forward with the construction of housing, and the roads needed to link Fordlândia to the huge territory Ford had acquired inland from the river. Johnston even managed to implement some of Ford’s social ideas, including an emphasis on gardening and strict diets. None of this, however, could compensate for the elephant in the room: Fordlândia was not producing any rubber. Acre after acre of jungle was cleared to make room for rubber trees, but this yielded very poor results. Even when did trees did take root they quickly succumbed to disease. 

Still, Ford did not give up on his vision of rubber self-sufficiency. He hired James Weir, an expert botanist, whose insistence on extravagant planting methods left Johnston exasperated. The biggest demand on Johnston’s list was the construction of a second plantation within Fordlândia, which meant relocating much of the project downstream to Belterra where better growing conditions could be found. Despite the attempt to inject new life into Fordlândia, Weir abandoned the project without notice just a year later. Around the same time, industry advances in the production of synthetic rubber reduced the global demand for natural rubber. 

The close of the Second World War represented a clear turning point for Fordlândia. By then, Ford himself was in poor health and so management of the company fell to his grandson. Henry Ford II, seeking to rein in the company’s spiraling costs, decided to amputate any underperforming assets. This included Fordlândia, which was sold back to Brazil for just a fraction of the purchase price. Perplexed Brazilian residents looked on as their neighbors quickly packed up and headed back home. In stark contrast to the publicity and excitement surrounding Fordlândia’s creation, the project ultimately died a very quiet death. 

While no man better exemplified American ingenuity and industry, Ford’s planned utopia proved to be a colossal error.  It is unfortunate that it took Ford nearly two decades to recognize the error and cut his losses. Left to vandals and to rust in the humid Amazon air were the generator, the sawmill and much of the equipment. The landmark water tower still stands today, although the Ford logo which once represented ‘civilization’ has long since faded. While there has in recent years been a surge in Fordlândia’s population (in 2017 a population of approximately 3,000 people was recorded), the city today is arguably more useful as a parable. As historian Greg Grandin puts it: 

“It’s a parable of arrogance, but the arrogance isn’t that Ford thought he could tame and conquer the Amazon. He had his sights on something actually much bigger. He thought he could tame and conquer capitalism, industrial capitalism. That didn’t happen”.

What do you think of Fordlândia? Let us know below.

References

Industrialist in the Wilderness: Henry Ford's Amazon Venture, John Galey, Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol. 21, No. 2, May 1979, pp. 261-289.

Ever Heard of Henry Ford's Colossal Failed City in the Jungle?, Entrepreneur Europe, 16 January 2019.

Episode 298 Fordlândia, 99% Invisible.

Henry Ford built 'Fordlândia’, a utopian city inside Brazil's Amazon rainforest that's now abandoned — take a look around, Business Insider, 10 February 2020.

Lost cities #10: Fordlândia – the failure of Henry Ford's utopian city in the Amazon, The Guardian, 19 August 2016.

Fordlândia: The Rise and Fall of Henry Ford's Forgotten Jungle City, Metropolitan Books, Greg Grandin, June 2009. 

Beyond Fordlândia: An Environmental Account of Henry Ford’s Adventure in the Amazon, Claremont McKenna College, Marcos Colón, 27 April 2021.

Deep in Brazil’s Amazon, Exploring the Ruins of Ford’s Fantasyland, Exploring the Ruins of Ford's Fantasyland, New York Times, 21 February 2017.

Ford Rubber Plantations in Brazil - The Henry Ford, The Henry Ford.

The Amazon Awakens, produced by Walt Disney for the U.S. Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs, 29 May 1944. 

Fordlândia is a reminder of how the Amazon rainforest resists business interests, Financial Times, 3 November 2021.

Fordlândia and Belterra, Rubber Plantations on the Tapajos River, Brazil, Joseph A. Russell, Economic Geography, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 1942, pp. 125-145.