Tsar Peter the Great of Russia’s Visit to England

Russia had followed a different path to much of Western Europe for centuries. However, in the 1690s, Tsar Peter I of Russia wanted to learn more about the region and its navies. This led him to mount the Grand Embassy to Western Europe, in particular England. While there he would learn a lot – and one day that learning would help bring him to greatness. Brenden Woldman explains.

Peter the Great in Holland during the Grand Embassy. Mstislav Dobuzhinsky, 1910.

Like many young Russian students, twenty-five year old Peter Mikhailov left the confines of his homeland in 1697 to “both learn and experience” the culture and technological advances of Western Europe.[1] However, Peter’s joining of “The Grand Embassy” was one of intrigue and mystery for one major reason. “Peter Mikhailov” was nothing more than the alias of Russian Tsar Peter I. Peter, a man who appreciated the European ethos, wanted this incognito trip to bring back not only practical knowledge of Western Europe but also obtain ideas to turn Russia into a modern European nation.

The undercover aspect of his trip was quickly exposed, as the young Tsar was famously one of the tallest men in Europe, standing around six feet, ten inches. The physical reputation of Peter coincided with his social reputation, as Peter, who was known as a rambunctious “merrymaker”, left any place he visited in good spirits through a copious amount of alcohol consumption and partying. Nevertheless, the majority of the European populace did not notice that the leader of the Russian Empire was walking the streets of Europe as a commoner. These adventures led Peter to the Dutch Republic where he learned the art of merchantry and classical ship building while his ventures in Sweden led to the hiring of naval personnel and the sending of ambassadors to Russia.[2] Though the Grand Embassy was considered a success, one of the most important relationships was forged 10 years prior in 1687, when Russian ambassadors were treated coldly by the French government during a treaty signing.[3] After this treatment, Peter had a personal vendetta against the French, which led to an unlikely but resilient bond between Tsar Peter I of Russia and King William III of England.

Peter in England

William of Orange, the King of England since 1688 and the Dutch stadtholder, was a lifelong cynic toward the French. Once hearing of Peter’s hatred of the French (and his want to reopen economic relations with the Russians), the Prince of Orange was overjoyed to allow Peter to sail from the Dutch Republic and across the English Channel. With this most welcome invitation, Peter set sail and landed in England on January 10, 1698.

Peter’s love of Western culture only advanced during his time in England. His admiration of both England and the West was nothing new, as the young Tsar would send the sons of Russian noblemen to acquire a European education.[4] Peter was no different. During his time in England, Peter was given private tours of English historical and economic sites such as the Royal Society and the Tower of London to view the Royal Mint.[5] The young Tsar also viewed the English military Arsenal, as well as learning about English culture through artistic excursions in places such as Oxford, London, and Windsor.[6] In the realm of science, Peter visited the Royal Observatory at Greenwich due to his interest in using the stars for navigation.[7] However, Peter was shocked with the social and economic relations throughout England.

For the Tsar, England was home of a flourishing merchantry, a free press, an open government, and a cosmopolitan ambiance, which were all things Peter wanted to strive for in his own empire.[8] Hearing open debate among the people upon his visit to the English Parliament left the Tsar feeling elated, stating, “It is good to hear subjects speaking truthfully and openly to their King. This is what we must learn from the English”.[9] Yet, with all of the Tsar’s interests in Westernization, it was in fact one particular aspect of English culture that brought Peter there: the Royal Navy.

Learning about the Royal Navy

Peter left Holland having learned much about the art of shipbuilding but believed that the Dutch had no original theories about naval construction, unlike the English.[10] The young Tsar’s obsession with shipbuilding stemmed from the simple fact that Russia established a national navy in 1696, only two years prior. Needless to say, Peter needed advice on how to build a navy. King William III sent and subsequently gave Peter the Royal Transport, a ship used to carry prestigious guests from Holland to England and one of the most modern ships in the world.[11] This gift became a key example for Russian engineers to build up-to-date ships.

When Peter arrived in England, he moved into writer John Evelyn’s home in Deptford, south-east of London. The reason for Peter moving to a small house in Deptford was that it was close to the dockyards of King’s Wharf, where Peter regularly visited and studied the ships that were being built.[12] Moreover, the Tsar would repeatedly sketch the ships at the Deptford dockyards whilst also studying the “blueprints” of English naval architecture. However, the Russian Emperor did not spend his entire time studying English ships at King’s Wharf. To hone in on naval tactics for military conflict, Peter traveled to Portsmouth.

At Portsmouth, Peter reviewed the English warships, diligently noting the number and caliber of the guns on the ships while also studying mock naval battles tactics, logistics, and strategies, all of which the English specially arranged for the young Tsar just off the Isle of Wight.[13] With the new information about Western culture, naval architecture, and tactics learned in England, Tsar Peter I would return back to Russia and implement them in an attempt to make Russia a modern, European country.

What did Peter the Great take back to Russia?

Peter’s time in England came to an end on April 22, 1698. The immediate reaction by the English government of Peter after he left was one that supported the Russian stereotypes of the time. For the English, Peter was unintelligent, backwards, and frequently drunk. Even on his travels Peter’s party lifestyle could not subside, as he would regularly write about how he “stayed at home and made merry” to such a magnitude that John Evelyn made the British government pay compensation for three hundred and fifty pounds to cover the damage made by Peter’s “merrymaking”.[14] However, though the English may have thought Peter had learned nothing, the Tsar took his newfound knowledge and advanced Russia in profound ways.

The open policies and social relations between the government and the people in England highly influenced Peter in his later years when he implemented his highly influential Table of Ranks. Furthermore, English and Western culture helped shape the young Russian nobility for generations to come - throughout the eighteenth century and beyond. However, the knowledge of shipbuilding that Peter brought back to Russia helped change the country. When Peter returned to Russia, the Tsar established a large shipbuilding program in the Baltic Sea which, by his death in 1725, had 28,000 men enlisted in a Navy of nearly 50 large ships and over 800 smaller vessels.[15] It is also important to note that in Peter’s greatest fight, the Great Northern War against Sweden, the newly established Russian Navy was a key component to the Russian victory in the war. For Peter, the Grand Embassy and his travels in England were more than a mere adventure for a young ruler. They were instrumental in making Peter I into Peter the Great.

What do you think of the article? How important was Peter the Great’s time in England for his later successes? Let us know below.

[1] V. O. Kli︠u︡chevskiĭ, Peter the Great (Boston: Beacon Press, 1984), 24.

[2] Lindsey A. J. Hughes, Russia in the age of Peter the Great (Hew Haven Conn.: Yale University Press, 2000), 23-24.

[3] Hughes, Russia in the age of Peter the Great, 25.

[4] Kli︠u︡chevskiĭ, Peter the Great, 29.

[5] "Peter the Great," Royal Museums Greenwich | UNESCO World Heritage Site In London, July 21, 2016, http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/peter-great.

[6] Hughes, Russia in the age of Peter the Great, 25.

[7] "Peter the Great," Royal Museums Greenwich | UNESCO World Heritage Site In London, July 21, 2016, http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/peter-great.

[8] Hughes, Russia in the age of Peter the Great, 23.

[9] Kli︠u︡chevskiĭ, Peter the Great, 28.

[10] Ibid., 29.

[11] "Peter the Great," Royal Museums Greenwich | UNESCO World Heritage Site In London, July 21, 2016, http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/peter-great.

[12] Ibid.,

[13] Kli︠u︡chevskiĭ, Peter the Great, 28.

[14] Ibid., 29.

[15] "Peter the Great," Royal Museums Greenwich | UNESCO World Heritage Site In London, July 21, 2016, http://www.rmg.co.uk/discover/explore/peter-great.

Did you know about the many US ‘presidents’ before George Washington?

As of November 2017, the United States of America had 45 presidents - well technically 44 people as Grover Cleveland was president twice - but there have been 45 presidencies since 1789. But have you ever thought about who ‘ran’ the United States before George Washington took office in 1789? The US called for Independence from Great Britain in 1776. Doing the math, there were 13 years between the Declaration of Independence and George Washington’s term as president, although the early ‘presidents’ began even earlier… Jennifer Johnson explains.

A portrait of George Washington by Gilbert Stuart, 1797.

The Start of a New Nation

For many American colonists, declaring Independence from Great Britain was a surprise. Due to treason laws, the men who became known as the Founding Fathers, met in secret while determining how they would fight for independence from the Mother Country. And they knew that once independence was declared, it would be a fight to the finish. Therefore, there was a lot that transpired after the Declaration of Independence, namely the American Revolutionary War. However, even with the US at war with Great Britain, someone still needed to oversee the newly formed United States. So, who could that be? Step forward, the President of the Continental Congress.

Before we get too far into who the presidents before George Washington were, it is important to note that the Presidents of the Continental Congress and the Presidents of the USA ended up with different responsibilities. One reason for this is America, at war with Britain, was not truly independent until the 1780s. Even during the different presidencies of the Continental Congress, responsibilities changed. And one of the biggest differences was the term in office. There were many presidents for short periods before George Washington. The Continental Presidents could stay in office until they resigned or Congress felt a new president was necessary - at least before the Articles of Confederation were agreed.

The Early Continental Presidents

Peyton Randolph is known as the first President of the Continental Congress, or Continental President.  He was given this title in September 1774 when everyone in Congress voted for him to be so. However, in October 1774, Henry Middleton became the second Continental President for about a week, after which Peyton Randolph took over again, this time for a little under a month due to poor health.  Once Randolph resigned a second-time due to his health and headed back to Virginia to be with his family, one of the most famous Founding Fathers took over, John Hancock. Hancock stayed on as president until October 1777. John Hancock did not even step down as Continental President when Peyton Randolph came back for a period of time, though many felt Hancock should have in order to let Randolph assume his responsibilities. Unfortunately, all this debate ended when Peyton Randolph passed away suddenly of a stroke in October 1775. This means that John Hancock was the first President of the Continental Congress to preside under the US after the Revolutionary War broke out and after independence was declared. Henry Laurens was the fifth Continental President and served from the time Hancock stepped down until December 1778. Laurens was succeeded by John Jay, who served until September 28, 1779.  The seventh Continental Congress President was Samuel Huntington, who served from the date John Jay stepped down until a couple months after the Articles of Confederation were ratified in 1781. 

Continental Presidents Under the Articles of Confederation

Once the Articles of Confederation were ratified by all of America’s 13 states, the responsibilities of the Presidents of the Continental Congress began to extend. Thomas McKean was the first Continental President to hold his full term under the Articles of Confederation, lasting from July 1781 to November of that year. John Hanson was the ninth and lasted a year in office, from November 5, 1781 to November 4, 1782.  Then it was the turn of Elias Boudinot from New Jersey, who was in place until November 3, 1783. The eleventh Continental President was Thomas Mifflin, who served as president until June 1784. Unfortunately for Mifflin, he had a tough short term as Continental President as General George Washington resigned in December 1783 and then Mifflin had the challenge of trying to get enough delegates from the states so Congress could ratify the Treaty of Paris. Richard Henry Lee of Virginia was the twelfth and resided in office from November 30, 1784 to November 4, 1785.  The thirteenth was once again John Hancock, who filled the position from November 1785 to June 1786. After Hancock’s second term as Continental President, Nathaniel Gorham took over from June 6, 1786 until November of that same year. The last two Continental Presidents were Arthur St. Clair, who was in office from February to November 1787, and Cyrus Griffin who was president until November 1788.

George Washington becomes President

The famous first President, and truly first president with the title and responsibilities of the President of the USA, took office in 1789 and served two terms as president, until 1797. As the majority of Americans know, George Washington is one of the most famous and heavily researched of all the United States’ presidents. However, Washington was in many ways not truly the first president of United States of America as an independent country. 

Let us know what you think of the article below…

References

"Continental Presidents." Continental Presidents ***. Accessed October 5, 2017. https://www.landofthebrave.info/continental-presidents.htm.

History.com Staff. "John Hancock." History.com. 2009. Accessed October 8, 2017. http://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/john-hancock.

"Peyton Randolph: The forgotten revolutionary president." National Constitution Center – constitutioncenter.org. Accessed October 5, 2017. https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/peyton-randolph-the-forgotten-revolutionary-president.

"President of the Continental Congress." Wikipedia. October 07, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_the_Continental_Congress.

"Thomas Mifflin." Wikipedia. October 06, 2017. Accessed October 14, 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mifflin.

The Unexpectedly Fascinating History of Singing at Work

People hum in the shower or in the car, but what about singing in your office? Just imagine the operatic exchanges you could have with your boss.

“Bob, I need that sales report by Mon-day”

“It’ll be on your desk by fi-ve” you sing back, silently wondering where in the office libretto it names you as lead vocal for sales reports.

Can’t quite picture it? Well maybe no operatic exchanges ever took place in business, but company funded music used to actually be a thing.

Nicol Valentin explains.

Frank B. Gilbreth, a leading proponent of singing at work.

Whose Idea Was This Anyway?

Singing during work comes naturally to most people. From the earliest times music has been a way to keep workers movements synchronized, reduce boredom, and increase productivity.  Railway workers sang to keep track laying coordinated, Scottish women sang while fulling cloth, and African slaves sang in the field. Even America’s Yankee doodle began as a Dutch harvest song. With the noise of industrialization, however, singing voices never made it past the door.

Scientific management became a mantra for businesses after its popularization by Fredrick Taylor in 1909. Every movement of a worker was accounted for under Taylor’s system, which was good for the employer, but not necessarily the employee. How to increase productivity was the question in everyone’s mind, including Frank Gilbreth’s. Productivity would improve if the workers were given a break. A little music might help, Frank told people, but the idea wasn’t taking off. It took the First World War to really get the idea going. Companies were looking for ways to get the maximum efficiency from their workers. Thrown into the mix was the Council of National Defense. Composed of mostly industry and labor leaders, the council was relied upon by President Woodrow Wilson to divide resources between the civilian and military worlds. With a vested interest in boosting productivity and limiting fatigue, rest periods, which could include singing, were coming into vogue.

It Doesn’t Take a Genius

All that scientific mumbo jumbo just to figure out what department stores had known since the 1800s. John Wannamaker, for example, had an organ placed in his Philadelphia department store in 1876. Wannamaker liked his employees to start and end the day with a little ditty or two. Filene Department store in Boston likewise opened its doors early. Employees spent the time singing and dancing down the aisles. Such a joyous start made for more pleasant and efficient sales people who kept a spring in their step throughout the day.

Of course, music was also used as a means of bringing in customers. Nevertheless, the part it played in lifting the morale of the worker was real. Besides Wannamaker’s and Filene’s, Chicago’s Marshall Field, New York’s Macy’s and pretty much every other large department store sponsored a band, chorus, or orchestra. Wanamaker was by far the most ambitious of the bunch. He purchased an organ to use for the stores morning sing alongs and had a total of ten different ensembles in order to accommodate different talents and tastes.

Now, maybe if you know what society was like 100 years ago you’re thinking: it’s nice for a bunch of women to get together and sing that fluffy, frilly stuff. But hard working, sweat producing, dirt incrusted men—never!

Well, think again, mon ami.

Men, Sweat, and Music

In January 1915, American Iron and Steel devoted its newsletter to music in the workplace. Why? Well according to the Bulletin, men were often unsatisfied. Not because of low wages—that would be silly—but because of boredom. Still, they needed some way to keep the men involved in wholesome activities after hours. Once again, music came to the rescue.

“Volumes. . . could be written on the moral and intellectual influence of good music,” according to Charles Hook, superintendent of the American Rolling Mill Company in Ohio. For that reason, the company had a minstrel chorus and a glee club among other things. Hook extolled the virtues of singing saying the camaraderie made the co-workers more like brothers, creating a positive effect on the workers’ health and happiness.

American Rolling Mill wasn’t the only one to incorporate music into the lives of their workers. Many mining companies had bands, orchestras and Glee clubs. Bethlehem steel had a pretty sweet band hall that they boasted was: “Probably the handsomest and most completely equipped building of its kind in the United States.”

Kum-ba-yahing with the Company

Music during work hours was a psychological tool to help increase production. The introduction of a musical diversion relieved the monotony of repetitive work and had an uplifting effect on a weary worker.  Scovill Manufacturing Company in Waterbury, Connecticut is one example. The company had been suffering from high turnover and a large number of accidents. After a two-year investigation begun in 1917 the company introduced singing periods. And yes, it did start among the women. It took time for some of the men to accept that singing wouldn’t diminish their manhood. Once they did, however, it was the grandest fifteen to twenty minutes of their day. Men would bring their instruments to practice after work for the next day’s sing along, while the singers took time to learn their parts in harmony. They liked it so much that when the management tried to replace the singing with lectures the workers listened respectfully, then asked to sing anyway.

It Ain’t Over ‘till it’s Over

“Properly selected music would stimulate any class of workers to greater action,” said the self-help author Napoleon Hill - and companies agreed. IBM, Ford Motor Company, Union Pacific, National Cash Register, Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Dodge Brothers; all had some type of music program for their employees. Many even expanded the programs to include musical education for family members. The golden age of company supported music didn’t last though. With Wanamaker’s death in 1922, and the Great Depression of the 1930s, people were singing less. Schools began to take on the role of musical education more, helping to make family programs redundant. Money too became an issue. With the economic problems of the Great Depression, money was often shifted from employee programs to national advertising.

Company orchestras and singing groups enjoyed periodical revivals, especially during the period of the Second World War. Using public address systems, many companies could now pipe music into their workers, giving them a little lift with relative ease.  Things may have waned, but what was old has the habit of becoming new again. Some companies are once again realizing the benefits of office music rooms and company choirs. So, while your ability to sing falsetto may not be discussed at your next job interview, a little practice can’t hurt.

Share your knowledge of singing at work – whether from history or personal, modern experiences – below…

References

Singing at work: Italian Immigrants and Music in the Epoch of WWI Fernando Fasce for Italian Americana Vol 27, No.2 (Summer 2009)  

Sing, Play, Dance! Music and Music Education in Industry by Tuohey, Therese Volk, Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, October 2021

Rest Periods for Industrial Workers, Research report #19, January 1919, National Industrial Conference Board

Commerce and Poetry Hand in Hand: Music in American Department Stores, Linda L. Tyler Journal of the American Musicological Society Vol. 45 #1 Spring, 1992

Monthly Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Institute, Vol. III 1915, New York

Beckett, W., & Fairley, L. (1944). Music in Industry: A Bibliography. Notes, 1(4), 14-20.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/29/office-workers-who-sing-together-are-healthier-265614.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/economics-terms-and-concepts/industrial-0

More History Writing Tips! The 3 Essentials of a Great History Essay

We get lots of requests to write articles on the site as well as requests for writing tips from would-be writers and students. So, following yesterday’s piece on biographical essays, today we’re sharing an article on history essays… What does it take to compose a great essay in History? Today we’ll look into three key prerequisites of a paper worth the top grade.

Writing in History... A Lady Writing by Johannes Vermeer, 1660s.

How to Prepare a Stellar History Essay – 3 Key Steps

Have you ever been in a courtroom, or seen on television, a situation where a witness pledges an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? The same rule works in the case of History essays. When writing about the question or topic of your paper, seek to operate with relevant evidence, proven facts and solid data. Do this and the foundation of a great essay will be in place.

What is more, there are 3 key elements to a strong historical essay on top of doing this research and using it well.

Number 1 - Plan your essay through first

Many students and essay writers make one and the same mistake – they rush into drafting content right after background data has been read. But what a smart student does is prepare an outline for their ‘manuscript’ that seeks to closely answer the topic or question of the essay.

·       “Explain Why” – Having to dwell upon a certain historical event, you’ll have to organize data in a way to explain why this or that happened. Analytical skill is important with this type of essay

·       “Discuss a Quote” – Giving a student a quote by a renowned historical figure and asking them to elaborate on its meaning and content is a quite common History assignment. What’s key here is keeping your answer focused and supporting it with as many meaningful arguments and sources as word limits allow you to

·       “Access and Evaluate” – This is perhaps the most difficult type of History essay. It asks you to carry out a deep analysis of a certain event or a historical figure’s activity. Giving your personal evaluation might sound easy, but that’s only when your judgment is based on thorough study of the historical period/person and is backed up by strong sources

·       “Compare and Contrast” – For most students, comparing and contrasting two historical figures or two historical events sounds interesting and even entertaining, but often you will need to research both people/events thoroughly (which can lead to double the research!) and think even more carefully about how you will plan your essay

Number 2 - Mind your judgment

Logic and analysis are key to making your essay a success. Logical and analytical skills are important to History writing, which makes it quite a challenge for some students who are aiming for a really high grade. Indeed, History is a subject that often requires a higher than average ability to analyze complex information and establish cause-and-effect relationships.

So, what’s the problem here? Many people make haphazard conclusions based on their analysis. If you have written your essay in a hurry, or, for example, do not properly understand the events in question and what led to them, you may not be able to join all of the information together leading to errors in your analysis.

In a History essay, it is imperative to think through the subject and not write down the first conclusion that comes to your mind. Some people recommend that you ‘sleep on it’ - meaning let your mind process the sources you have read and allow yourself enough time to form judgments.

But when deadlines are pressing, some students seek History essay help, because they can’t quiet see how a topic links together and answer the essay question well enough. But if you are aiming for a high grade, causes and effects of historical events must be understood and studied thoroughly.

Number 3 - Be critical towards yourself

A truly excellent History essay usually has engaging content, is well-thought through, and easy to read, with credible information that is well sourced. So, what else can you do to produce such an essay? Proofreading is the answer. Many students prepare the first draft, read it a couple of times and then hand it in. Such an approach might work for an average essay, but for somebody who wants to make a real impact with their essay, such an approach is flawed.

You should expect to heavily revise and edit your first and (depending on the context) second draft. Except if you are an amazing talent, there is likely to be significant room for improvement after the first draft, but after a number of revisions, and ideally review from others, the final draft will be worthy of being shown to your professor or evaluator. Don’t worry about to criticizing and fundamentally changing your early drafts as they are there to be improved.

On a final note, don’t be offended when somebody who reviews your essay or your professor provides feedback and points out weak spots in your text, suggesting where the essay could be improved. Consider it another opportunity to improve and turn in an even better paper, rather than their attempt to annoy you. Don’t take someone else’s criticism personally; turn it into an opportunity to improve.

This article was produced in conjunction with Do My Essays.

Now, tell us below: What have your history essay writing experiences been like?

History Writing Tips! How do you Write a Savvy Biographical Essay?

We get lots of requests to write articles on the site as well as requests for writing tips from would-be writers and students. So over the next few days we’ll be sharing two articles on history writing. First up, it’s how to write a biographical essay… As surprising as may be, many people, especially students, struggle with writing a biographical essay. This guide shares insights on how to write a great biographical essay.

Writing in History... Man Writing a Letter by Gabriel Metsu, 1660s.

Biographical Essay Writing Masterclass: Make Sure Your Narrative is Top Class

Biography is like History – a chronological list of events (but in somebody’s life). With there being 4 essential types of essays (persuasive, descriptive, expository and narrative), students often find writing narratives the most difficult. And since a biographical essay is often narrative writing in nature, we’d like to share best practices that show you how to write a great essay or ace an assignment fast. Indeed, if you’re a student taking History classes, you’ll find these tips most useful.

Groundwork goes first

Writing a biography essay is a wonderful opportunity to delve into someone’s life. A renowned actor, politician, writer, inventor, sports star – depending on the topic, you can pick one of a great many figures, with a peculiar, captivating life history and career achievements. 

Your key goal is to trace the roots of who a person was, how they became the person we know them to be, what challenges they had to go through, and what their contributions were to the world. Taken together, thinking about these questions will allow you to pick your subject.

Decided who you’ll write an essay about? Great, time to do your research. As a rule, prominent figures already have tomes of biographies written about them, so your goal may be to fit lots of available information into the framework of a 2000-word essay. In addition, reading interviews and including interesting extracts from them will serve you well.

Just as you finish gathering background data and peculiar pieces of information, don’t rush ahead writing your introduction yet. One of the essentials of delivering a quality essay is drawing up an outline. Think though the structure of your paper and outline the sections and subsections, possibly down to each 150-200 words. Make sure you have a good writing plan at hand to keep all the ideas and draft components in check.  

Introduction, main body, conclusion

In terms of overall structure, a biographical essay is no different to any other type of essay. A standard 7-to-10-paragraph essay with an introduction, main body and conclusion is what we’re looking for.

Introduction: The main goal of the introduction is to grab the reader’s attention and give a smooth transition to the main body of your text. Here are 3 effective methods to “hook” a reader right from the start:

·       Cite a captivating quote or saying by the figure you’re writing about to show how outstanding and notable the persona is/was

·       Offer a short, preferably comic or entertaining short story about the person to set the right mood for the essay to develop further

·       Give an example of an iconic achievement the person attained to firmly grab the reader’s attention

Main body: You have 5-to-8 paragraphs to highlight the milestones in a person’s life and present your essay in an interesting way. For example, if you’re discussing a writer, you might choose to describe one of their most prominent books of the author as well as time periods that preceded and followed the publishing.

If you are writing about a sports star, you might want to select three of the person’s most famous games and some interesting events that took place behind the scenes as you tell their story. Or, if it’s an actor, you can discuss the history of how the person harnessed their talent and became somebody through key events in their life.

Conclusion: It is normally a good idea to discuss the contribution the protagonist of your essay made in their field of expertise, modern culture, history, etc. Has a person left any legacy? Are there any biographical blind spots that require more detailed studying? What were they most remembered for when they died or what are they most well known for today?

Finally… 5 tips for writing a biography essay which always pay off

·       Deliver a consistent story – Narrative essay writing is all about making your story both informative and entertaining. Include proven facts, people, places and events that are relevant to the biography of the person you’re writing about

·       Know your purpose – There will be a reason why you’ve chosen this particular figure. Why are you, for example, writing an essay about a 1950s film star and why should the reader be interested? These questions must be obvious from the essay

·       You need a great introduction – Write a clear and interesting introduction and support it with facts, original sources, and quotes throughout the essay

·       Stick to the chronological order – History is usually a set of events depicted in a chronological order. While it is possible to jump back and forth with your essay, for most people, especially students, writing in a chronological order usually works best

·       Check your background data – Make sure all the dates, names, places, events and figures are correct, and keep Wikipedia information/references to a minimum, as such references can sometimes be less than accurate. All told, rely on proven data and checked facts, supplemented by an interesting writing style

This article was produced in conjunction with UK Essay Now. If you’re looking for more advanced tips on how to write a biographical essay, visit professional academia resources and expert writing-focused blogs, which share in-depth writing tips suitable for students who’d like to improve their History and biographical writing still further.

Now, let us know your writing experiences below!

What’s in a Statue? The Stories behind Statues in Manchester, England

The city of Manchester, England has countless statues that many people walk past, completely oblivious of the rich history behind them. From Richard Cobden to Abraham Lincoln, this article will tell the brief history of a selection of statues and why Manchester has decided to honor them by placing their statues in the center of the city. Su-Sam Tham explains.

John Bright (1811 – 1889)

John Bright statue in Manchester, England.

John Bright was a British Radical and Liberal statesman. He was born in Rochdale, England to a highly successful cotton manufacturer and was educated at Quaker schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where his interest in politics grew and he became committed to political and religious equality and human rights. Bright was a remarkable orator and was also seen as one of the most influential politicians of his time, serving as an MP for Manchester, Birmingham and Durham. He is best known for founding the Anti-Corn Law League with Richard Cobden, which aimed to abolish the Corn Laws. These laws imposed tariffs on imported grain to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports and were successfully repealed in 1846. He was also a keen supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the American Civil War, though many in Britain showed considerable sympathy for the Confederacy. He supported the boycott of southern cotton despite his own family’s mills relying on it, as he believed slavery was morally wrong and instead advocated for cotton cultivation by free labor in countries such as India.

To acknowledge his successful campaigning for the abolition of the Corn Laws, which had adversely affected Lancashire’s cotton trade as they relied on raw imports and exports for finished goods, Manchester commissioned two public statues in his honor; one inside Manchester town hall and the other in Albert Square facing the town hall, sculpted by Albert Bruce-Joy.

Interesting Fact: Bright is credited for coining the phrases ‘to flog a dead horse’ and ‘mother of parliaments’.

Richard Cobden (1804 – 1865)

Richard Cobden statue in Manchester, England.

Like Bright, Richard Cobden was a Radical and Liberal statesman, born in Sussex and raised in Yorkshire, where he received little formal schooling and became a cloth clerk at 15. He then started his own business selling calico prints and subsequently moved to Manchester, where his political career flourished as he was elected as the MP for Stockport. During this time, he campaigned against the Opium Wars and Crimean War, preferring to advocate for peace, resulting in him and Bright, the MP for Manchester, losing their seats in the 1857 election. However, the public forgave both for their anti-war stance as Cobden was later elected as the Rochdale MP and Bright as the Birmingham MP. As well as forming the Anti-Corn Law League, he was also known for the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, which reduced or removed most tariff between Britain and France and was thus seen as a key stepping stone to free trade, a policy that Cobden advocated throughout his life.    

Cobden’s role in the abolition of the Corn Laws and association with other free trade campaigns led to Manchester erecting public monuments in his honor. His statue was created by sculptor Marshall Wood in 1865 and stands in St Ann’s Square.

Interesting Fact: Cobden was extremely well travelled having visited France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Egypt, Greece and Russia. An impressive feat considering he primarily travelled by coach and horse. 

William Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

William Gladstone statue in Manchester, England.

William Gladstone was born in Liverpool to Sir John Gladstone, a merchant and MP. He was educated at Eton and Oxford before being elected to parliament in 1832 as the Tory MP for Newark and he held several posts in Sir Robert Peel’s cabinet, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1867, he became the Liberal Party leader and the 3rd Liberal Prime Minister in 1868, a position he held on four separate occasions. During his 12 years in office, his government set up a national elementary education program, extended the vote to a greater number of men and introduced secret ballots at elections. His reputation as a wise and respected leader, who championed social, economic and political reform, has seen him frequently ranked as one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, recently coming third in the Daily Telegraph’s 2016 ranking of the top 10 greatest Prime Ministers.

The statue was erected in Albert Square in 1901 at the Mancunian architect William Roberts’ request. Roberts admired Gladstone and in his legacy, left £4,500 to build a statue of him for Manchester where Gladstone had visited and gave speeches on several occasions and he had even unsuccessfully run for Manchester MP as a Conservative candidate. Sculpted by Mario Raggi, the statue depicts Gladstone speaking in the House of Commons during the 1893 debate on the Irish Home Rule.

Interesting Fact: Gladstone was Britain’s oldest serving Prime Minister, winning his fourth election at age 82 and resigning at age 84.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865) 

Abraham Lincoln statue in Manchester, England.

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most well-known and highly regarded Presidents of the USA, celebrated for preserving the Union during the American Civil War and for abolishing slavery in the USA. Born in a log cabin in 1809, Lincoln initially trained as a lawyer before entering the political arena by serving several terms in the Illinois state legislature and one in the House of Representative. In 1860, Lincoln won the Presidential election, becoming the 16th US President and 1st Republican President, inadvertently sparking a secession crisis in the South and ultimately the Civil War. During the war, Lincoln blockaded southern ports and some saw this as the cause of the Lancashire Cotton Famine, though the blockades were not entirely successful. Despite this, Manchester and Lancashire, areas heavily affected by the Cotton Famine, decided to support Lincoln and the Union by boycotting raw cotton picked by slaves. This meant many workers in the cotton industry lost their job, but their sacrifice was not unnoticed by Lincoln, who wrote a letter to the ‘working-men of Manchester’ to show his gratitude.       

The bronze statue of Lincoln, sculpted by George Grey Barnard, was commissioned by Charles Phelps Taft, the mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio and son of the former US President, William Taft. Originally meant to stand outside the Houses of Parliament in London, the statue was deemed unworthy for parliament as Lincoln was depicted wearing ‘normal’ clothes, rather than presidential attire and with his hand on his stomach, thus becoming known as the ‘stomach ache statue’. Instead, London received a different more statesmanlike statue and their loss became Manchester’s gain in 1919. The statue currently stands in Lincoln Square and the pedestal is inscribed with extracts of Lincoln’s letter to ‘the working-men of Manchester’, though ‘men’ has been changed to ‘people’ as Lincoln’s gendered address was seen as too sexist by Manchester council.

Interesting Fact: Lincoln obtained a patent in 1849 for a device designed to lift riverboats over sandbars or obstructions in the river and is therefore the only US President to hold a patent.

Queen Victoria (1819 – 1901)

Queen Victoria statue in Manchester, England.

In 1817, the death of Princess Charlotte, the daughter of the future King George IV and only legitimate grandchild of the reigning King George III, caused a succession crisis in Britain. This made George III’s sons realize that it was essential for one of them to provide an heir, so the following year, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and had their only child Alexandrina Victoria. From the beginning, Victoria was raised to be Queen and thus had a difficult upbringing. Her father had died before she was a year old, so she was raised by her mother under the ‘Kensington System’ resulting in a somewhat solitary childhood as her education and company were strictly regulated by her mother who isolated her from the rest of her family. Even King William IV, Victoria’s uncle, was denied access to her causing him to vow that he would survive until her 18th birthday to prevent her mother from becoming reagent. William was successful, as he died just 26 days after she turned 18 and so Victoria ascended to the throne as the sole ruler of Great Britain. Queen Victoria’s 63 year and 216 day reign had many significant successes as the first Wimbledon Championship was held in 1877, the first practical telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, the British Empire reached its peak, and she was even crowned Empress of India.   

The sculptor Edward Onslow Ford was commissioned to create the statue of Victoria for Manchester, which she agreed to sit for, in commemoration of her diamond jubilee. Unfortunately, the statue was only completed and placed in Piccadilly Gardens in 1901 after her death. It was also originally intended for the tribute to be a marble statue, but this later changed to bronze after the Queen expressed concern about marble weathering poorly in Manchester’s smoky atmosphere. The statue is particularly significant because out of the 17 statues in Manchester city center, it is the only one to depict a woman and monarch.

Interesting Fact: Queen Victoria survived 8 assassination attempts with 2 attempts made by John Francis.

James Watt (1736 – 1819)

James Watt statue in Manchester, England.

James Watt was a Scottish mechanical engineer and inventor born in Greenock. He was home-schooled by his mother, before attending the local grammar school where he excelled in engineering and mathematics. After leaving school, he moved to London and trained as an instrument maker, quickly surpassing the other apprentices as he completed his training in just a year, despite training normally taking up to 7 years. This allowed Watt to return to Glasgow and start a small shop making and repairing scientific instruments and it was while working there that the Newcomen engine was brought to his attention. He was given a model of the engine to repair and found it to be inefficient, so he began experimenting with steam to try and improve the engine, which he managed to do by designing a separate condensing chamber for the engine. Further improvements resulted in Watt’s engine being up to 5 times more powerful and over 50% more efficient than the original Newcomen engine. Watt’s engine gave way to highly efficient factories, mills and mines that produced 3 times more mechanical work for every ton of coal brought, meaning the owners earned more money and thus the prosperous economy of the Industrial Revolution was driven by Watt’s developments. His achievements were recognized in many ways - most significantly, the watt was named in his honor.

Manchester owes its titles as the world’s first manufacturing city and ‘Cottonopolis’ to Watt, so it is no surprise that the city commissioned William Theed to produce a bronze copy of Chantrey’s marble statue of Watt, that stood in Westminster Abbey, for Manchester. The statue was erected in 1857 and now sits in Piccadilly Gardens.

Interesting Fact: To explain how powerful his steam engines were in a relatively easy and relatable way, Watt decided to compare them to the power of horses, which were at the time the dominating mode of transportation and thus horsepower, a unit of power, was invented.

I hope that after reading this article you will be inspired to visit Manchester to see the statues for yourself and in the future, you will take time to explore the history of other fascinating statues that you may never have truly noticed.

Let us know what you think of the article below…

All pictures are taken by and provided with the permission of Su-Sam Tham. They may only be reproduced wit Su-Sam’s permission.

An Unlikely Union? How a Group of Miners and Homosexuals Changed Britain

The British miners’ strike of 1984/5 is generally considered a heavy defeat for the miners, their communities, and the trade union movement as a whole. To a certain extent, that assumption has merit. But one outcome that is less well known is the role the strike played in contributing to bettering the lives of homosexuals in Britain. In a decade when vast homophobia was expected and accepted, Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) drove a couple of minibuses and a camper van from London to Dulais, a small mining town in South Wales, to present their donations in an attempt to aid the miners’ efforts. The events that followed provide us with an important lesson about the importance of empathy, tolerance, and togetherness in facing common enemies.

Here, Jon Hill tells us a story about solidarity.

A miners' strike rally in London, UK in 1984. Source: Miners' strike really, 1984 via Nick from Bristol, UK. Available here.

Roots of Oppression

Firstly, it is perhaps important to refer to the ways in which miners and homosexuals were oppressed in Britain at the time. The strike began in March 1984, in response to Ian Macgregor’s plans to close twenty pits, leading to a projected loss of 20,000 jobs. Margaret Thatcher had previously claimed, ‘the industry cost the taxpayer thirteen billion pounds’ and called for the worst economically performing pits to close. The areas targeted were considered overly reliant on mining. The mining community in South Wales had not been the worst hit, but employment in the coalfields had nevertheless fallen from 108,000 in 1948 to 20,347 in 1984.

Mistreatment by the police was a shared experience between gay people and miners. Amongst other places, picketing miners were subjected to police brutality at Easington in August 1984. Thatcher claimed that the police were ‘upholding the law’ and stated; ‘I find it totally and utterly false to cast a slur on the police for the superb way they have handled this dispute.’ An LGSM member described how ‘a lot of mining communities have found out what police harassment is for the first time, which gay people have known about for years’. Such views were also reciprocated by members of the mining community. Sian James described feeling that ‘we were next in line after lesbians and gays…you cannot sympathise with an oppressed group until you’ve actually been a member of one’.

An Unlikely Union

In the face of such adversity, coordinator Mark Ashton encapsulated the aim of LGSM; ‘It is illogical to say: ‘I’m gay and I’m into defending the gay community but I don’t care about anything else.’

Donovan travelled to Paddington on September 6, 1984 to collect a cheque of 500 pounds from LGSM, mostly collected from poorly paid young people who hankered for a different Britain. Donovan subsequently invited members to Dulais. Tensions were high when the mining community received news of the impending arrival, yet the experiences were generally positive for both sides.

London magazine City Limits described how LGSM members visiting Dulais were welcomed into the miners’ homes for the weekend; whole families discussed gay rights and sexuality ‘over the tea-table’. Prior to the arrival of LGSM, one member of the Dulais group admitted that they were ‘expecting a bunch of weirdos’. Another woman commented that ‘It’s had to take the strike for us to get friendlier with lesbian and gay men’. Such apprehension was mutual; a correspondent of Capital Gay claimed that the mining communities ‘encapsulate all the sexist, patriarchal and anti-gay views which threaten us’. However, experiences reported by LGSM visitors challenged such views. Ashton recalled being overwhelmed with the open-mindedness of the miners; ‘I had this semi-antagonistic attitude towards the organised labour movement, trade unions, macho bully boys, and it just opens your eyes to the attitudes that they had, and the strike up to that stage had kindled in people.’

Members of LGSM returned to Dulais on February 15, 1985 and held sponsored bike rides from London to Dulais during Easter 1985. These continuing visits maintained feelings of solidarity and laid the ground work for the appearance of Blaenant Lodge, a group of approximately 80 miners and sympathisers from South Wales who marched with LGSM at Gay Pride in London in July 1985. Writing to Blaenant Lodge following the march, Jackson enthused; ‘Your presence on Saturday stood out like granite pillars of our mutual trust, solidarity, and hope for the future.’ The words of the NUM’s note, sent to the fringe meeting of gays and lesbians at the 1984 Labour Conference, sum up the sentiments from the other side: ‘Support civil liberties...Our struggle is yours.’

The presentation of a resolution to the British Labour Party Annual Conference that year which committed the Labour Party to gay rights was made. The passing of gay rights resolutions showed that there was a place in the Labour movement for homosexuals. The growing acceptance of gay issues in the Labour movement would play a role in the passing of progressive legislation by following Labour governments on the age of consent, civil partnerships, and the repeal of Section 28 in November 2003.

By the time that the group was wound up in July 1986, LGSM had gathered approximately 22,000 pounds for the mining community at Dulais, collected through street collections, jumble sales and events such as the ‘Pits and Perverts’ gig, named after a derogatory slogan used by The Sun newspaper.

The Importance of Solidarity

Notions of community over class were reinforced by an opinion piece written by LGSM for City Limits. They claimed that; ‘Our support for the strike arises not purely from the fact that we are gay, but because we are members of the same class’. Ashton made a similar point in a separate interview where he argued for the need to ‘organise with my own kind of people. That’s not necessarily lesbians and gay men – that’s working class people’.

The Gay Liberation Foundation marched with the Trade Union Council against Edward Heath in 1971. This kind of cross over support was continued by organisations like LGSM in the 1980s. This idea is summarised by Lucy Robinson, who argues that examples set by LGSM ‘meant that gender and sexuality had fed into a cross-class comradery even if the strike had failed.’

A Brighter Future

In a recent correspondence of mine with LGSM member Jonathan Blake, Blake emphasised the importance of changing attitudes that have occurred since minority movements such as LGSM were formed. Besides referring to the NUM’s contribution to Labour’s inclusion of gay rights in their manifesto in 1985, Blake noted the significance of the movement, and specifically the film Pride, ‘in inspiring youth folk’. This feeling seemed to take effect in South Wales as early as the summer of 1985, when students from University College Cardiff held the city’s first Gay Pride march. The march provided visible evidence of a change in Welsh attitudes towards sexual minorities. The South Wales Echo declared the Welsh capital ‘a place where you can be glad to be gay.’

From the outset of the campaign, Ashton and Jackson emphasised the need for minorities to refrain from hiding, and encouraged gay people and miners to embrace their label. During the meeting with Donovan in October 1984, Jackson said ‘We call ourselves LGSM to emphasise our label - I hope this can encourage people in places like Dulais to say ‘I’m gay and I’m proud’. This self-awareness partly reflected a belief in the importance of the organisation concerning sexual history, but also fitted into wider processes of the 1980s. There was an increasing appreciation arising of migrant histories, signalled by the first Black History Month in 1987. Whilst it cannot be suggested that this was a consequence of the movement, it can be interpreted that minority movements like LGSM contributed to maintaining alternative histories.

Reason for Celebration

Whilst LGSM and the miners ultimately failed in their immediate aims to prevent collieries closing and overthrow the Thatcher government, the legacy that remains is worth salvaging. Whilst gay activists had worn badges for other campaigns, like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Troops Out and Rock Against Racism, this time the gesture was reciprocated. A pamphlet published by the Labour Campaign for homosexual rights in 2006 noted support for the miners ‘including hundreds of lesbians and gay men working through support groups’ and added; ‘the already deepening union backing for lesbian and gay equality has been reinforced by the experience of the miners’ strike.’ Ideas of solidarity were emphasised by Mary Joannou, who suggested that ‘it strongly conveys what solidarity can feel like to those who have been taught, by the legacy of Thatcherism, that all that matters is the individual.’ Mark Steel summed up the legacy well; ‘Defeat did not mean that we’d be better off if it never happened. Apart from anything else, it did so much to bring together disparate groups in British society, justified when a miners’ brass band was chosen to lead a Gay Pride march.’ Steel was right; with courage, dedication, and solidarity, LGSM serve as a reminder that a minority can inspire a majority.

What do you think of the arguments in this article? Let us know below…

Sources

Audio recording of meeting between some members of LGSM and Dulais miners (16/9/84).

‘All Out! Dancing in Dulais’, dir. by Jeff Cole (1986).

Daryl Leeworthy, ‘For our common cause: Sexuality and left politics in South Wales, 1967-85’, Contemporary British History, (2015), 260-280).

Diarmaid Kelliher; ‘Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, 1984-85’, History Workshop, (2014), 240-262.

Edward Townsend, ‘Thatcher ‘no surrender’ message on miners.’ Times (London), 18 October 1984: 1.

Julian Haviland, Anthony Bevins, and Richard Evans. ‘Thatcher endorses police conduct in miners' dispute.’ Times (London), 10 Apr. 1984: 1.

Mary Joannou, ‘The Miners’ Strike and Me: A Very Personal Response to Pride’, Contemporary British History, (2016), 107-113.

Personal correspondence with Jonathan Blake (10/03/2017).

Todd, Selina, The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class (London: John Murray Publishers, 2014). 

The Real Love story between a Nazi SS guard and Jewish prisoner at Auschw

The Holocaust has left its mark as one of the darkest moments in history. However, even during the darkest of times, there was still love. Here, we tell you about a love story between a Nazi concentration camp prisoner and an SS Guard at Auschwitz.

Helena Citronova (left) and Franz Wunsch (right) fell in love at Auschwitz.

In September 1935, the Reichstag (the parliament during the Third Reich) voted unanimously to for the passing of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, otherwise known as the Nuremberg Laws that not only excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship but from marrying or having sexual relations with people of “German or related blood.”

Persons accused of having sexual relations with non-Aryans faced public humiliation and those convicted were “typically sentenced to prison terms, and (subsequent to 8 March 1938) upon completing their sentences were re-arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Nazi concentration camps.”

Even with the punishments for forbidden affection severe, especially for Nazi soldiers, that was not enough to stop Auschwitz SS officer Franz Wunsch from falling in love with a Jewish Slovakian prisoner named Helena Citronova. Across the world, Auschwitz concentration camp has become a symbol of genocide, terror, war, and the Holocaust.

However, after 70 years, PBS in America as well as an Israeli television brought to life the forbidden romance story between an SS guard and a Jewish prisoner at Auschwitz that highlighted the complexity of human relationships in the most horrifying of world events.

In 1942, Franz Wunsch was serving as a 20-year old SS guard in charge of the gas chambers of Auschwitz. On his birthday, March 21, his Nazi comrades brought in a Jewish girl, Helena Citronova, to sing him birthday songs. Helena was imprisoned at Auschwitz from Slovakia and was forced to sort all of the incoming prisoners’ belongings before they were shipped to Berlin to fuel the Nazi war efforts.

Helena and her sister Rozinka had both been sentenced to die in the gas chambers earlier that very day so Helena attempted to sing the very best she could, melting the heart of the SS guard. When Wunsch realized she wouldn’t be alive the next day, he hurried and managed to postpone the execution of both sisters.

Helena would say years later in Israel, “When he came into the barracks where I was working, he threw me that note. I destroyed it right there and then, but I did see the word "love" — "I fell in love with you". I thought I'd rather be dead than be involved with an SS man. For a long time afterwards there was just hatred. I couldn't even look at him.”

Over time, though unclear of exactly when, Helena succumbed to her feelings for Franz, especially after her SS devotee rushed to prevent her sister and her sister’s children from being sent to the gas chambers.

“'So he said to me, "Tell me quickly what your sister's name is before I'm too late." So I said, "You won't be able to. She came with two little children." Helena later recalled.

'He replied, "Children, that's different. Children can't live here." So he ran to the crematorium and found my sister.'

Helena admitted she had slept with her rescuer and at times had even forgotten who he was and came to terms with the romance. Wunsch would provide Helena with food, clothing, and protection. Though their relationship would not develop any further, Helena would repay him years later for risking his life to protect a Jewish prisoner on the pain of death.

When the war ended, the SS guards fled the Allied advance, even destroying parts of the concentration camps to cover their war crimes. Helena and her sister Rozinka attempted to return home with other displaced people through an Eastern Europe that contained violent and raping Soviet soldiers. Both sisters avoided being raped when Rozinka claimed to be Helena’s mother and defended her. Following the founding of Israel in 1948, Helena moved there while Franz returned to Austria.

Thirty years following Nazi Germany’s defeat and the end of World War II, in 1972, Wunsch was put on trial in Vienna, accused of being cruel towards prisoners by beating men and women alike and operated at the gas chambers to insert the lethal gas. Testimonies include camp survivors describing Wunsch as a “natural Jew hater” and sometimes participated in the selection of inmates all over occupied Europe to live or die. With more than enough evidence for the guilty verdict, life imprisonment and death most likely would have awaited him.

In a twist of events, Helena and her sister defended Wunsch at his trial. Even with ‘an overwhelming evidence of guilt’ as the judge commented in Wunsch’s participation in the Nazi’s largest concentration camp’s mass murder, Wunsch was acquitted of all charges due to the statute of limitations over war crimes in Austria.

“Desire changed my brutal behavior,” Wunsch said. “I fell in love with Helena Citronova and that changed me. I changed into another person because of her influence.”

Citronova died in 2005. Wunsch died in 2009.

Share your thoughts on this article below…

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193520/Read-real-life-story-Auschwitz-prisoner-Helena-Citronova-falling-love-SS-guard-Franz-Wunsch-amid-controversy-Kate-Breslin-novel-Time.html

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/auschwitz-love-story.html

https://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00090219-forbidden-love-saved-their-lives.html

http://ww2awartobewon.com/wwii-articles/auschwitz-forbidden-romance-story/

Commander of the North: Ivar the Boneless, the Disabled Viking Warrior

Ivar the Boneless, youngest son of Ragnar Lothbrok and Princess Aslaug, was a powerful Viking leader.  He was considered to be the wisest, strongest and most skillful of warriors; in fact, despite an inability to walk, he led raiding conquests across Northern Europe… The mind of Ivar was considered a much stronger weapon than those swords and shields carried by other Vikings. Bakhtawar Jamil explains.

A 12th-century illustration depicting Danes invading England.

The saga behind his name

The origin of the nickname ‘boneless’ is uncertain and historians have long been arguing over what it actually means. The Danish historian Knud Seedorf enlivened this debate with the convincing theory that the signs and symptoms of Ivar’s condition, as described in the Scandinavian sagas, are consistent with ‘brittle bone disease’. The disease is a dominant congenital disorder that causes the bones to become extremely fragile and is most frequently caused by a defect in the gene that produces collagen, an important building block of bone. Knud Seedorf wrote of his theory:

Of historical personages the author knows of only one of whom we have a vague suspicion that he (Ivar) suffered from osteogenesis imperfecta. He is reported to have had legs as soft as cartilage (lacking bones), so that he was unable to walk and had to be carried about on a shield. There are less extreme forms of this disease where the person affected can lack use of their legs, but be otherwise normal, as was probably the case for Ivar the Boneless. (1)

Another theory by Celtic lecturer Clare Downham from the University of Liverpool explains when translated from Latin, Ivar’s sobriquet could have been described as ‘despicable’ and not ‘boneless’ as the two Latin words are very similar. But, another theory suggests that the epithet is interpreted as ‘the hated’, which when translated into Latin would mean ‘exosus’. When this word is further simplified syllable by syllable it is deciphered as ‘ex’ meaning without and ‘os’ meaning bone, thus ‘without bones’.

However, more prosaic explanations that account for Ivar's nickname can be found in Nordic legends and traditions. To further emphasize, some traditions narrate that the Vikings were well-known in giving ironic names to their warriors. In much the same way as we may, cynically, would call a short man ‘gigantic’ or a tall man ‘tiny’, a larger than average person - say seven-feet with a huge bone structure - might be called ‘boneless’. (2)

A mid-twelfth-century poem called Hattalykill explains he was actually without bones and it also narrates that Ivar was a skilled warrior with a physical form as flexible as a snake. (3) Keeping these two interpretations of Hattalykill in mind, one can say Ivar gave the impression that he lacked bones. Yet according to sources Ivar died childless, so perhaps he was impotent — that is, unable to have an erection — therefore, ‘boneless.’ According to a different legend, it was believed that Ivar’s epithet was the result of a curse foreseen by his mother who had the power of foresight. It is written that Aslaug warned Ragnar to wait three days before consummating their marriage, disclosing that the gods would be displeased and their child born would be cursed: 

Three nights together, but yet apart,

Shall we bide, nor worship the gods as yet

From my son this would save a lasting harm,

For boneless is he thou wouldst now beget (4)

Ragnar refused to believe in the curse and immediately made love to his new wife; hence, Ivar was born bearing legs without a bone structure. Ivar grew up unable to walk and had to be carried everywhere on poles or on the back of a shield. Consequently, during his childhood he was often ridiculed by his own brothers for his disability. His siblings were Bjorn, Halfdan, Ubba, Hvitserk and Siggurd. Aslaug was known to be over protective of him while Ragnar always saw the true warrior that Ivar was. Ragnar favored him just as he did his other sons, and he always believed that Ivar’s greatest weakness could be turned into his greatest strength. The lore narrates his crippled condition, but in battle Ivar was cunning and strategic – in a way unlike any other Viking of his era.

A berserker among Vikings

Berserkers were Viking warriors who went into a state of fury when they fought and Ivar was known for transforming into such a state. One could argue that his rage originated from his childhood when people mocked him for his crippled body, and he would respond with sheer anger and violence.
Norse sources mention Ivar being carried on a shield by his army, leading to speculation that he was lame. This however is unlikely considering Ivar was a renowned warrior; other sources from the period mention chieftains being ceremonially borne on the shields of enemies following victory. (5)

In 865 AD the mighty Viking army appeared out of the mists of the North Sea from Scandinavia and landed on the East Anglian coast in England. Their aim was nothing less than the total conquest of Anglo-Saxon England and the British Isles. Numbering some 10,000 to 15,000 men the Great Heathen Army was the largest invasion force since Roman Legions had landed on the shores of Britannia back in 43 AD. During a fourteen year reign of terror they left a brutal trail of destruction in their wake. At its head the army was led by the vengeful sons of Viking adventurer, Ragnar Lothbrok. The mastermind behind the invasion became one of the most feared and cruel generals of the Viking age - none other than Ivar. His stature was such that he dwarfed all his contemporaries and in battle he was always in the vanguard. So strong were his arms that the bow and arrows he used in battle had to be made heavier and more durable than those of his companions. His shadow cast a dark cloud over the British Isles that ultimately led to the unification and creation of the state of England. The Norsemen were well aware of the civil war that had weakened the great northern kingdom in England and as warriors they were extremely opportunistic.

While the East Anglians made peace with the invaders and provided them with horses, the Norse consolidated their forces as they came in and wintered in East Anglia. To protect their realm and as an opportunity to see their rivals in Northumbria attacked, East Anglia made a peace agreement with the Norse army. They allowed the Norsemen to use their land to prepare their army and provided them with horses. The Norsemen, then, used it as a staging point for their invasion into Northumbria. (6)

The legend in the sagas of Ragnar claims the attention towards England by Ivar was because of the death of his father, who was killed by King Aelle of Northumbria. During a raid Ragnar was taken prisoner and thrown into a snake pit and in his dying breath, the Viking declared ‘the little pigs would grunt now if they knew how it fares with the old boar’. (7) His words prophesied the violent revenge that would be exacted by his children. Bloody retribution was, indeed, forthcoming.

On March 21, 867 the Vikings stormed the city walls of York and gained entry to the city. They then slaughtered those in the city and routed those who were outside. Upon capture, King Aelle was subjected to the agonizing death of the Blood Eagle, a gruesome Viking method of torture; mentioned in the Nordic sagas. (8) It was performed by breaking his ribs, so they resembled blood-stained wings and pulled the lungs out through his back. Salt was sprinkled in the wounds and in the end the Northumbrian king suffered till his dying breath. What was left of the Northumbrian court fled north, and Ivar installed Egbert as the puppet king.

Marching forward

The Great Heathen Army progressed into Mercia fixing their winter-quarters at Nottingham. Burgred, the King of Mercia, sought aid from Ethelred the King ofWessex and his brother Alfred, who had led an army into Mercia and besieged Nottingham. However the Vikings, who were heavily outnumbered, refused to fight. Henry of Huntingdon, wrote almost 250 years later regarding the situation at Nottingham:

Ivar then, seeing that the whole force of England was gathered, and that his host was the weaker, and was there shut in, betook himself to smooth words — cunning fox that he was — and won peace and troth from the English. Then he went back to York and abode there one year with all cruelty. (9)

The Mercians settled on paying the Vikings off, who agreed to leave and returned to Northumbria in the autumn of 868. They spent the winter in York and then returned to East Anglia. When King Edmund of East Anglia led resistance against the Norse he was captured and brutally executed in the village of Hoxne. Viking religious beliefs encouraged cruelty towards the followers of the 'White Christ' who they saw as cowards. King Edmund bravely refused to become the vassal of pagans or renounce his religion, declaring that his religion was dearer to him than his life. He was beaten with clubs as he called upon the name of Jesus, and then tied to a tree where the Vikings shot arrows into him until he died. It is narrated in the 10th-century Passio Sancti Eadmundi that Edmund’s body was thoroughly scourged and then used for target practice by Danish archers ‘until he was all covered with their missiles as with bristles of a hedgehog’. (10)

The warriors left Edmund's corpse unburied and his head was thrown into deep brambles. Monasteries were razed to the ground, monks slaughtered and plundering took place on a massive scale. 

Fury from within

One of the reasons for Ivar’s infamous status is the brutal way in which he led his attacks. He is described by many as a merciless, cruel and unconquerable leader with his army using brutality to force their victims into submission. The religion of the Anglo-Saxons was a complete culture clash with that of the Vikings too. The belief in ideas such as ‘help for one’s neighbor’ contrasted with the worship of a war god. For the Vikings, the sacrificing of prisoners was needed to please their god. This can be seen when looking at Ivar’s revenge on King Aelle. However, it is not just the barbarity for which Ivar is known. Many of his battles used innovative strategies that did not rely on sheer force. In many instances, Ivar is said to have employed concepts such as using half of his armed forces in upfront battle. To the competitors, this would make the army seem small - an easy defeat. But, little did they know that the other half of the soldiery would sneak up and attack them from behind. (11) Historians have contrasting views about whether Ivar’s tactics should be seen as a good reason for him becoming a commander of the Viking army because many believed his disability rendered him unable to do so. What can be concluded, however, is that Ivar the Boneless was indeed one of the greatest Viking warriors to have ever lived and whose tales are told to this day…

Let us know what you think of this article below…

References

1.     Knud Seedorf , Osteogenesis Imperfecta: A study of clinical features and heredity based on 55 Danish families.

2.     http://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/sagas.html

3.     http://shootingparrots.co.uk/2013/03/13/i-is-for-ivar-the-boneless

4.     https://www.timelessmyths.com/norse/volsunga.html

5.     Benjamin James Baillie,The Great Heathen Army: Ivar the Boneless and the Viking Invasion of Britain.

6.     Jan Kallberg , Leadership Principles of the Vikings

7.     Schlauch, The Saga of the Volsungs: The Saga of Ragnar Lodbrok together with the Lay of Kraka, 1978

8.     http://www.orkneyjar.com/history/saga.htm

9.     Huntingdon, The Chronicle of Henry of Huntingdon

10.  Hervey,  Corolla Sancti Eadmundi ‘The Garland of Saint Edmund, King and Martyr’, 1907

11.  Ferguson, The Hammer and the Cross: A New History of the Vikings. London, 2009

12.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivar_the_Boneless

Why did the USSR Collapse? Chernobyl, Gorbachev and Glasnost

The death of the last “Old Bolshevik” General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Konstantin Chernenko, in March of 1985 gave way to the rise of the young, liberal, and ultimately final General Secretary of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. But just over one year after Gorbachev became General Secretary the Chernobyl nuclear explosion took place. Here, Brenden Woldman argues that it was this explosion that was the most important element that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Chernobyl. Last Day of Pripyat by Alexey Akindinov. Source: Alex Akindinov, available here.

Mikhail Gorbachev, newly crowned leader of the USSR in 1985, was a product of the communist system and a firm believer in Soviet ideology. Nevertheless, Gorbachev understood that the USSR was at a crossroads and liberal reforms were necessary for the survival of the Soviet empire.

Gorbachev thought that the enactment of glasnost (openness and a new era of honesty between the government and the people) and perestroika (restructuring of the Soviet economic and political system) would spark a golden age of Soviet ingenuity and would reignite the USSR as a super power. However, the USSR was not ripe for the backlash that would come with glasnost’s emphasis on openness. The reason for Gorbachev to double-down on glasnost was the failed cover-up that came from the Chernobyl disaster. Within a year of Gorbachev’s ascension to power, one of the greatest man-made environmental disasters the world had ever seen placed the Soviet Union in the global spotlight and showed the hypocrisy of the Soviet Union’s new “reformer”.

 The Blast

All was quiet on the morning of April 28, 1986 when Swedish monitoring stations showed an unnaturally sparked heightening of radioactive activity near northern Kiev at the Chernobyl nuclear electricity-generating plant.[1] The Soviet Union did little to confirm reports of the accident or the danger of it. Pravda, the official newspaper of the CPSU, did not report the accident until two weeks after it had occurred and Gorbachev himself did not publically acknowledge the disaster until May 14, nearly three weeks after the initial incident.[2] The reason for this silence was the attempted cover-up of the Chernobyl disaster by Gorbachev and the CPSU, even though the radioactive cloud released was ten times more hazardous than that of the radiation discharged by the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima.[3] However, those two weeks in which the Soviet Union tried to cover-up the severity of the accident showed the fragility and unwillingness of the USSR to implement the so-called media “openness” that was to come with Gorbachev’s glasnost.

The problems with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were well documented before the accident. Government reports dating back to the initial building of the power plant in 1979 showed the brittleness of the structure with a KGB memorandum stating that the Chernobyl plant, “could lead to mishaps and accidents”.[4] The poor quality of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was not shocking to those who had inspected the quality of the structures around the USSR. An accident involving one of the power plants was not a surprising revelation due to their poor quality. Nevertheless, in the early morning of April 26 the Chernobyl nuclear power plant erupted, causing the CPSU to begin plans for a cover-up.

The Failed Cover-Up

After the extinguishing of the fires and the securing of the scene, in depth urgent reports about the nature of the incident were sent to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[5] When questioning began on the severity of Chernobyl from Europe and the west, the CPSU began to intensify their cover-up plan by sending statements to ambassadors of the Soviet Union throughout the globe. These statements explain that a minor accident had occurred at Chernobyl and that the level of contamination may have exceeded norms, but “not to such a degree that it requires special measures to protect the population” and that the USSR did not need foreign aid as “no foreign nationals in the Soviet Union (particularly specialists or tourists) have made application to relevant Soviet organizations in connection with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident”.[6]

However, readings from radioactive stations across Western Europe showed that the Chernobyl accident was far more severe than initially expected, as journalists, foreign and domestic, reported on the severity of the calamity after the USSR allowed press to come to the scene. As one Pravda journalist reported, the low quality standards, lack of safety equipment, lack of evacuation of public citizens, and the overall “silence of the leaders of the republic” proved the unwillingness of the CPSU to report on the severity of the Chernobyl calamity.[7] It became clear that Gorbachev and the CPSU attempted to downplay the disaster which occurred at Chernobyl. The result was not only an environmental disaster but a political one as well, as the Soviet citizenry doubted the claim that Gorbachev was to be a new and honest General Secretary.

For Gorbachev, the calamity at Chernobyl came from two fronts. The first was the physical, environmental destruction that had occurred and the cleanup that was going to take years and require a lot of money. Yet the second hurt Gorbachev the most, as the attempted cover-up hurt Gorbachev’s reputation as a reformer and the legitimacy of glasnost. It also did not help that this reinforced the view among some of the Soviet citizenry of the poor infrastructure within the USSR in comparison to the west, which sparked the fall of the “Soviet façade”.[8] The embarrassment that came from Chernobyl left Gorbachev more decisive in implementing glasnost rhetoric, but it was too late for many as Soviet citizens began questioning the validity of glasnost.[9]

Life After Chernobyl

Chernobyl was the perfect storm of all the problems that were to come with Gorbachev’s reforms. However, the Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986, five years before the Soviet collapse. In short, there were more trickle down effects to come from glasnost and perestroika. However, the Soviet government was uneasy about granting complete open expression for the first time in the USSR’s history. Yet the embarrassment that followed the Chernobyl accident led Gorbachev to become more decisive and hardheaded with his implementation of glasnost and perestroika.[10]

Open expression became a staple of glasnost. Individuals connected to media began showing the gritty, more realistic portrayal of Soviet life instead of the utopian society depicted in propaganda. Crime, child abuse, suicide, prostitution, homelessness, declining health standards, poverty, and corruption were detailed extensively.[11] TV exposé’s like the news program Fifth Wheel filmed and broadcast the luxurious homes of the party elite in comparison to the impoverished living conditions of the working-class.[12] Soviet history was rewritten to show for the first time that Stalin was a mass murderer who killed millions of innocents and former General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev lived an extravagant, corrupt, and materialistic life. Glasnost opened up a variety of new problems that angered and humiliated many of the Soviet citizenry. The dissolving of the “Soviet façade” intensified.

Soviet essayist Alexander Tsipko summed up the feelings that many citizens felt during the era. True, glasnost created more opportunities for freedom of speech and of the press, but the revelations that came with glasnost on Soviet history completely demoralized the Soviet populace. Tsipko wrote the following to define the shocking feeling that many Soviet citizens had from glasnost’s “therapy by truth”:

No people in the history of mankind was ever enslaved by myths as our people was in the 20th century… We thought that building communism in the USSR was the greatest deed of our people, but we were purposefully engaging in self-destruction…We thought that our national industry, organized like one big factory…was the ultimate achievement of human wisdom, but it all turned out to be an economic absurdity which enslaved the economic and spiritual energies of…Russia.[13]

This powerful sentiment mirrored the feelings to the majority of Soviet citizenry. The heartbreak felt by Tsipko echoed throughout the Soviet Union, as it seemed that everything that Soviet citizens had learned and believed in were all lies fabricated by the CPSU. The feeling of confusion and loss of the Soviet ideology was quickly replaced by open protest and rage against the system that many Soviets had spent their entire lives trusting. Consequently, glasnost allowed open expression of anti-communist and anti-Soviet views that ultimately gained momentum as organized social movements led to public protest against the CPSU.[14] Between the Chernobyl meltdown and the collapse of the USSR was five years of brutal honesty that destroyed many Soviet citizens’ belief in the Soviet system. What sparked this doubt toward the system and the intensification of glasnost was Chernobyl.  

Gorbachev in Retrospect

In a 2006 interview Gorbachev saw Chernobyl as the real reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Chernobyl showed the hypocrisy of glasnost, the CPSU’s unwillingness to be honest with the Soviet people, the economic and environmental devastation on the USSR, and the embarrassment of admitting a cover-up. Combined, they proved to the Soviet people that Gorbachev was not the reformer he claimed to be. Gorbachev states, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later”.[15] Chernobyl was a moment that represented all the problems and hypocrisies that were to come with Gorbachev’s reforms. Yet this loosening of media relations led to more complications than the Soviet Union could swallow, as the policy of glasnost became more of a problem than a solution. Without the intensification of glasnost the Soviet Union could have survived longer than its collapse in 1991. However, if it was not for the Chernobyl meltdown and its failed cover-up, Gorbachev would not have felt obligated to intensify his policy of glasnost.

Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed? Let us know below…

 

[1] Diane Koenker and Ronald D. Bachman, Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 499.

[2] Ibid. 499.

[3] Ibid. 499.

[4] Yuri Andropov. “KGB memorandum from Andropov to the Central Committee, February 21, 1979, on construction flaws at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant”, in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 501.

[5] The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “Urgent report on the Chernobyl accident from the first deputy minister of energy and electrification, April 26, 1986” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 501.

[6] The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “Resolution of the Central Committee, April 29, 1986, on additional measures to be taken concerning the damage caused by the Chernobyl accident” & “Central Committee resolution of April 30, 1986, concerning progress in repairing damage caused by the Chernobyl accident” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 505-508.

[7] Vladimir Gubarev. “Report by Pravda journalist Gubarev on his observations at the site, May 22, 1986” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 509-511.

[8] Malia, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991, 421.

[9] Strayer, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change, 99.

[10] Ibid. 99.

[11] Ibid. 100.

[12] Ibid. 100.

[13] Alexander Tsipko. “Novy Mir 4”, in Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change, 105.

[14] Ibid 105.

[15] Green Road Journal Writing Staff, "Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union, But It Took 20 Years For The Truth To Come Out, Just Like TMI And Fukushima, Denial Plus Cover Up Is The Norm," A Green Road Journal, April 15, 2016, , accessed October 24, 2016, http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2012/12/gorbachev-chernobyl-nuclear-accident.html.