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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.     Cromwell was generous 

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

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

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

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

3.     Cromwell’s new laws had some benefits

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

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

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

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

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

4.     Cromwell had Protestant Leanings

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

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

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

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

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

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

5.     Cromwell was multilingual

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction

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

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

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

The bad start begins

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

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

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

Ioannis Capodistrias

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

King Otto I

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bushido Code

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

Surrender was not an option

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

Special orders - Hiroo Onoda

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

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

Captain Sakae Oba

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A colorised image of Benito Mussolini.

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

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

A less than perfect union

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

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

Veni, Vidi, Vici - except the opposite

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

The final apple of his wandering eye

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

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

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

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

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

[3] ID.

Sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Story of US Revolutionary War Heroine Sybil Ludington

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

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

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

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

Upbringing

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

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

Sybil’s ride through the night

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

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

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

Did Sybil get the recognition she deserved?

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

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

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

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

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

How Public Opinion Impacts Foreign Policy in America

Throughout the history of foreign policy, arguments have been made that public opinion is ineffective and cannot influence foreign policy, with cogent arguments being made by respected writers, historians, and international relations theorists likeWalter Lippmann, Thomas A. Bailey, and George F. Kennan. However, public opinion can influence foreign policy to a large degree.

Here, Alan Cunningham explains how US military conflicts have been influenced by public opinion.

The sunken USS Maine in Havana harbor, leading to the 1898 Spanish-American War.

By simply looking at military conflicts in the United States, we can find that many of these are sharply influenced by U.S. public opinion. The American Revolution, the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War, and the 2003 Iraq War were all heavily influenced by the public’s desires and the media. Individual operations, such as 1989’s Invasion of Panama, 1916’s Pancho Villa Expedition, and 1980’s Operation Eagle Claw, too suffer from public opinion; if the public and Americans’ at large feel that the operation or the conflict is worthwhile, assists in preserving American security and safety, or stops an extreme crisis (like genocide or crimes against humanity) then the overall foreign policy goal continues, but that public support is integral.

Ole Holsti, a professor of political science at Duke University, writes, “the Vietnam War served as a catalyst for a re-examination of the post-World War II consensus on the nature and effects of public opinion. Although these recent studies continued to show that the public is often poorly informed about international affairs, the evidence nevertheless challenged the thesis that public opinion on foreign policy issues is...without significant impact on policy making”. I agree that while most of the public is largely uninformed on international issues and key political-military affairs (social media posts about a draft for World War III in the aftermath of General Qasem Solemani’s targeted killing exemplifies this in my view), the public’s voice does matter and can significantly shape foreign policy decisions and what actions a state takes. The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia and the 1898 Spanish-American War are prime examples of this.

1993 Battle of Mogadishu

To first understand the battle, one must look back at the conditions that shaped Somalia into needing outside, global intervention. The country had long been ruled by Mohamed Siad Barre, a ruler who had accepted both U.S. and Soviet aid, and eventually lost hold of his nation due to declining influence, the collapse of the Soviet Union and a major benefactor, and poor economic policies thrusting the country into decline; In 1991, a rebellion overthrew Barre which resulted in a civil warbased upon tribal lines. The UN developed a task force to return order to the country and U.S. Marines invaded and removed the major tribal forces from power in the capital of Mogadishu. Upon completion of the humanitarian mission, however, it became apparent that the strongest warlord, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, would return to power, so the U.S. began planning to return Somalia to a democracy. As most know, the following six weeks of military special operations were successful, but eventually made large scale, international news when Special Operations Forces operators became entrenched in a fifteen-hour firefight defending two crashed helicopters, with nineteen U.S. military personnel and two UN multinational force soldiers being killed throughout the entirety of the mission. While the mission itself (to capture two high level members of Aidid’s clan) was a success and the U.S. military severely crippled the clan’s military capacity, public opinion about the conflict was molded heavily after seeing the bodies of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Pressured by their constituents, Congress began making similar statements and eventually the Clinton administration decided to fully remove American forces from Somalia.

Public opinion in this case completely changed the outcome of the entire, two-year mission in Somalia and essentially dictated Bill Clinton’s foreign policy until 1995. Due to the public’s desire to focus on domestic issues and not become embroiled in a foreign war (especially one that many saw as having no clear exit strategy or goals), Clinton’s administration kept out of Darfur, Rwanda, and (at least initially) Bosnia. Public opinion dictated how the U.S. should respond in these incidences and eventually forced the administration to reintegrate themselves into defending against genocides after the Rwandan incident.

1898 Spanish-American War

Another example of this can be seen with the Spanish-American War. The Spanish Empire was largely seen as a nuisance and fear to the U.S., being an imperial force so ingrained and entrenched within the Western Hemisphere. Being that the Cuban Revolution was largely seen as a force for democracy and were portrayed as brothers to the American public, many imperialists began calling for war against the Spanish. This call was bolstered by Pulitzer’s New York World and Hearst’s New York Journal and eventually culminated with the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor; with news reports claiming that the Spanish had deliberately sunk the warship, the U.S. made preparations for invasion and launched operations. While the war was short and something of an anomaly in military endeavors (with more personnel dying due to diseases than bullets or wounds), the impact of this was that Cuba’s populace were freed and then immediately put under U.S. rule for a period of time before being handed over to pro-U.S., anti-Communist strongmen like Fulgencio Batista. What this points to is the effect that public opinion and desires have upon foreign policy decisions. While some blame solely Hearst and Pulitzer for beginning the war and single-handedly provoking war, it is important to note that both Pulitzer and Hearst did not have an audience outside of New York and only appealed to the working class, not anyone in politics or white collar workers. As Thomas Kane points out in the journal Contemporary Security Studies, the true decision to invade was because the broad majority of Americans were sick of bloodshed and because many in American politics agreed that trying to contain the situation in Cuba was lost. In the end, public opinion mattered, not how influential newspapermen were.

Conclusion

In both of these, public opinion and support or opposition towards specific policies played a large role in determining how the government would deal with foreign policy matters and how individual administrations would deal with future crises in the globe. Public opinion and outward support of operations, military conflicts, or foreign policy goals has enough coherence to be effective and to seriously change the way that governments operate and go about performing missions and attaining their overall goals.

What do you think of the role of public opinion in influencing foreign policy in the US? Let us know below.

About

Alan Cunningham is a graduate student at Norwich University where he is pursuing an MA in International Relations. He will be joining the United States Armed Forces upon the completion of his degree and aims to gain a PhD in History and a JD from Syracuse University. He has been published in the Jurist, Small Wars Journal, the U.S. Army War College’s War Room, and Eunomia Journal.

What was Britain’s Victorian-era New Poor Law?

The New Poor Law was introduced to Victorian-era Britain in 1834. It replaced the long-standing Old Poor Law as a major piece of social legislation aimed at the poorer people in the country. Here, Chloe Dickinson tells us about the law.

A depiction of poor people coming to a workhouse for food. Source: Wellcome Trust, L0006802. Available here.

The Victorian era seems like a distant memory when we think about the past, but, in fact, it is our close ancestors who lived through the turmoil of the reign of Queen Victoria. Indeed, two key aspects of the life of a pauper were begging and life in the workhouse. In images of the time, the wealthy were shown as cowering away from the paupers who begged, selling the idea that there was a deep divide between the wealthy and the poor. Conversely, in workhouses there were dividing walls to keep inmates separate and large outside walls to prevent life on the outside from creeping in. Cruelty, turmoil, and instability are three words that spring to mind when historians think about the New Poor Law; cruelty because of the deprivation and despair it pushed people into and turmoil and instability because of the strong Anti-Poor Law Movement. So, what was the New Poor Law? How did it come to be? What where the key components? Read on to find out.

The Sampson Kempthorne workhouse design for 300 paupers.

What was the New Poor Law?

To put it plainly, the New Poor Law (Poor Law Amendment Act) is the most important piece of social legislation enacted in Britain. Inaugurated in 1834, the New Poor Law was a radical attempt to overhaul the entire system of poor relief and touched almost every aspect of life and labor from the moment it was implemented.[1] Not only were life and labor affected, but wages, housing, settlement, medicine, and education were all influenced in one way or another. No two counties throughout England and Wales experienced the New Poor Laws components the same. For example, the agricultural South, which had previously used outdoor relief to a great extent felt the cruelty of the New Poor Law more than the industrial North, where there was a high turnover of employment. 

The New Poor Laws key principles were: 

·      The reorganization of local parishes into large Unions 

·      Well-regulated workhouses within each Union

·      A new central body was to be set up to monitor the New Poor Law (Poor Law Commission 1834-1847, then rebranded as the Poor Law Board) 

·      The setting up of Boards of Guardians in each Union and paid officials to administer and grant relief

Something that really brings the New Poor Law to life, is a snippet from a well-loved and famous book – A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843): 

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”[2]

The fact that the ‘gentleman’ states that he wishes that the Union workhouses were not operating displays a sense of contempt for the practice. But, on the other hand, we have Scrooge, who is all for the workhouses. Here, Dickens has cleverly integrated both sides of the New Poor Law debate at the time of its operation. The way in which Dickens illuminates the concerns and support of the New Poor Law really highlights the instability of political and social opinion at the time. 

How did it come to be?

The Old Poor Law, established in 1601, was in place for over two centuries. However, by the time the nineteenth century came, poor rates (a local tax to fund poor relief) were exponentially high, there was tension between social classes and many people of wealth saw there to be abuses of the relief system. Thus, in 1832, a Royal Commission was set up to fully investigate the Old Poor Law and its ‘abuses’ and make recommendations for its amendment. The Poor Law Commissioners, along with their Assistant Commissioners sought out evidence throughout the country on how the Old Poor Law operated. However, it is widely accepted by historians that the Commissioners actually sought out evidence to fit their already preconceived ideas. This can be seen through the fact that the questionnaires that they sent out to towns and parishes mainly went to southern rural parishes. These rural parishes saw high levels of outdoor relief, particularly in the form of child allowances, and the topping up of wages to able-bodied workers. These components of the Old Poor Law, according to the Commissioners, warranted the term abuse. They, and many others, conceived the idea that the giving of outdoor relief to able-bodied paupers to be unjust and an abuse of the relief system in place. Ideally, they wanted able-bodied paupers to be relieved inside the workhouse, where they would ‘earn’ their relief. In 1834, two years after the Commission was set up, the famous Report of the Commissioners was published. Its thousands of pages consisted of the ‘evidence’ that they had collected and included the proposal of the New Poor Law.

What where the key components?

One of the biggest administrative changes that came from the New Poor Laws establishment was the reorganization of parishes into Poor Law Unions. This new formation of boundaries within counties was essential to the running of the New Poor Law, due to the fact that there was to be a well-regulated workhouse within each Union. Each Union was to have their own set of overseers, named the Board of Guardians. These Boards were to be made up of paid officials who would then maintain the workhouses, grant relief and administer relief to those in need. In terms of workhouses, they were made to keep paupers separated in terms of gender and age – this included separating children from their parents.[3] This was based on the Malthusian and Benthamite principles that were popular at the time, particularly amongst those in government. In fact, these ideas had a great influence on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Report they published.

What do you think about the New Poor Law? Should it have been implemented? Let us know below.

[1] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 1. 

[2] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (USA: Delmarva Publications, 2015 Reprint), p. 7.

[3] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), P. 38. 

The Secret Lie that Ended World War One: The Bulgarian Contract

As hard as it may be to believe, not everything is yet known about World War One. Even some major events have remained hidden for more than a century. Here, Graeme Sheppard, author of a new book, tells us about the extraordinary Bulgarian Contract.

Over a hundred years on, and after the production of so many detailed studies, anyone might reasonably assume that there can be nothing new, surely, to discover about the events of World War I. That is, nothing surely of major consequence. A new aspect or angle to a campaign or battle maybe, or perhaps a fresh insight into some familiar ground. But the discovery of new and previously unseen evidence of how and why the war ended when it did in 1918, rather than continue in to 1919? Surely not? And yet a few years ago that was precisely what a visit to the UK National Archives in Kew presented me with.

Why the war ended?

I hadn’t been looking for it or anything like it. In fact, I was searching for unrelated material pertaining to British diplomats in China. But while doing so, I came across a very slim Foreign Office file from 1931. It came in a box with the unpromising title of “Miscellaneous”. It contained a mere few pages: an internal letter from a junior diplomat, one D.J. Cowan, explaining how, while a prisoner-of-war in Bulgaria in 1918, he had encountered among its peasant population word of an extraordinary act of political propaganda and misinformation, one so effective that it had succeeded in propelling Bulgaria out of the war. It was this act, he believed, rather than the Allied offensive of that September, that had been the true cause of the collapse of Macedonian front - a collapse that foreshadowed the November armistice six weeks later. Cowan was clearly making an important claim, and yet, by the look of the file, at the time the letter had elicited little interest.

I was still trying to make sense of this find when a few weeks later I came into possession of the unpublished memoirs of another Foreign Office diplomat and fellow Balkan prisoner, Robert Howe. Howe wrote in the 1970s in his retirement. Quite independently, and with greater detail, he described being a witness to the same Balkan deception. But Howe went further: a few years after the war, in Belgrade, he had actually met the political architect behind the plot. He had discussed the matter with him in the royal palace.

An extraordinary tale

Quite apart from the startling information the pair provided, junior officers Cowan and Howe had an extraordinary story of their own to relate.

In late September 1918, Cowan and Howe, prisoners since 1915 and twice before failed escapees, walked out of their Bulgarian prison camp deep behind enemy lines. Having heard rumors that the Macedonian front had collapsed, on this third occasion they simply announced to their resigned captors that they were leaving. No one stopped them. They then spent several days travelling a hundred miles over chaotic roads and rail lines jammed with an enemy army in a rebellious retreat. Largely ignored on their way, they headed not toward the advancing Allied forces to the south, but instead west toward Sofia, the enemy’s capital, and a city now engulfed in political turmoil. Arriving at the main rail station, which they found in a state of frenzy, they caught a horse-drawn cab to the nearly deserted Ministry of War building. There, despite their less than orderly attire, they brazenly announced to staff there that they were British officers and were taking control of the city in the name of His Majesty the King. No one raised an objection. With their authority established, a ministry car and driver were summoned to take the pair to the city’s Grand Hotel, where they demanded and were provided with the best rooms the establishment had to offer. An hour later, having washed and shaved, they entered the hotel restaurant, only to find it full of senior German officers gloomily eating their dinner. The hotel, it transpired, happened to serve as the German regional headquarters. Undeterred, they informed the maître d' that they required the head table and would the two gentlemen seated there kindly vacate it, at which point the German officers concerned rose wordlessly from their seats. Rubbing salt into the remaining diners’ wounds, one of the chums then raised a toast to the victorious Allies.

“It was a great moment,” remembered Howe. “One of the greatest moments of my life - perhaps never again one like it. One of those moments when you know there is nothing you cannot do, when no obstacles exist, when no one can touch you.”

Contract

A great moment, indeed. And yet, though they did not realize it fully at the time, the two men had so much more to relate. They had experienced a very peculiar captivity in Bulgaria, one of extremes, ranging from internment in the worst of punishment death-camps to that of living in virtual freedom among its peasant folk. Their survival tale, however, provides only the backdrop to their unique eye-witness accounts of a secret act of Balkan propaganda, known as the Contract, one that triggered not only rebellion in Bulgaria and the collapse of the Macedonian front, but also acted as the catalyst for German defeat and the road to the armistice of November 11.

A new book, The Bulgarian Contract, provides readers with two new strands of evidence that together change our understanding of how and why the Great War reached its conclusion. Firstly, recently discovered eye-witness accounts of a clandestine deception that was crucial in bringing about the dramatic collapse of the Macedonian front. Secondly, the direct influence this fraud had on Germany’s High Command (Oberste Heeresleitung) in occupied Belgium, and on de facto dictator, Erich Ludendorff, and his crucial meeting with the Kaiser of September 29, resulting in the road to German surrender six weeks later. Describing politics, revolution, treason, assassination, and deceit, the book explains how without the hitherto unknown Contract, the Great War was destined to continue through the coming winter and into 1919, resulting in many thousands of further deaths.    

You can order The Bulgarian Contract here: http://thebulgariancontract.com/

Image provided to the site and used with permission.

The Third Indian Mughal Emperor: The Early Years of Akbar

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

In part 3, we look at the third Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He reigned from 1556 when he was 13, and was possibly the greatest of the Indian Mughal Emperors. Here, Khadija Tauseef considers his early years and the struggles he had in establishing himself on the throne.

If you missed them, you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here and the second article on Emperor Humayun here.

Mughal Emperor Akbar with an elephant.

Early life

Akbar was born in Umarkot on October 15, 1542, to Emperor Humayun and his young wife, Hamida. Humayun had been on the run, therefore it seems likely that Akbar had a very unsettled early life. In 1553, at the age of ten, Akbar accompanied his father into battle, where he had been given the leadership of his dead uncle Hindal’s followers. In 1555, Akbar was with the advanced guard. However, perhaps Akbar’s early exposure to this violent side of royal life may have had a great impact upon his personality, making him stronger to face the numerous challenges that he would face in life. 

Akbar’s world was shaken when in February 1556, Humayun slipped on the stairs and died. Two months prior to his death, Humayun had appointed Bairam Khan as the guardian of his twelve-year-old son, Akbar. Not yet thirteen, Akbar was thrust into the limelight and quickly proclaimed as the next Emperor of the Mughal throne. As a child emperor, Akbar faced many threats not just from three Afghan rulers but also from a Hindu named Hemu. Akbar found protection in the form of Bairam Khan, who guided him during this difficult time - especially when in October 1556, Hemu marched upon Delhi defeating the Mughal forces that had been stationed there. Despite Hemu’s superior forces, Akbar and Bairam Khan didn’t run; instead they decided to face off against their enemy.

Power

Both armies met on the field of Panipat, where years earlier Babur had won a victory against the Indian princes. 1556 would prove auspicious for the Mughal forces because they won when an arrow pierced Hemu’s eye causing him to faint bringing the battle to an end. Within eighteen months of his accession, the three most serious threats to his throne – Hemu, Sikander Shah and Adil Shah - had all been removed. A result of these constant fights was that he became someone who neglected his studies. Therefore, in a royal family which prized learning more than most, Akbar remained illiterate. 

Bamber Gascoigne believes that the truth may have been different. He claims that “Akbar as a boy had learnt the rudiments of reading and writing, but preferred not to use them—perhaps originally from choice, and later because to read and write badly was worse than not doing so at all”. 

As Akbar grew older, Bairam Khan had continued to run the affairs of state very efficiently. He kept firm control of the center and continually sent out expeditions to enlarge the frontiers of the kingdom. However, Bairam’s rule came to a halt in 1560 when Maham Anga (Akbar’s wet-nurse) and her son, Adham Khan, tricked Akbar into travelling to Delhi without his guardian, Bairam Khan. They took this opportunity to turn Akbar against his guardian. Akbar, who was now seventeen, felt he was ready to take more personal control of the empire’s affairs. Therefore, Akbar suggested Bairam Khan take a pilgrimage to Mecca — this was the Mughal way of ostracism. 

Bairam could have gathered his forces and marched against the young ruler, but loyalty prevented him from taking any sort of action. Unfortunately, on the way, Bairam was murdered by an Afghan, who wanted to take revenge for the death of his father. Akbar believed that he had the power now, but the power held by Bairam had been passed to Maham Anga, who tried to manipulate the young monarch. She soon discovered that she couldn’t have the same amount of absolute control because Akbar now wanted to come into his own.

Betrayal

With Bairam Khan gone, Akbar needed another general to lead his army. He gave command to Adham Khan, who was sent to invade and capture Malwa, ruled by Baz Bahadur. The ruler of Malwa had a reputation as a musician and had a harem filled with beautiful women. Unfortunately, he proved to be less impressive as a general when he lost to the Mughal Army. Adham won a grand victory against the enemy; however, it was during this expedition that his behavior changed. It was tradition that the victorious general had to send the captives and treasures to the Emperor, but Adham only sent a few elephants while keeping the rest of the goods for himself. 

Other offences were committed by Adham Khan and his fellow commander when they gathered the older women of Baz Bahadur’s harem and butchered them. When other Muslim companions protested their actions they too were massacred. When news of Adham’s actions reached Agra, Akbar was outraged. Taking matters into his own hands, he marched to Malwa with a small entourage. Akbar spent a few days clearing all the matters that had taken place, but the ultimate result was that Adham Khan was forgiven. This would prove to be troublesome later. 

Upon returning to Agra, Akbar wanted to ensure that the power that was being held by Maham Anga and her party would be reduced. Thus, in 1561 Akbar appointed Atkah Khan, who had been summoned from Kabul, as chief minister. This change did not sit well with the opposition, who saw their power slipping through their fingers. Therefore, after a few months, Adham Khan burst into the offices of the chief minister, which were next to the harem. Adham and his men assassinated Atkah Khan and then set their sights on the harem. Fortunately, the eunuch guarding the harem locked the door. 

As this was happening, Akbar made his way into the office of the minister, where he was met by the gruesome scene. Gascoigne writes: “… Akbar emerged from another door to confront the assassin. Adham laid his hand on Akbar’s arm in an ambiguous gesture, which might have been either supplication or assault, whereupon Akbar punched him in the face. It was boasted later that the mark looked as though it had been a blow from a mace; at any rate it knocked him unconscious.”

Akbar then ordered the unconscious Adham to be thrown off the parapet. He barely survived from the fall, so Akbar ordered that he be taken back up the stairs and dropped again. This time the fall proved to be fatal. Akbar took it upon himself to inform Maham Anga that her son was dead. Even though Akbar had pardoned Maham Anga, she died several weeks later from grief. Akbar was finally free of all influences, free of all the people who wanted to use him as a stepping-stone to power. Now nineteen years old, Akbar was coming into his own. In his rule he will prove why he was the greatest of the Mughal rulers. 

What do you think of Akbar’s early life? Let us know below.

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

Was Romania Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War 2?

Officially Romania started World War II as neutral, but was it really neutral throughout the whole war? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this question by looking at Romania in the 1920s, the rise of authoritarianism in the country in the 1930s, the role of Romania during the war in the USSR and the Holocaust, and finally how it changed position towards the end of the war.

Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler. Munich, June 1941. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B03212 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Looking back on the belligerent nations of the Second World War, Romania is often counted as part of the Axis nations. Romania’s Fascist leader, Ion Antonescu, was close with Hitler, the country had officially joined the Axis in 1941, and Romanian troops fought alongside the Germans on the Eastern Front.

If one was to judge Romania simply by these factors alone, then the county can be consigned to the realm of yet another Axis collaborator. However, Romania’s situation during the Second World War was more complex than meets the eye, and an assessment of neutrality requires an examination of what led to its position in the conflict.

A Political Problem

Following the conclusion of the First World War in 1918, Romania was one of the few countries to end up better off than it had been before the war; it received generous awards of territory that allowed the country to nearly double in size, with its population reaching up to 16 million. [1] 

In addition to managing all its new peoples and territory, a major issue in Romania following the conclusion of the First World War was the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Romania had a solid foundation of democracy, given that its two strongest political parties throughout the 1920s, the Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party, were both recognized for their staunch democratic viewpoints. The National Peasant Party even won the 1928 election, and, at the time, the future seemed to bode well for democracy in Romania.

However, things changed in the 1930s with two major events that would shape Romania’s future turn towards authoritarianism. The first major change was the Great Depression, which crippled Romania’s economy and shook the people’s faith in their democratic government, led by Iuliu Maniu. This left people free to look for solutions to the country’s problems in more extreme political movements, a familiar narrative in Europe at the time. The second major change came with the accession of King Carol II to the throne, who would push democracy aside in favor of his own self-centered reign.

A Controversial Figure 

Carol was born on October 15, 1893 and was the first Romanian monarch to be born in the country; previous monarchs were of German descent. [2] Carol was raised by his aunt and uncle, King Carol I and Queen Elisabeth, who felt that his parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Marie, were unable to raise their son properly because they were too young. His uncle tried to raise Carol in his own militaristic image, but quickly found out the boy preferred a hedonistic lifestyle of party and drink, caring little for military pomp and ceremony. Carol was extremely adventurous; he joined the Prussian Guards military unit and fought in both the Second Balkan War of 1913 and the First World War.

Carol renounced his claim to the throne twice - first in 1918 and again in 1925 - and gave birth to his son Mihail, future king of Romania, in 1921 with his second wife Helen of Greece (his first marriage was a messy affair, conducted without the approval of Parliament and was swiftly dissolved). 

In 1927, Carol’s father died, and the throne went to his infant son, with a regency ruling on his behalf while Carol lived in France in exile. Although he had been officially excluded from the throne by his father’s will and by a law passed in 1926, he returned to Romania in 1930 with the goal of reclaiming his position on the throne. [3] Following a coup that took place on June 7, 1930, Carol took his place as Romania’s king over his infant son.

Upon usurping the throne, Carol immediately tried to increase his own power, disregarding the oath he had sworn upon taking the throne to uphold the 1923 Constitution, and began to fashion himself as a dictator. During his reign, and as a consequence of his growing admiration of the Fascist policies of Benito Mussolini in Italy, he began to dismantle Romanian democracy. His attempts came to a head in 1938, when he dissolved all political parties and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. This was done following his discovery of a plan that attempted to bring the anti-Semitic and Fascist Iron Guard into power.

As Europe once again drew closer to war, Carol tried to appease both sides - he appealed to Britain for help while also trying to improve relations with Germany by visiting Hitler. When the Second World War officially broke out in September 1939, Carol declared neutrality. However, in May 1940, seeing the shocking fall of France and the Allies back-pedaling, he decided to officially join the Axis.

Unfortunately, Carol’s reign did not last much longer. In June 1940, under threat from the Soviet Union and knowing his army was no match for the Red Army, Carol was forced to surrender pieces of Romanian territory to appease Stalin. In August, further territory in Transylvania (which had been awarded after World War One) was ceded to Hungary as a result of the Second Vienna Award. This was a set of territorial disputes arbitrated by the Fascist powers of Italy and Germany with the goal of drawing Hungary into their alliance. [4] This resulted in Carol losing support from the people, and the army refused to follow his orders. Out of desperation, Carol named General Ion Antonescu as prime minister, but was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mihail on September 6, 1940. However, Mihail immediately granted Antonescu dictatorial power, further paving the way for the Fascist regime, as Antonescu would later ally himself with the powerful Iron Guard.

Rise of the Iron Guard

Much like other European countries during the tumultuous interwar period, Romania had its own Fascist-style movement that sprang up during the 1930s. Following King Carol’s dissolution of various political parties in 1938, a new party to crop up in Romania was the Legion of the Archangel Michael led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, whose father was the leader of the largest extreme anti-Semitic party in Romania. [5]

For several years, the Legion was just a small organization with little money or support. In 1930, the Legion founded a militia branch called the Iron Guard, which included all Legionnaires (members) between the ages of 18 and 30, and won two local by-elections, thereby gaining parliamentary representation for the first time in 1931. In the national elections of 1932, support for the Legion rose to only 2.37 percent. [5] However, the National Peasant Party, which won the election, showcased interest in obtaining the help of the Iron Guard’s Legionnaires. At the same time, Nazism was rising in Germany and Nazi contacts became more frequent in Romania, even establishing a Romanian Nazi party.

The Legion acknowledged the Romanian monarchy as an important and fundamental institution, and as a result, King Carol actively tried to reign in and exploit the Legion for his own purposes until 1937. However, realizing his efforts were futile, Carol tried to stamp out the organization - a move which also failed.

In the 1937 elections, the party finished third with 15.5% of the vote, its highest total yet. When Carol abolished all parties and declared a royal dictatorship the following year, Codreanu urged his compatriots to accept the new regime, but was arrested by the government and put to death. An internal battle for power followed his death, with the victor being Horia Sima.

Antonescu’s War Contributions

Upon taking power, Antonescu allied himself with the Iron Guard and established Romania as the authoritarian National Legionary State. However, this new state was not to last long - Antonescu and the Guard had opposing ideologies. Antonescu embodied strict order, while the Guard aligned itself with chaos, rejecting Antonescu’s social policies. This led to a rift which erupted in January 1941 when he used the army to destroy the Guard, making himself a military dictator for the remainder of the war.

By this time, the Second World War was in full swing, and Antonescu decided to ally himself with Hitler, who he had no doubt would win the conflict. He committed Romanian troops and resources to aid the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, hoping that he would be granted the territory of Transylvania after the war’s conclusion. [1] In fact, Romanian troops in the invading Axis army numbered the second highest. [6] This proved to be a disastrous move as the Soviets repelled the attack, leading to huge numbers of Romanian casualties, destroying Antonescu’s hope that Germany would win the war.

In 1941, the Iron Guard attempted (and failed) to overthrow Antonescu, forcing its leaders to flee the country. By 1943, the tide of war had turned against the Axis powers, and Romania was subjected to Allied bombings, especially its oil fields, which were vital to the war effort. The Soviets, who had recovered from the previous invasion and were now pushing their way back across Europe towards Berlin, invaded Romanian territory and the army was unable to hold them back.  Seeing his country’s plight and sensing an opportunity, Mihail gathered his supporters and launched a coup, overthrowing Antonescu's government. He proceeded to align Romania with the Allies and the Soviets, declaring war on Germany on August 23, 1944.

Romania would spend the rest of the war fighting alongside the Allies against the Germans, waging bloody battles across Eastern Europe. Although it ended the war on the winning side, Romania lost a lot of territory as a result of the Soviets downplaying the defection of King Mihail, given that, for a majority of the war, Romania had fought against the Soviets. In post-war negotiations, the Soviet Union was given a 90% share of control over the country, which would result in its Cold War Sovietization and the rise of a Communist regime. [6]

The Holocaust

Romania’s role in the Holocaust is often forgotten. Unlike Germany or Italy, Romania was not driven by a desire for conquest, but a desire to do what was best for the national interests of the country. During the period of Antonescu’s leadership, the government ramped up its anti-Semitic laws and authorized many pogroms which killed thousands of Jews within Romanian borders. However, the Romanian government later realized that they could make a large profit from the situation by allowing European Jews transit through Romania to safer lands while charging exit fees. Abroad, Romanian anti-Semitism was showcased by the atrocities of Romanian troops massacring upwards of 260,000 Jews in southern Russia and Ukraine. [7]

One of the most infamous incidents was the Odessa Massacre in 1941, in which approximately 30,000 Jews were murdered by German and Romanian soldiers. [8] On October 16, 1941, the Red Army surrendered the city of Odessa to German and Romanian troops after two and a half months of bloody and bitter fighting. At this point, roughly 250,000 inhabitants remained in the city, including some 90,000 Jews.

Around 6.45 p.m. on October 22, a bomb (probably in place since before the city’s capture) exploded close to the Romanian headquarters, killing 67 people, including 16 Romanian and four German officers. Angered, the invaders announced that for every dead officer, 200 "Bolsheviks" must be executed, and 100 for every dead soldier.  However, there were no longer any “Bolsheviks” left in the city - they had fled long ago. Instead, the city’s Jewish population faced the retaliation of the invading armies. Between October 22 and 23, up to 30,000 people were rounded up and locked in nine empty munitions depots at the edge of the city, which were then doused in gasoline and set on fire. Similar horrifying acts of extermination took place across Ukraine over the following months and weeks.

Figures show that Romania bore responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any other German-allied country other than Germany itself. [7] In the face of such clear destruction and hatred, the Romanian government has steadfastly maintained its innocence, blaming these acts solely on the Germans and Hungarians. As recently as 2003, the government stated that it is “unjust to link Romania to the persecution of the Jews in Europe” and that the numbers of Jews killed in Romanian-perpetrated atrocities were being inflated for the sake of media impact. [7] Romania must face the horrors of its Holocaust past and accept the role it played in one of the worst atrocities in history.

Conclusion

The question of whether Romania can truly be considered neutral is easy to answer. Despite the country’s declaration of strict neutrality at the outset of the war, the political situation within the country forced Romania into the Axis camp. Its politically Fascist ideologies, anti-Semitic policies and actions taken towards Jews, and the contribution of manpower to help the German army in its attempt to crush the Soviets meant that Romania, like Italy, was firmly a wartime ally of the Germans - even if official statements may have indicated otherwise. Romania made more contributions to the Axis war effort, both militarily and ideologically, than it did to the Allied war effort, only fighting alongside the Allies for roughly a year, and only when it was already too late to have an impact.

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

Now, you can read Stefan’s article on whether Portugal was neutral in World War Two here.

Sources

[1]“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

[2] Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

[3] “Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

[4] “Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

 [5] Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

 [6] Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

 [7] Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

 [8] Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

Bibliography

-“Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

- Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

-“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

- Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

- Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

-“Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.