The Trauma of the 9/11 and the Iraq War

The 9/11 terror attacks led to many consequences for America and the world. Here, David Huff returns and looks at how those events unfolded, and their implications with the perspective of the past two decades.

US troops fighting in Baghdad, Iraq in 2007. Source: Sean A. Foley, U.S. Army, available here.

Overview

The September 11, 2001 attacks on New York City and the Pentagon should not have surprised leading officials in the United States Government. Although former president George W. Bush and many of the colleagues were aware of al-Qaeda's nefarious deeds (i.e. the attack on the U.S. Cole on October 12, 2000), it is my contention that the Bush Administration had an ulterior motive when George W. Bush assumed office on January 20, 2001.Their primary goal was to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq in order to provide the United States with greater leverage in its dealings with Saudi Arabia (i.e. the Saudi Royal Family) and Iran. The installation of a more compliant power broker in Iraq would also provide multi-national corporations, especially oil companies, with a lucrative investment opportunity in that country. Although other underlying considerations may have played a factor in the administration's decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, I never believed the publicly-stated reasons for going to war in March 2003 had to do with Hussein's alleged involvement in the 9/11 attacks or his supposed acquisition of material to build a nuclear weapon. 

The Iraq Debacle

In addition, as the decades have transpired, Iraq’s troubles have deepened as a result of deep structural problems that have combined together over decades of war and political crises – with factors like extreme population growth, high-urbanization, a breakdown of traditional economic structures, acute over-employment in unproductive state industries, growing water and climate issues, and the equivalent of a divided government by those who seek primarily status and personal gain at the expense of the people which, in turn, claims a far too large share of the nation’s oil wealth. To that end, in 2006, Iraq's conflict evolved into a civil war, fought among three factions: Sunni insurgents, including Islamist extremists and former Saddam loyalists; Shia militias, a number of them rogue members of state security forces; and the US-led military occupation.  As a result, the country collapsed into sectarian violence as the various factions fought for power and control, not equalitarian self-government.

Furthermore, the Bush Administration's officials were naive about September 11, 2001. It is the height of bravado to conclude that the United States could transform a very ancient civilization like Iraq that in 2003 did not have the democratic foundations required to attain a flourishing and successful democracy. That the administration's leaders could not comprehend that al-Qaeda had the capability of executing such a major operation seems to me they had not done their homework on the overall scope and power of al-Qaeda. In fact, during President Clinton's meeting with President-Elect George W. Bush after the 2000 election, Clinton told Bush about al-Qaeda's growing threat in the arena of global terrorism (please see reference below).

September 11, 2001 and Iraq in Historical Perspective

In addition, I find most telling that the Bush administration's response to 9/11 undermined the principles and values America has always stood for in the world. As an astute observer of history, their response was a continuation of the undermining of many of the core principles and values that this country has always celebrated. We didn't get "off-track" under Bush, but it seems during the decades of the 1960s and 1970s, due to events including the Kennedy assassination in Dallas on November 22, 1963, the Vietnam War, the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, and the Watergate scandal. Due to the lingering questions that remain unresolved in these tragedies, the American people lost their faith in government and the government earned that loss of faith. I think perhaps the second is more important when the government justifies a loss of faith - it is a deep subversion of the American democratic system. Although this contention might seem a bit different, it is interesting to note that when people become cynical toward their institutions, it leaves the door open to politicians, whether on the left or the right, who are willing to exploit circumstances and situations to achieve their own political ends.

These issues strike at the very heart of the American nation. In essence, they remind us that a free and democratic society must grapple with complex and painful political and social upheavals that challenge our conventional accounting of how we perceive our country. It is paramount that we unite as a people to combat the internal divisions as well as the cynicism that has eaten away at the fabric of our society. In order to survive as a civilization, we will have to restore our faith in our political and social institutions, provide adequate health care for all Americans and create an educational system that enables our children, who are our future, to learn and flourish. I am convinced that our civilization really needs strong, smart and courageous people who are willing to step forward to do whatever it takes to make our country a stronger and better place. All of that can be accomplished by enlightened political and moral leadership, congressional bipartisanship and the self-discipline and sacrifice of the American people.

Finally, a hallmark of a civilized society is that it protects its heritage. In short, a remembrance of things past provides an understanding of where we came from and who we are as a civilization. However, we seem to be faced with a perversion of our American heritage.

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

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

References

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/clinton-says-he-warned-bush-on-bin-laden-1.504928

Charles de Gaulle: The French Leader’s Divided Legacy

Charles de Gaulle’s impact on French history and the world history cannot denied. However, de Gaulle had his detractors and supporters on both ends of the political aisles. During World War II his actions often strained his relationships with the other Allied Powers. His actions and decisions during the Algerian War of Independence left polarizing legacies that are felt to this day. Lastly de Gaulle’s actions in 1967 in Canada would nearly lead to its dissolution.  Charles de Gaulle was the epitome of the Volte-Face or two faced leader of Europe.  

Daniel Boustead explains.

French President Charles de Gaulle with US President John F. Kennedy in 1961.

World War II

In World War II, Charles de Gaulle started to show his divisive ways by undermining the Allied political and military leadership. On one hand de Gaulle (after fleeing France after the 1940 German invasion) portrayed himself as the embodiment of the French nation, a modern-day male Joan of Arc who would lead the fight against the Nazis and their Vichy hirelings and thus restore France to its rightful place and greatness ([1]).  On the other hand according to French historian Francois Kersody, de Gaulle seemed to be permanently involved in a two-front war: “a public war against Vichy and the Germans, and a private war against the British Admiralty, the British Air Ministry, the British War Office, the British Intelligence Service, the British Foreign Office, the British Prime Minister, the U.S. State Department, and the President of the United States”. The British and the Americans viewed de Gaulle as a useful ally but also as a source of much consternation because of his prima donna behavior, incredible ego, and arrogance. On June 18, 1940, during a radio broadcast, de Gaulle gave the French people hope and issued an appeal to French servicemen to fight against the Nazis. However, his sense of ego, arrogance, and vain glory would always come to the forefront.  After the Allied Landings in North Africa in 1942 to 1943, he was particularly worried that Great Britain would take over France’s colonial role in the Levant. Once, when asked for his opinion about Charles de Gaulle, the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill mused: “If I regard de Gaulle as a great man? He is selfish, he is arrogant, he believes he is the center of the world. He… You are quite right. He is a great man” (1). In May 1943 when de Gaulle (before departing London) to set up his headquarters in Algiers de Gaulle said goodbye to the British Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden. Eden asked, “Do you know you have given us more difficulty than all our European Allies?” to which de Gaulle answered “I have no doubt of it. France is a great power.”(1) Once when Winston Churchill blamed de Gaulle right in front of him for his stubbornness, de Gaulle replied in a moment of naked candor “I am too poor to bow” (1). De Gaulle could not afford to compromise, as he did not have anything to compromise with. This stubbornness (according to author Jonathan Fenby) was “bordering on the irrational”(1). 

American President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saw Charles de Gaulle as a dictator type saying, “There is no man in which I have less confidence”(1). In fact, FDR wanted to replace de Gaulle as leader of the Free French with General Henri Giraud, but Giraud was politically inept and lacked popular support. So, as a result of this the Anglo-Americans were stuck with de Gaulle. After the June 6, 1944, D-Day Normandy invasion FDR had wanted to place France under military administration, but typically de Gaulle presented the Allies with a fait accompli by immediately setting up his own administration in Baujeau. In August 1944 when the French Resistance engaged in an insurrection which forced General Dwight David Eisenhower to liberate the city rather than bypass it, General de Gaulle ordered French General Leclerc to rush his tanks to Paris, making it look like the French had liberated themselves. To the Allies he was both a useful ally and a prima donna and who was also difficult as a partner. 

Algerian War of Independence

The Algerian War of Independence from 1954 to 1962 would not only bring Charles de Gaulle back into political and military power but also into controversy over his actions. On May 30, 1958, Charles de Gaulle agreed to form a government and then on June 1, 1958, he presented himself to the National Assembly of France as Prime Minister ([2]). On June 4, 1958, de Gaulle visited Algeria and General Raoul Salan introduced him by saying “Our Great cry of joy and hope has been heard”, which was followed by a loud cheering for de Gaulle for three minutes ([3]). However, it was as de Gaulle was giving this speech at the Government General building in Algiers Algeria, there was an apartment building in which an unrepentant Petainist member belonging to the French Army’s splinter group of Ultras, had a rifle with a telescopic sight ready to kill de Gaulle (3). The reason this man wanted to kill de Gaulle was that he believed (along with his splinter group) that de Gaulle was going to abandon Algeria. This was the first of some 30 assassination attempts on de Gaulle’s life. This first one failed because the assassin listened to the rest of de Gaulle’s speech and abandoned his attempt to kill him.

In time de Gaulle would create many enemies over his Algeria policies. In October 1958 he told General Massu and other army officers in the Committee of Public Safety to withdraw from the organization (which was subsequently stood down altogether) ([4]). De Gaulle also issued an order to General Raoul Salan in October 1958 that said, “The moment has come when the military must cease to take any part in any organization with a political character”(4). This order enraged the “ultras” in the military, but it was followed anyway. In a devastating blow in December 1958, a one -time de Gaulle supporter General Raoul Salan (who was Commander in Chief of the French Army in Algeria and de facto civil governor of Algeria) was sent into a “gilded retreat” as a military governor of Paris by order of de Gaulle. Salan viewed the appointment as an insult.

On January 8, 1959, he became the first President of the Fifth French Republic ([5]). In September 1959 de Gaulle made an announcement in support of Algerian “self determination”. De Gaulle also made three speeches that were in favor of Algerian independence in lead up to the January 8, 1961 successful referendum offering Algerians several options, including self government. On April, 20 1961 there was a failed French Army General Putsch against de Gaulle’s Pro-Algerian independence policies that lasted until April 27, 1961 ([6]). From September 5, 1961, de Gaulle announced that his negotiations with the Algerian FLN Resistance group would no longer insist on maintaining French sovereignty over the Sahara. De Gaulle officially explained his actions towards Algeria in terms of the “inevitability” of independence, and as part of “the process of decolonization”. Furthermore, de Gaulle simply did not believe Algerian Muslim people were French (5). As de Gaulle exclaimed to French General Marie-Paul Allard in 1959, “You cannot possibly consider that one day an Arab, a Muslim, could be the equal of a Frenchman” (5). On July 3, 1962, Algeria declared its independence from France ([7]). The consequence of Algeria’s independence was that France assimilated one million Pied Noirs (Black Feet), the European settlers and Jewish people who once lived in Algeria ([8]). To Algerian Muslims, de Gaulle caved into their demands for independence, while some segments of the Pied Noirs viewed de Gaulle as a traitor for giving up Algeria.  

Canada

Charles de Gaulle’s actions in Canada would lead to subsequent events that almost split up Canada. On July 24, 1967, de Gaulle visited Montreal, Quebec and stood on the balcony of Montreal City Hall and shouted during a speech “Vive le Quebec libre” or “Long Live Free Quebec” to a crowd bellow (9). The result of the speech gave an international voice to Quebec’s burgeoning sovereigntist or separatist movement and caused a diplomatic incident. In the immediate aftermath of de Gaulle’s speech Canadian Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson criticized de Gaulle’s speech saying de Gaulle’s “statements were unacceptable to the Canadian people” (9). After he gave the legendary speech he skipped his planned events in Ottawa, Canada and returned to France early. Relations between Canada and France remained touchy for years. 

One prominent Quebec separatist who was directly impacted by de Gaulle’s speech was Rene Levesque, who was then a high-ranking Liberal member of Quebec’s National Assembly. Levesque wrote a letter to then ex- Quebec Premier Jean Lesage not long after de Gaulle ‘s visit and said de Gaulle’s message had provided a “formidable injection of pride”, “the best occasion we’ve ever had to break our isolation”(9). Rene Levesque then founded the Pro-Sovereigntist political party Parti Quebecois or PQ in November 1967. Rene Levesque vaulted the PQ to power in 1976, winning 71 seats out of the 110 seats in the Quebec parliament.

Since then, there have been two referendums in Quebec, with the second putting Canada on the brink of breaking up. In 1980 there was referendum in Quebec, in which 59% voted to remain part of Canada(10).  The Second Referendum in Quebec was held in 1995 in which 50% voted to remain in Canada and 49% voted to choose to follow a secessionist path (10). The impact of de Gaulle’s words that fateful 1967 speech still lingers in Quebec’s society (9). To the Quebecois Separatist Secessionist Sovereigntists, Charles de Gaulle is a hero who continues to inspire their ideals of an Independent Quebec, while to other Canadians, especially English-speaking Canadians, de Gaulle is a separatist instigator with no diplomatic tact who almost destroyed their country.  

Conclusion

Charles de Gaulle’s impact on the 20th and even 21st centuries was important. He provided decisive leadership to the French people during World War II, while managing to also butt heads with other Allied leaders. His decisions during the Algerian War resulted in the Algerian people’s demands for independence being realized. At the same he uprooted and alienated some segments of the Pied Noir population of Algeria. In Canada he is beloved by Quebecois separatist secessionists while other Canadians despise him because he wanted to rip apart their country. Charles de Gaulle left a truly polarizing legacy.

What do you think of Charles de Gaulle? Let us know below. And find out more about him here.

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

[1] Bering, Henrik. “The Audacity of de Gaulle”. Policy Review of the Hoover Institution of Stanford University (February 1st, 2013): . Accessed on November 7th, 2021. https://www.hoover.org/research/audacity-de-gaulle . 

[2] Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962: With a New Preface. New York: New York. New York Review Books. 2006. 298. 

[3] Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962: With a New Preface. New York: New York. New York Review Books. 2006. 301. 

[4] Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962: With a  New Preface. New York: New York. New York Review Books. 2006. 309. 

[5] Shepard, Todd. The Invention of Decolonization: The Algerian War and The Remaking of France. Ithaca: New York. Cornell University Press. 2006.  74 to 75. 

[6] Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962: With a New Preface. New York: New York. New York Review Books. 2006. 448 to 460. 

[7] Shepard, Todd. The Invention of Decolonization: The Algerian War and The Remaking of France. Ithaca: New York. Cornell University Press. 2006. 1. 

[8] Horne, Alistair. A Savage War of Peace: Algeria 1954-1962:With a New Preface. New York: New York. New York Review Books. 2006. 549. 

9 Bellemare, Andrea. CBC News . Last Posted or Modified or Updated on July 24th, 2017. Accessed on November 7th,2021. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/charles-de-gaulle-speech-50th-anniversary-1.4218130

10 Bryant, Nick. “Neverendum referendum: Voting on independence, Quebec-style”. Last Updated or Modified on  September 8th, 2014.  BBC News . Accessed on November 10th, 2021. https://www.bbc.com/news/magzine-29077213 . 

The Paraguayan President who Brought his Country to Military Catastrophe – Part 4: How the War Ended

Francisco Solano Lopez was president of Paraguay from 1862 to 1870. He led the country during one of the most devastating defeats in all history – the War of the Triple Alliance. Here, Erick Redington concludes this fascinating series by looking at how a Brazilian leader managed to take Humaita and the capital, Asuncion – and how Marshall Lopez continued to resist even after these captures.

If you missed it you can read part 1 on the early life of Francisco Solano Lopez here, part 2 on the start of the War of the Triple Alliance here, and part 3 on devastating battles for both sides here.

The 1868 Battle of Avay.

Marshal Lopez knew about all the changes in the Allied high command. He was kept informed through an intelligence network of spies and sympathizers. The changes could only have been encouraging. With Mitre gone, and Argentina facing internal dissention and rebellion, their contribution to the war would be diminished at worst, and eliminated at best. Flores' term ending, and then assassination, meant that Uruguay would have another round of internal problems, which could only work to the Marshal's favor. Then the elephant in the room, Brazil. The new commander was probably just some other decadent Brazilian noble with a fancy title, but no match for the Marshal's military genius. 

There were reasons for the Marshal to be confident. Sure his armies were ill equipped, ill fed, and his country was significantly outweighed. But these facts had been true from the start. Yet, despite all this, he had survived. Paraguay had survived. The strategy of making the Allies pay for every step, letting the terrain and disease take their tolls, seemed to be working. The Allies were barely into Paraguay. Tens of thousands had been killed or invalided out. The Argentines and Uruguayans were seemingly withdrawing from the war. There had been no uprising against his rule. The nascent Paraguayan Legion, full of his opponents, was stymied. For the Marshal, all that seemed necessary was just a little more exertion, if the Paraguayan people could give just a little more, then a peace he could live with could finally be achieved.

For Lopez, the seeming successes (or non-failure depending on your perspective) were further convincing him of his own correctness, and the baseness of his opponents. He had done this himself. The American minister to Paraguay once wrote that the Marshal had many flatterers, but no advisors. The Marshal had stymied the Allies, and this led to a further inflated ego. Other issues began to rear their heads. Lopez did not share in the privations of his soldiers. He was a known gourmand, and would eat enormous amounts of food, even specialty cakes that would have been unthinkable for anyone not in the Marshal's immediate family. Worse, Lopez would drink large amounts of alcohol. Prior to modern sanitary methods, drinking alcohol did not carry the risks of disease, such as dysentery, that drinking unclean water did. However, Lopez's consumption of alcohol grew over the years of the war, and when he drank too much, he was known to lash out at those around him angrily. These scenes of anger would not bode well for the future.

When the Marquis de Caxias took command, he trained, organized and equipped his forces. As a veteran of every war of the Empire, he knew the importance of morale and logistics, and was determined to avoid the mistakes of his predecessors. Whereas the Marshal had assumed that Caxias was going to be another dull Brazilian nobleman, it was Caxias who would rebuild the Brazilian forces, and use the newfound unity of command to wield the Allied army and navy as one instrument for the destruction of Marshal Lopez.

Humaitá Falls      

By July 1867, Caxias was ready to move the Allied Army. President Mitre had made some rumblings about wanting to return to the army to reassume command, and Caxias had to move fast to maintain his operational control. The goal was Humaitá. The Marshal had used the months of inactivity to strengthen the Gibraltar of South America. One element that the Marshal had not counted on was the advancements in naval technology of the previous decade. When Humaitá was originally built by Carlos Antonio Lopez, naval vessels were still primarily made of wood, and steam propulsion was new. The bend in the river would slow ships and the guns of the fort would bring their destruction. With ironclad warships becoming more common, even in South America, the position Humaitá was in was not as impregnable as it had been.   

Utilizing terrain and slowing down the Allies, the Marshal wanted to make his enemies bleed for every foot of Paraguayan ground they stepped on. Caxias was willing to accept casualties in order to encircle the Paraguayan fortress. Being outnumbered almost 2-1, however, limited the Marshal's options and he could not afford a pitched battle. For the Marquis, a pitched battle was what he wanted. He was simply unable to achieve it at this stage. Lopez knew his numbers were low, and he had limited prospects of getting more men. Pre-teen boys and old men were being conscripted into the Paraguayan army. These young men would prove some of the Marshal's most devoted followers. The use of child soldiers would be one of the biggest stains on the Marshal's record and is one of the greatest controversies of the war. For the Paraguayans, they felt they had no alternative. According to the Marshal's propaganda, the Allies were going to partition the country and the Brazilians were going to enslave them. These were motivations to get families to freely give up their children for service. And besides, these children would be under the command of the brilliant Marshal Lopez, who would ensure their safety.

The Marquis would order a wide flanking maneuver to surround the fortress, then when close positions were attained, begin land and naval bombardments. If the Paraguayans would not evacuate, Humaitá would be besieged and the Paraguayan army trapped inside, hopefully with the Marshal as well. Mostly, this is what happened. However, due to the terrain, it was impossible to completely surround Humaitá as closely as the Marquis would have liked. Despite this the Allied army was able to take up positions facing Humaitá, and the siege was on. The defense of this place had been built up in the minds of both sides that immediate evacuation by the Marshal was impossible. For both sides, it was the focus of the war. As long as it held out, there was still hope for the Paraguayans. If it fell, the Allies hoped they would have an open road to Asunción.  

As has been seen, Marshal Lopez was not one to sit and wait for anything to happen to him. He would make attacks during the siege, and at times put the Allies back on their heels. Active defense seemed to be the tactic Marshal Lopez excelled at. But his army was also starving. A larger proportion of his solders everyday was made up of children and old men. Weapons were outdated. Ammunition and powder were short. It was amazing the Paraguayans held on as long as they did. But the Marshal could feel the squeeze he was being put under. Slowly, steadily, month after month, the Allies strangled the Paraguayans. The Brazilians showed early in the siege that their ironclads were able to run the guns of the fortress and make it up river, virtually defeating the purpose of the fortress at that location. With the fleet now able to go upriver and shell Paraguayan positions, Humaitá slowly became untenable. Small-scale counter attacks would not be enough. The Allies inexorably closed in. But no matter how many counter attacks, ambushes, and disruptions to the Allied supply line the Marshal made, he could not shake the grip that Caxias had on Humaitá. It became a matter of time. 

Marshal Lopez was not a man to sacrifice himself in the last ditch defense of the fortress. Nor would he allow himself to be captured by his enemies while there were still Paraguayan soldiers left to carry on. Leaving a small force to man the fort and maintain a semblance of their presence, the Marshal ordered his troops to retreat further north. The Marquis was prepared to assault the fortress that for so long had frustrated Allied designs. When the Allies were prepared for the final assault, negotiations began for surrender. Over 1,200 Paraguayan troops surrendered. These men were starving and sick. Their commander, Colonel Martinez, was so starved, by one report his skin had begun to turn yellow. Despite this, surrender by the Paraguayans up until this moment had been unthinkable. To the Allies, the Paraguayans were unthinking automatons in the service of a brutal dictator. Seeing the walking corpses come out of the fort that day reinforced their belief.

Things Fall Apart

For the Marshal, surrender had been unthinkable. He had only left orders for the evacuation of the sick and wounded, not understanding this meant the whole garrison. Although he had held out for longer than anyone had the right to expect, with the fortress gone, he now began to worry about the safety of his capital. Retreat north was a necessity. The Marquis, however, was not willing to rest on his laurels and savor the triumph. Further naval probes were ordered. The advance would continue.

Before confronting his enemies in front of him, Lopez confronted his perceived enemies behind him. This would be the start of one of the greatest black marks against the Marshal’s character. Paraguay was an authoritarian state, and the Marshal was used to instant obedience. It seems that when his orders had been disobeyed and Humaitá surrendered, Lopez began to delude himself with the idea that there was a massive conspiracy against him personally. Massive numbers of arrests were made. Everyone from foreign travelers to government officials were arrested and subject to extreme forms of torture to extract confessions. Priests were used as informants and the confessional was no longer sacred. Families would inform on each other. Even the Marshal’s family was not immune. His brother would be arrested, and his mother would be tortured for the sin of telling him that he was born out of wedlock. Plots to overthrow the Marshal or to surrender to the Allies were allegedly everywhere. Historians have debated whether any of this conspiracy mongering was based in fact, but there is very little evidence. One result did come about. If no one was willing to challenge the Marshal before, now there was no one left in government or the inner circle who would even think of telling the Marshal the truth about the situation again.

Lopez looked for a defensible position from which to stymie the Allied advance. He settled on the banks of the Piquissiri River south of Asunción. It was here the Marquis would show himself a superior general to the Marshal. Caxias would cross the river, enter the terrible terrain of the Gran Chaco and flank the Paraguayan army. Then he could take the Marshal from behind and destroy him before he could retreat further north. This is exactly what happened. At the Battle of Avay, much of the remaining Paraguayan army was destroyed. With this, there was nothing stopping the Marquis from taking the Paraguayan capital, which was done on New Year’s Day 1869.

The Fall                   

Although the Allies hoped that taking the Paraguayan capital would end the war, that would not be signaled until the Marshal was removed from the board. Ever the survivor, Lopez fled north into the wilderness and the mountains. He would take whatever boys and old men were left, form a new army, and fight a guerilla war against the Allies and their newest ally, the Paraguayan Provisional government. This group was set up by the Allies to govern the country. For Lopez, this group of men was even worse than Brazilians, they were traitors. Many Paraguayans would see them the same way. The war would continue.

For over a year, the Marshal would fight his guerilla war. The Marquis de Caxias would leave the war zone, to be replaced by the Emperor’s son-in-law, the Comte d’Eu. There were more battles, but the primary result was more needless suffering by the Paraguayan people. The battles of the last year of the war would see whole villages burned to the ground and brutal reprisals and counter reprisals by both sides. D’Eu was determined to destroy the support system that sustained the Marshal’s armies and would brutally punish any area that gave the Marshal support. The Marshal would launch deadly attacks on anyone who aided the Allies or would not actively support him. Unlike many dictators who can allow passive acceptance, the Marshal required active participation in his activities by his people. The Marshal had no hope of victory, yet he would order the instant death of Paraguayans who even spoke of surrender. The Paraguayan people probably knew they were doomed, but what else could they do? The habituation of obedience had been with them since the days of Dr. Francia. There was nothing left for the Paraguayan people to do but to fight and die. 

The Comte d’Eu would order continuous campaigns to root out the Marshal. Finally, after all these years of war, Marshal Lopez was cornered. The Allies launched an attack on his camp and cut down his aides and camp followers. The Marshal, believing in his own importance to his cause, jumped on his horse and attempted to ride away. Due to the muck, getting away was not possible. Through the entire war, the Marshal had pointedly not exposed himself to danger. His supporters would say that due to his role as commander in chief and president, it would be irresponsible to expose himself. His detractors would call him a coward. At this moment, when all was lost, and escape was impossible, the Marshal found the courage to face his enemies. He was called upon to surrender by the Brazilians. He not only refused but insulted and swore at his attackers. He would curse and damn them for what they had done to Paraguay. The Brazilian commander, General Câmara, would order his men to capture the Marshal alive. No order could save the Marshal. Not only did the Brazilian troops have their blood up and adrenaline pumping, but the Emperor had offered a reward of £110 sterling for the man who would take the Marshal down. The Marshal, covered in wounds was shot in the chest and fell in the swamps of Northern Paraguay on March 1, 1870. His last words, spat with his last breath, were “I die with my country.”

Legacy

The memory of Marshal Francisco Solano Lopez Carrillo is complicated. To the Paraguayan people who he ruled over with an iron fist for most of a decade, he is a hero, a symbol of national resistance against overwhelming odds. He had defied the superpowers of South America, and though he lost, it was through his sacrifice that Paraguay was able to survive the worst war the continent had ever seen. Supporters say that the fact that Paraguay earned the respect of its’ enemies through its heroism and were moved to allow the country to survive is a testament to the Marshal. To detractors, he was a brutal dictator who launched a war that no sane person could have imagined for one moment he had a chance to win. This view is reinforced by the casualty figures. Of a prewar population of approximately 525,000, over 300,000 died. It is estimated that 90% of men in Paraguay died. This casualty figure surpasses the most brutal of wars, even the Eastern Front of World War II. 

Insane brutal dictator, or enlightened leader who was suppressed by his neighbor. These two positions polarize historians to this day. One thing the Marshal achieved, which he would have enjoyed, was eternal fame. The fame of leading one of the most epic campaigns in military history, fighting against impossible odds, and enacting a true Götterdämmerung will make his name live forever.

What do you think of how he War of the Triple Alliance ended? Let us know below.

Now, read about General Juan Peron , The Famous Argentine President who had 18 years between his two Presidencies here.

References

Saeger, James Schofield. 2007. Francisco Solano Lopez and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Whigham, Thomas L. 2002. The Paraguayan War, Volume 1: Causes and Early Conduct. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2005. I Die with My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870. Edited by Hendrick Kraay. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2017. The Road to Armageddon: Paraguay versus the Triple Alliance, 1866-70. University of Calgary Press.

Poland in the Interwar Years: 1918 - 1939

Poland in the interwar years was relatively new to Europe as she had not been an independent country in her own right since 1772, having been previously absorbed into the former Austrian-Hungarian Empire.  Her reinstatement and Polish actions did little to peace or stability of post war Europe. As Europe moved closer to war in 1939 Britain was deciding whether to support Poland against Germany.  

Poland had behaved in ways that were largely indistinguishable from the likes of other neighboring totalitarian states. Could the West be confident in the Polish as an ally in the East? Was she worthy and secondly was she at scrutiny really any better than the other authoritarian European states like the USSR or Germany?

Stephen Prout explains.

Members of the Polish Army's 2nd Death's Squadron during the 1918-21 Polish–Soviet War.

Poland and the First World War

During the Great War Poland was part of Austrian-Hungarian Empire and so fought on the side of the Central Powers, technically by default Poland was part of the enemy forces. After the war all belligerents lost territory through various treaties. Poland, however had gained territory but she would not be satisfied with her initial spoils.

Whilst the war raged, Pilsudski formed the Polish Legions to assist the Central Powers defeat Russia and gain a favorable light with her Austrian masters to pave the first steps toward full independence. According to Prit Buttar, "At the beginning of the war, Pilsudski committed his forces to support the Austro-Hungarian cause, believing that Poland's best chance for independence lay in a victory of the Central Powers over Russia” however in the event of the Central Powers being defeated he secretly in in overtures to the west assured them would that he would never fight against them. However, other promising plans were afoot offered by Germany and Austria that the Polish were keen to keep simmering so in the meantime, Poland’s loyalties were with the central powers.

The Central Powers defeated Russia and the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk ceased hostilities. Germany and Austria-Hungary then mooted the creation of a "Mittel Europa" which translated means Central Europe in November 1917. This promised a puppet state Kingdom of Poland. Just about when it seemed the Poles were about to have their independent state Germany was defeated, and it was time for Pilsudski to try his options with the West.

A New Republic and a return of warfare

Poland’s post-war frontiers were established by Lord Curzon in 1919 (the “Curzon Line”) out of the post war treaties. Poland then engaged in a series of overlapping wars that would expand her Eastern territory beyond the post war demarcations and create enmity amongst her new neighbors. She would be far from the peaceful state that a devastated Europe now needed.

These conflicts over the next few years would the cause for the growing discontent in the Eastern regions of Europe. Between 1919 to 1920, whilst the Soviet Union was in a chaotic state, Poland invaded former Russian territory annexing vast areas of Ukraine and Belarus. By the time these overlapping wars ended with the Treaty of Riga (1921) chunks of Lithuanian territory were added, which was further subsequently “legitimized” by a questionable election held in that country in 1922.

There were numerous motives; Poland wanted to incorporate Polish peoples into their new borders and more so to re-establish her pre-1772 glory.  The opportunity was ripe as the newly formed Soviet Union was distracted by internal strife whilst simultaneously the Western powers the fates of Germany and her colonies, Turkey, and the balance of power in the Middle East.

By the time the 1921 Treaty of Riga was signed Poland had extended further into Eastern Europe. Polish borders extended 160 miles east of where they were intended by the Curzon Line and added 52,000 square kilometers.  She had significantly grown her size – and the extent of her future problems.

The new Czechoslovakia would also be subject to territorial claims. In the Conference of Ambassadors in Belgium in August 1919 Poland received a portion of Cieszyn after a brief military clash. This would not be her last claim to Czech sovereign territory. In 1938 she would participate in the dismemberment of that country, taking advantage of the Munich conference and take the industrial town of Tesin as Germany took the remainder of that country.

Poland was clearly insatiable. Not being content with just European gains in 1935 she approached Britain and France to demand ten percent of Germany’s lost African colonies. It was strange in so much as she never had any presence colonial or otherwise in Africa. It was rejected by the West, as they already seized most of the territories for themselves. Why she set her sights on Africa was contended to be due to her growing anti-Semitism.

Anti-Semitism

Germany had cast the darkest shadow in the field of anti-Semitism, but other nations also held a complicit agenda against Jewish populations. Poland had the largest Jewish population in Europe and although her actions were not as violent as Germany, she instigated numerous laws that excluded the Jewish from many avenues of daily life. 

These laws were introduced from March 1937, the first aimed at the restriction of Jews entering the legal and medical professions (not dissimilar from Nazi efforts). Another followed placing restrictions on the slaughter and supply of kosher products, which would be devastating for Jewish businesses. In April of the following year likewise restrictions were applied to Jews joining the journalist profession.  

At the same time the government passed a Citizenship Law, which set rules to revoke Polish citizenship from anybody who had lived abroad in excess of five years and only having minimal contract with the Polish homeland.  Although it did not specifically reference the Jews it was engineered to discriminate against them.

The success of these measures could be evidenced within the education sector. In 1937 the number of Jewish Students in universities stood at 7.5%; where as ten years earlier the figure stood at 20.4%.

Support of these measure where also present amongst the clergy. A surviving comment by a Cardinal Hlond labeled the Jews as a “vanguard of atheism, bolshevism and revolution.”  The comment was so blatant as to label them an “evil influence” and advised his congregations “one does well to avoid Jewish shops”.

The lack of sympathy for the Jewish population was clear in their refusal to take in Jewish refugees expelled from Nazi Germany in October 1938.  The refusals by the Polish government consequently saw fifteen thousand Jews interned in appalling conditions in a border zone of Zbaszyn.  Their fate seemed marginally better than that of those remaining in Germany.  The anti-Semitic movement within Poland continued during the occupation not by the Nazis or Soviets alone but with some Polish collaboration.  

In 1937 Poland set up a commission (Lepecki Commission) jointly with France to investigate the feasibility of a scheme on the African Island of Madagascar to relocate their Jewish population - again expulsion of a similar a kind to the Nazi’s but expulsion all the same that has received little exposure. The idea failed.

Dealing with Danzig and Germany

In the following years Poland’s presence would be a bitter reminder for Germany over her lost Eastern borders and a sizable proportion of Germans peoples that found themselves under what they regarded as a foreign rule.  Danzig would be the focal point of these major issues. Polish treatment of the overwhelmingly German population would sour German-Polish relations. 

Danzig was a free city established in 1920 by the allies that occupied approximately two thousand square kilometers of territory. After Danzig’s new status became established Poland was given control of the commerce and development, which to the indigenous Germans was ominous itself.  Poland did not always exercise her administration well and this angered the majority German population who saw their identity being diluted.  Protests ensued and the Nazi Party began to gain support.

The German population was seeing Polish dominance with Polish letter boxes appearing, commerce controlled by the Poles and the presence of increasing numbers of their soldiers on the Westerplatte around Danzig.

Poland however could also accommodate the Nazis. By 1934 the Non-Aggression Pact eased tensions and Poland suppressed any anti-Nazi protests - and in return Germany curtailed the local Nazi Party’s actions. For the time being tensions eased but it would be short lived.

Alliances & Non-Aggression Pacts

Poland could form alliances with states considered abhorrent to the Western powers (Britain could also accommodate the dictators as well).  She signed two Non-Aggression Pacts with the Soviet Union (renewed again in 1934) and one with Germany in 1934.  At the same time, she had a nascent relationship with the West.  It could be perceived that she was once again hedging her bets by playing both sides.

Apart from Italy, Poland had shown the most aggressive and expansionist tendencies for much of the inter-war years. Britain and France really did not want to expend any more loss of life, especially in an area they had less interests.

Lord Halifax and Chamberlain were rightfully hesitant over offering any promises to Poland yet ultimately favored Poland more out of lack of choices in that region for a suitable eastern ally. The only reason to favor Poland was that if Germany had to watch her eastern borders there was less of her military resource to send westwards.  Poland seemed to be the only remaining choice after the USSR’s poor military performance in the 1920s and the detrimental effect of the purges on her military.

Conclusion

Britain ultimately leant to the side of Poland, but it took a lot of deliberation on the part of Chamberlain and Halifax, who harbored doubts - much to the dismay of the Polish. 

On balance, perhaps the British were justified.  Polish invasions and annexations into other European states up the eve of the war outweighed all other aggressive states other than Italy. This would cause the enmity of her neighbors and so create her own problems. The anti -Semitic laws that were passed, and Poland’s move to a dictatorship had many similarities to Germany. Poland it seemed could accommodate the Nazis and communists with separate non-aggression pacts when expedient, the very states that alarmed the West. 

Britain ultimately opted for Poland out of political expediency.  Britain was not averse to accommodating the dictator states either if her own interests needed serving though. Lord Halifax and Chamberlain still followed the appeasement policy as the nation wanted to avoid another war. However, they needed an Eastern ally for the containment of Germany, i.e., Poland or the USSR so there was less of Germany’s military resources to face Westwards.  Poland seemed to be the most viable choice.

The Western Powers throughout the interwar period were troubled by the prospect of Soviet expansion westwards. Poland could provide part of the answer, but Britain also did not want to be tied into any perilous obligations nor did she want to guarantee Polish borders. Some of those concerns were addressed by the presence of Nazi Germany as a strong bulwark and that combined with Poland as an additional eastern buffer effectively halted Bolshevik expansion. The Eastern problem looked as secure as it could be, at least until the autumn of 1939. 

The Polish question was not a straightforward one.  Britain had already sacrificed a democracy in ceding Czechoslovakia to Germany, much to the outrage of public opinion (the same public opinions that also did not want war and praised peace in our time).  It was a difficult and divisive time. The political landscape was an almost impossible one to navigate.

What do you think of Poland in the interwar years? Let us know below.

Now read Stephen’s article on Britain’s relationships with the European dictators in the interwar years here.

Sources

Origins of The Second World War – AJP Taylor

Europe Of the Dictators – Elizabeth Wiskeman – Harper Torchbooks 1966.

Article: Anti-Semitism in Interwar Europe: The cases of Poland and Hungary - Dr Marco Soddu

Article – Graham Stewart – Historical Notes – 1999 – Chamberlains motives for Standing by Poland

Anna Maria Ciencala – Polish Review – 2016 – University of Illinois

References also from Orgy OF Murder – Jan Gabowski I review by Ofer Aderet 2017 - Haaretz

The Reality of the American Intervention in Afghanistan

In this article Brian McNash offers his hard-hitting perspective on the recent Afghanistan War. It also includes the context of the Iraq War and discusses the failures of successive US governments.

US soldiers march to a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in Daychopan district, Afghanistan in September 2003. Picture by Staff Sgt. Kyle Davis, US Army.

Let’s call it what it is. George Bush lied to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We were doing well in Afghanistan. Gaining some traction and what we wanted most, control. Then, he siphoned troops and added more to fight an endless war on nothing. Our job was supposed to be to go get the Taliban, destroy them, capture the top people, if possible, punish them, and get out. Instead, we stayed for 20 years and played offense in Iraq to a fault while playing defense in Afghanistan. Our troops have been left to dry by every president since this war started including Bush, Obama, Trump, and even Biden. Afghans have been senselessly murdered under all these presidents. We need to acknowledge and take accountability for these truths.

We captured the top people and kept fighting a war that could never be won. We tried to destroy the threat to our homeland and emboldened a hate towards America because of our tactics, missions, and things we did over there. Our soldiers were on the receiving end of the blame, the trauma, and the effects. They were the face of America while the government officials who never stepped in Iraq or Afghanistan played chess. Those government officials include our Congress, Defense Secretaries, Vice Presidents, Speakers of the House, and President, among others. The officials who called the shots, paid out defense contractors, ran up our budget, and sent our deficit into free-fall in space. We left so much of our budget and deficit in Afghanistan and Iraq when we abandoned military vehicles, equipment, and so much more. No purpose for it anymore? Too expensive to get rid of. Not worth it? Whatever it was, we left more than just that behind.

Who failed?

Our government failed our troops, lied to everyday Americans, cost us lives, money, and years of sacrifices when it comes to our troops. Leaving behind pain and abandoning the Afghani people who helped us, only furthering a hate for America. Leaving behind equipment just gives an opportunity for terrorists to advance on their fellow people who don’t want to be ruled by them. By getting involved, America chose to take on their problems. We got too heavily involved and now the blame is on us. The troops just carried out orders. Orders from people who put contracts, lobbying efforts, lining their own pockets, and a war hungry mindset over the mission and point of going over there. The troops had to pay for it with their bodies, mental health, and sometimes their lives. We got caught slipping on 9/11 while indirectly funding the same people for years who attacked this country. Do you see why conspiracy theorists feel like they are on to something here? Our government hurt fellow Americans and our troops by waging a large offensive with big goals but a scattered plan. Talk to vets from WWII, Korean War, Vietnam War, Gulf War, and any other conflict we have been involved in. They can tell you about the toll, the empty promises, the trauma they endured, and the lies that have been told to them by the country they served and would die for. We let down our troops. We let down the American people. By choosing to try to be the Superman of the world for our own economic benefit, we let down the Afghani people. We let down the Iraqi people. We should have never dug our feet in. We should have finished the initial mission and gotten out. 

Faults

Fault falls on Bush and his administration for lying throughout his presidency starting with the “Weapons of Mass Destruction” lie. Fault falls on Bush for letting Dick Cheney insert his war crazed policies into his Presidency and have way too much power. I have not seen a Vice President with that much power in a long time. This falls on Obama and his administration for not pulling enough troops out and deciding to half ass it, basically sending a message of “we will still have a presence”. When they captured Bin Laden in a massive estate near a Pakistani military base that should have told us all we need to know. Get the hell out because everyone in this area could be corrupt and complicit in one way or another. We tried to play the “it’s okay we still want to help” game and locked ourselves in for the next 10 years. The fault lays with Trump and his administration, who turned on the Kurds, our most intelligent, swiftest ally out there. Instead of them being an asset to us, we stopped funding them. Then, we ended up attacking them because they retaliated after we turned our backs on them. They helped our offensive and we cut them off because we were trying to save money. There is rarely any real justification for violence. But how would you feel if somebody did that to you? Trump advanced and signed into law the largest military budget for other operations. Within all of those billions of dollars, we could not provide funding to a much-needed ally. The shift was swift and that was his fault in this. Trump also brokered a peace deal with the Taliban that was good in some respects but mostly bad. 5,000 prisoners from camps, black site prisons, and Guantanamo Bay were released, including the Taliban leader. Some of those same prisoners are back in command of the Taliban now. Others are fighting against the very troops who put them in prison the first time. Imagine how you would feel seeing this cycle happen as a soldier from any country fighting against the Taliban.

Lastly, Biden and his administration left behind vehicles, equipment, and allowed looters to get their hands on it. He basically left the terrorists bits and pieces to put back together to use on their own people and advance their own evil interests. The helicopters might not work fully but the guns do whenever there is ammo left lying around for them. Not to mention, Biden supported these wars in Congress, voted on military budget bills for the past 40 years, and his own son paid the price of his actions later in life. He knows that. He has had to face the consequences of his actions every day then and now as President. He is pulling the US out of a situation he voted for as Senator. Every President has been complicit and barely helped this endless, hopeless situation. The troops have paid the price literally, emotionally, and mentally. Some have paid the ultimate price. We the people (everyday citizens) have paid the price and it has fostered into a distrust for the government. It has also resulted in war being the new normal. If you are 20 or younger, for your whole life America has been in war. Let that sink in. There are other generations before us who have had a similar experience. But, with the help of technology and media, we see war at its worst more than ever now. Through photos, videos, reports, and more, it has been engrained in our heads that war is a constant presence in our lives.

Capitalism

Moreover, we did not just come the Middle East to get back at the people responsible for 9/11. To bring democracy to Afghanistan. Or to capture Saddam Hussein and restore democracy in Iraq. We have a capitalist economy. You do not think our government is not smart enough to capitalize on what a country has to offer. Afghanistan has rare earth mineral fields under it and the most opium fields in the world (mostly used to make heroin). They lacked weapons but we do not. There were weapons deals done between us, corporations like General Electric, and different groups or countries. Some were allies, sometimes we sought control or to take inventory, and others we wanted to outright take advantage of. The Pentagon lost billions of dollars and Presidents weren’t even aware. Congress was in the dark. There was no trail leading back to wherever that money went. To connect this all, many soldiers knew back in 2008-13 that once they left the Taliban would take Afghanistan back. Most citizens of those countries did not want Americans there. The fight over the opium fields went a couple of ways: The farmers got shaken down by Taliban and Taliban sold opium, the Farmers field got carpet bombed by the US and then they joined Taliban, or US would give farmers fertilizer who used it to make more opium or sold it to Taliban who used it to make explosives. Who did they use those explosives against? It gets worse when it comes to resources though. Soldiers couldn’t throw batteries away because people would go through the trash, wire dead batteries together so they could make an IED, and detonate it. One soldier’s story I saw talked about a female soldier coming back after getting bodies out of vehicles that suffered an IED blast. He couldn’t help but think that was the fertilizer and batteries from the US that were put together to blow us up. We were fighting a (mostly) losing battle from all sides for so long. 

One more factor in all of this: Salt Pit, other black sites, and underground prisons. Mostly controlled and ran by the CIA, we took random Afghans and tortured them for information they never had.  Many detained Afghans had things like Bollywood films of women dancing in their possession. Most soldiers will tell you that they never found incriminating data on the phones of Afghan citizens, not even porn. Yes, some were associated with the Taliban or extremism, tortured for valuable information, and rightfully held in black sites. But, for those ones who were swooped up and brought in, how do you think that makes Afghanis feel? Afghans trusted us, we used them for their resources, for control, and then threw them away. The irony is if you are Team “Get out of the Middle East”, you are indirectly Team Taliban, ISIS, etc.  But the alternative is Team Stay Forever. We can’t do that. Every soldier can tell you this was a war of resources just as much (or more) as to get back for 9/11. Every soldier knew this was a lost war 10-15 years ago. We should have listened to the ones on the ground then and we should listen to them now.

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

More about Brian:

A writer of mostly nonfiction poems, short stories, articles, and more who explores a wide range of topics. Like many writers, I have a blog called Good To You (doogotouy.com) and write for part therapy and part enjoyment. 

Evidence of a JFK Murder Conspiracy? The Dictabelt Recording of the Kennedy Assassination

While the Kennedy assassination occurred some fifty-eight years ago, the case still galvanizes the American public. There remains a constant fight over the release of records pertaining to the assassination from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), QAnon supporters gathered on November 22nd 2021 to await JFK and JFK Jr.’s return, and Oliver Stone is in the process of releasing a new (and quite factually inaccurate) documentary on the Kennedy assassination.

The assassination of President John F. Kennedy still very much remains in the public consciousness and stimulates the minds of many. While the amount of persons who believe Kennedy was assassinated by way of conspiracy has decreased substantially, still nearly 25% of the American public believes there was a conspiracy of sorts, either with the CIA, the Italian-American Mafia, Castro’s Cuba, or the U.S. Armed Forces playing a role.

And one of the most definitive items of proof that conspiracy theorists provide comes from the House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations.

Alan Cunningham explains.

President John F. Kennedy just before his assassination in Dallas, Texas, Friday, November 22, 1963. Also in the photo are Jackie Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally and his wife, Nellie.

The Findings of the House Select Committee on Assassinations

The House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) was an eleven-man committee created in 1976 amidst the aftermath of the Church and Pike Committees and intended to investigate “not only the assassination of Kennedy, but also that of Martin Luther King, Jr.”. In the HSCA’s final 1979 report, the Committee found that “scientific acoustical evidence established a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John f. Kennedy” while stipulating that additional “scientific evidence did not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President”.

To quote more simply from Encyclopædia Britannica, “a Dictabelt audio recording made from a Dallas motorcycle policeman’s microphone that was said to provide evidence of four shots—that is, three by Oswald and a fourth by another shooter. That fourth shot, a miss, was thought to have come from the grassy knoll. As a result of this acoustic evidence, the HSCA concluded that there had been two shooters and that the assassination was likely the product of a conspiracy”.

Interestingly, this was the only real delineation the HSCA’s final report made from the Warren Commission, which had investigated the Kennedy assassination and submitted their final report over a decade before. To quote from Encyclopædia Britannica, “…the HSCA’s findings were largely in line with those of the Warren Commission (including the conclusion that a shot by Oswald had killed the president and that a single bullet had hit both Kennedy and Connally)... The committee also concluded that neither any U.S. security or intelligence agencies (including the CIA) nor the government of Cuba or the Soviet Union had been involved. It did not rule out the involvement of organized crime or anti-Castro groups, but it could not prove it”.

For the most part, the HSCA made only one demarcation from the original Warren Commission and it came in their analysis and acceptance of the Dictabelt recording.

The Evidence for a Second Shooter

On November 22, 1963, the day Kennedy was killed, a dictabelt recording was made. For those younger readers who may be less attuned to such devices, a dictabelt was an analog audio recording device, which came about in the late 1940s and predominantly was used to take dictation.

Essentially, the dictabelt would use “a stylus to emboss a groove into flexible plastic belt, the groove being much like the groove in a phonograph record”. This video here explains the Dictabelt in far greater detail.

On the day in question, a Dictabelt recording was made of all radio traffic coming from Dallas Police Radio Channel 1, the ordinary radio channel used by the Dallas Police Department. Channel 2 was reserved for special events, which the presidential motorcade would be classified as and was recorded using a different audio device. The audio recording lasts for roughly five and a half minutes and begins at 12:20 pm, a minute before the assassination took place. The full audio can be found here.

According to Vincent Bugliosi in his mammoth book on the Kennedy assassination Reclaiming History, “…two acoustics experts from Queens College in New York, Mark Weiss and Ernest Aschkenasy [claimed] based on their mathematical computations and a static-filled Dallas police Dictabelt recording…they were able to discern, from “impulse sounds” and “echo pattern predictions,” that there was a “95 percent or better” probability that the fourth shot was fired from the grassy knoll, and hence, a conspiracy”.

This evidence for the HSCA to claim that Kennedy was assassinated by way of a conspiracy came from these audio recordings and these audio recordings alone. Prior to this, the Committee was effectively going to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald had committed the act alone and even developed a draft of their final report. Four members of the Committee, Representatives Harold Saywer (R-MI), Robert Edgar (D-PA), Samuel Devine (R-OH), dissented to the final report with Sawyer even stating that the final report was based on “supposition upon supposition upon supposition”.

With this new evidence, the Committee entered into their report that President Kennedy was assassinated by way of a conspiracy. Today, the vast majority of Americans forget that the HSCA also affirmed that a single bullet struck both Governor Connally and the President, that Oswald had fired that round, that no signatory member of the U.S. Intelligence Community nor a Foreign Intelligence Entity (FIE) was involved in the assassination; the only thing that anyone takes away from the HSCA’s final report is that there was a conspiracy to kill the President.

For example, in one of the most notable (and historically inaccurate) films ever made, Oliver Stone’s 1991 picture JFK, a final title scroll reads, “A Congressional investigation from 1976-1979 found a “probable conspiracy” in the assassination of John F. Kennedy and recommended the Justice Department investigate further” while also detailing that the Department of Justice (DOJ) did not further investigate.

Most people remember the headlines, not the rest of the story. However, what gets left out of this story is the continued investigation of the Dictabelt recording by members of the U.S. government, news journalists, and scientific research based Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs).

The Problems with the Conspiracy Claim

Almost immediately, the HSCA’s claim was met with sharp criticism from a wide array of fields and experts.

The DOJ, in spite of Stone’s JFK claiming otherwise, did investigate, commissioning a study from the National Academy of Science (NAS), a non-profit and NGO focusing on the advancement of various scientific fields in the United States. A panel of twelve physicists with a wide array of practical and academic experience in the fields of astrophysics, atomic physics, astronomy, and nuclear physics analyzed the audio recording and released their final report to the DOJ and the public in 1982.

Quoting from the NAS report, the twelve-man panel found unequivocally, “…the acoustic analyses do not demonstrate that there was a grassy knoll shot, and in particular there is no acoustic basis for the claim of 95% probability of such a shot. The acoustic impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital. Therefore, reliable acoustic data do not support a conclusion that there was a second gunman”.

In the succeeding decades, additional information has come out placing further doubt on the credibility of the Dictabelt recording.

As briefly mentioned before, one of the best books on the Kennedy assassination is Vincent Bugliosi’s work Reclaiming History, a 1,000+ page work that was an over twenty-year endeavor documenting the assassination, the Warren Commission investigation, and the many conspiracies that have arisen in the over fifty years since the event. Bugliosi mentions the Dictabelt at various points and, in many cases, interviews persons with extensive knowledge of the recording.

Bugliosi writes how the DOJ also conducted their own investigation into the audio, building off of the NAS’ report and, in 1988, disclosed to the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary that they disagreed with the HSCA on the charge of a conspiracy. He also found that the FBI’s Technical Services Division completed their own report on the recording in 1980 and reached the conclusion that the Committee could not conclusively prove that the sounds heard on the recording were gunshots or even came from Dealey Plaza.

Bugliosi also interviewed the Dallas police officer who was allegedly driving the motorcycle from which the recording came from, H.B. McLain. McLain had testified to the Commission that his own radio had been stuck in the “on” position, allowing the audio to be recorded, yet had done so without listening to the audio in question.

Hearing the recording later, McLain informed Bugliosi that the recording’s movements did not match his own actions on November 22nd (McLain followed the presidential motorcade the entire time from Dealey Plaza to Parkland Hospital with sirens on the entire time while the recording appears to have sirens simply passing by). McLain also claimed that the motorcycle’s engine from the recording was from a three-wheeled motorcycle while he only ever drove a two-wheeled motorcycle.

Other discrepancies within the audio can be heard, such as noise from the crowd never being heard on the recording in spite of the fact that hundreds had come out to see Kennedy’s motorcade in Dallas and were making raucous noise throughout the procession.

In 2001, a rather important development occurred that, to some, seemed to vindicate the HSCA. Publishing in the peer-reviewed journal Science & Justice, Dr. Donald B. Thomas, an independent researcher of the Kennedy assassination and a research entomologist with the USDA’s Agriculture Research Service, claimed that the NAS study was flawed and that the HSCA’s original conclusion was in fact accurate. He writes, “The validity of acoustic evidence for a gunshot from the ‘Grassy Knoll’ was challenged on statistical grounds and on the basis of an anomaly on the Dallas police recordings. However, the assumptions underlying those criticisms were not in accord with evidence overlooked by the review panel. With a rigorous statistical analysis one arrives at a calculation for the probability that the recording contains a random pattern which by chance resembled the acoustic signature of a gunshot from the Grassy Knoll”.

This journal article prompted a re-investigation of the Dictabelt recording by various authorities and persons.

In 2003, multiple investigations were performed. Court TV commissioned an analysis by the signal analysis firm Sensimetrics, Inc. for a November episode of their program Forensic Files which “concluded that there is no valid evidence for gunshots on the Dallas Police Department (hereinafter DPD) recordings… the match between the suspect sound pattern on the DPD recording and a test shot fired from the grassy knoll, was no greater than expected to occur by chance”. After the episode premiered, Thomas wrote an article aiming to rebut the conclusions made by Sensimetrics and Court TV.

Also in 2003, Peter Jennings of ABC News, for the program Peter Jennings Reporting, analyzed the Dictabelt recording and came to the conclusion that the sounds recorded on the Dictabelt could not have come from Dealey Plaza and that H.B. McLain could not have been the originator of the recording as he had yet to enter the Plaza with the rest of the presidential motorcade. The reporting in this documentary also won the Edward R. Murrow Award for News Documentary in 2004.

Interestingly, some independent researchers have criticized both the NAS report and Thomas’ conclusions. Michael O’Dell, writing for The Kennedy Assassination blog in 2003 (the personal project of Associate Professor John Charles McAdams of Marquette University), concluded that the timeline both Thomas and the NAS relied upon was faulty while also finding that original claim of a “95 percent or better” probability that a shot came from the Grassy Knoll was logically unsound. In spite of this inaccuracy on the part of the NAS, O’Dell notes that, “Although the [NAS’] timeline is inaccurate, mostly due to the misunderstanding about the Audograph mechanics and missing the skips, the corrected timeline still supports their conclusionthat the impulses occurred after the shooting”.

Perhaps most significantly, many of the original investigators from the twelve-panel NAS report published their own article in response to Thomas’. In 2005, publishing in Science & Justice as well, five of the original twelve wrote, “We affirm the NRC conclusion “that the impulses attributed to gunshots were recorded about one minute after the President had been shot and the motorcade had been instructed to go to the hospital.” We also show that if, instead, the HOLD synchronization is ignored and the “YOU . . . Stemmons” synchronization is used, the first sounds alleged to be from shots occur at least 30 s after the assassination” while also noting that Thomas’ analysis utilized “erroneous parts of the Committee’s analysis of the Bowles recordings and combined it with an erroneous implicit assumption…”.

Despite this, debate still raged on. In 2013, Professor Larry J. Sabato, Director of the University of Virginia’s Center for Politics and a Professor of Politics, commissioned an analysis of the Dictabelt recording, coming nearly fifty years after the assassination.

Utilizing various improvements in acoustical analysis and digital methods, Sabato’s commissioned team from Sonalysts, Inc. came to the overall conclusion “The evidence obtained suggests that the motorcycle was not part of the motorcade and therefore was not in a position to record the sounds of gunfire”. Expanding upon this in their conclusion, the team states, “These data uniformly indicate that the motorcycle with the open microphone was not part of the motorcade. Therefore, it is unlikely that the motorcycle was in a position to record the sounds of gunfire. Based on these observations, we conclude that the Dictabelt recording is not applicable to the identification of assassination gunfire”.

Conclusion

The Dictabelt recording has been analyzed again and again and again. Repeatedly, it has been shown that the Dictabelt recording has been inaccurate and scientifically incapable of proving a conspiracy to assassinate President Kennedy. There are far too many inconsistencies for it to be utilized in any kind of argument. In fact, in 1986, there was a televised criminal trial put on by London Weekend Television in which Lee Harvey Oswald was tried for the murder of President Kennedy; Vincent Bugliosi played the role of the prosecutor (which would later inspire him to write the book Reclaiming History) and Wyoming based criminal defense attorney Gerry Spence representing Oswald.

Throughout the entire trial, Spence never once brought up the Dictabelt recording, as even he knew that utilizing this would damage his client’s case. This was even before the DOJ’s 1988 report in addition to the various scientific and investigative analyses performed with more advanced equipment in the 21st century. This to me is quite telling as Spence either knew the Texas jury would not be swayed by such evidence or would have no significant basis in having his client be freed.

To put it simply, the Dictabelt recording has been proven to have far too many inconsistencies for a criminal trial or for usage in determining the surrounding aspects of the assassination. Furthermore, even when combined with all of the additional forensic, documentary, eyewitness, and ballistic evidence the end result is the same; the only logically valid conclusion is that Lee Harvey Oswald, acting on his own, assassinated the President from the Texas Schoolbook Depository.

Various government commissions and committees, federal agencies, journalists, and historians have never been able to link a U.S. federal intelligence or law enforcement agency, the Italian-American mafia, the Johnson administration, Castro’s Cuba, the Soviet Union, or the U.S. Armed Forces to the assassination beyond circumstantial evidence. There has never been any conclusive, indisputable evidence put forth that shows a conspiracy or identifies another shooter or rifle used in the assassination.

The HSCA’s final report was written with the best of intentions, to examine the subject fully and try to either verify or refute the claims made by the Warren Commission. In the end, due to sensationalist and baselessly conspiratorial forces like Mark Lane, Oliver Stone, and L. Fletcher Prouty, the American public has gained a severely misinformed view of the assassination, which continues to cause problems for society and politics.

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

US Cold War Propaganda: The CIA's Ship for Radio Broadcasts to Albania in the Early Cold War - Part 1

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

A 1980s Radio Tirana badge. Source: Rugxula, available here.

The best-laid schemes of mice and men

Go often askew,

And leave us nothing but grief and pain,

For promised joy!

From the Poem by Robert Burns, in modern English.

Introduction

The Voice of America began broadcasting to Albania in May 1943; the broadcasts were interrupted in 1945 and resumed in May 1951. Radio Free Europe began broadcasting from Munich on June 1, 1951 and stopped on September 30, 1953.

The June 30, 1953, report from the President's Committee on International Information Activities defined early Cold War white, gray, and black shortwave radio broadcasts as: 

·       White -- The first type consists of broadcasts made in the name of the American Government, such as the Voice of America programs, or by an overtly supported station such as RIAS (Radio in the American Sector of Berlin)

·       Gray -- The second type includes broadcasts by stations that are overtly supported by unofficial American organizations but to which the Government gives covert financial Support. Such stations are Radio Liberation, supported by the American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, Inc., which now broadcasts to Soviet occupation troops in Germany and Austria and selected areas in the Soviet Union; Radio Free Europe (RFE), supported by the National Committee for a Free Europe, which broadcasts to the Soviet satellites; and until recently Radio Free Asia (RFA), supported by the Committee for Free Asia, which has now ceased broadcasts to Communist China

·       Black -- The last, or black, the category includes CIA-supported clandestine stations, which purported to speak for groups inside the satellite countries

In the late 1940s, the United States decided to stem Soviet underground subversive operations and create a new clandestine agency. This would have to be a new organization not to operate against the established clandestine collection of intelligence and counterintelligence tasks already assigned to the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). On June 18, 1948, the US National Security Council (NSC) directed that the task of confrontation with the Soviet Union clandestinely to a new Office of Special Projects – the name was changed later to the Office of Policy Coordination (OPC).

The NSC directive gave OPC,  "A loose charter to undertake the full range of covert activities incident to the conduct of secret political, psychological, and economic warfare together with direct preventive action (paramilitary activities)-all within the policy direction of the Departments of State and Defense." In October 1949, OPC planned to use a "sea-borne broadcast transmitter" to transmit recorded programs inland with "live spot" announcements.

Albania

It was planned to use a 1000-watt, medium wave transmitter to reach the largest audience in Albania by using a strong enough signal to overpower Radio Tirana's frequency: "It has been agreed that these broadcasts shall be based, for various technical, security, and political reasons, on a ship to cruise in and around the Adriatic and Ionian Seas. [T]his vessel with minor modifications can be converted into a floating broadcasting station capable of sending medium wave broadcasts into all points in Albania. It will be operated in a 100-mile arc at the end of a 300-mile radius from the farthest point to be covered in the country."

The decision to use a vessel carrying a medium wave transmitter was that there were, at that time, no OPC land-based transmitters in Italy or Greece. Medium wave broadcasts were chosen because of an estimate that of the approximately 50,000 radios in Albania, between 30,000 and 37,500 were medium-wave sets.  It was also estimated that 10,000 to 12,000 shortwave radios receivers were in Albania, owned mainly by Communist officials.

The idea was that the boat would be purchased in Britain. In November 1949, four prospective vessels were located, with one finally identified as being suitable enough for the operation. The cost of buying this vessel was $56,000 (circa $560,000 in 2021) and OPC was to pay for it. The British Intelligence Service (SIS) was to:

·       provide cover for the purchase, refit, and extended operation, plus

·       arrange for the transfer of the vessel's title and conceal the ownership through a cover owner

SIS was also to provide the crew and costs of refitting the boat for broadcasting and the operating costs were to be divided "fifty-fifty."

For some unknown reason, this project was not jointly pursued. In April 1950, OPC, using the outline of the British plan for Albania code-name VALUABLE, decided to seek a vessel in the United States to be put into operational use in August 1950.  The project was given the cryptonym BGSPEED, a subproject of the OPC Albanian country plan BGFIEND: "A country project to select, train, and infiltrate indigenous agents into Albania to effect and support resistance activities for the purpose of overthrowing the Communist-controlled government in Tirana." 

The requirements for this vessel included:

·       Ability to support a propaganda staff of five men in addition to a full complement of the crew

·       Ability to carry sufficient water, fuel, and food to remain on the station of the heel of Italy for at least twelve consecutive days with a full complement aboard, between return trips to Athens, Greece

·       Sufficient stock of engine parts and spares aboard to operate overseas independently for one year

·       Sufficient space aboard to permit installation of radio equipment and one compartment to be used as a recording and broadcasting studio

OPC decided to use a "yacht-type vessel" because it was:

a.     The more suitable for reasons of the flexibility of operation

b.     Private cover potentialities as viewed against commercial cover

c.      Height of masts in relationship to size for the accommodation of the radio broadcast antennae

The vessel

By May 1950, two yacht brokers were asked to locate an appropriate vessel. Three yachts were identified: one was in Acapulco, Mexico, one in Miami, Florida, and one in Gloucester, Massachusetts. OPC then used a cleared "cutout" for the purchase of the yacht.  The man already owned two yachts and bought and sold yachts for years.

The "cutout" was to be financed by OPC, receive the title to the yacht and deliver it to the Smith Boat Yard in Baltimore, Maryland, for refitting and conversion to include "decking, placing of copper sheathing on the hull, …broadcast studio, and other repairs necessary for extended operations."  The "cutout "owner then was to transfer the vessel to Panamanian registration. With an OPC security clearance, a Panamanian-licensed master named Leslie Holmes would then choose the crew. $150,000 ($1,500,000 in 2021)was budgeted for the purchase. 

After inspection of two of the vessels, the "motor sail /ketch" IRMAY was chosen as the most "adaptable from the point of view of broadcast requirements, maneuverability, accommodations for the crew and staff and can be outfitted in the least time and expense." The IRMAY was purchased for $80,000 (circa $880,000 equivalent in 2021).

The captain of the IRMAY and crew were experienced and reportedly were involved in several scientific expeditions in the Caribbean and South America.

The operational cover included the chartering of the vessel to a non-existent "Institute"-- the Marine Biological Research Institute (MBRI), Inc, which was incorporated in Maryland as a non-profit organization engaged in research of Marine biology. The Charter included in the articles of incorporation was:

To promote generally the accumulation, analysis, and dissemination of scientific knowledge in the field of Marine Biology by undertaking, sponsoring, participating in studies, research projects, and field expeditions in any part of the world – making loans and gifts for such purposes – and to make such knowledge available through articles, lectures, books, letters, motion pictures, etc. 

Four Directors of the "Institute" were listed, three of whom were pseudonyms.

Funding came from a "fictitious person purportedly of eccentric habits and keenly interested in this field of science." In reality, OPC's finance office sent a cashier's check to a Baltimore bank. Other cover activities included the printing of the letterheads, issue of bona fide stock to the Directors, chartering of the vessel (including the actual transfer of funds", and the establishment of a bank account in Baltimore for "Mediterranean Marine," through which funds to pay personnel aboard and to operate the vessel would be transferred regularly to a bank account. OPC hired a part-time trusted bookkeeper to keep "double-entry bookkeeping of both the overt and covert expenses.

The "Institute" also made a letter of endorsement to the Chief OPC officer on board the vessel, indicating that he was employed in "scientific explorations in the Mediterranean." 

Approval & Set-up

OPC Assistant Director for Policy Coordination Frank Wisner approved the project on June 14, 1950. However, he wrote this handwritten comment on the cover sheet: "This project has been approved, with much trepidation… I have seen this kind of thing tried twice during the last war with eventual project abandonment in each instance."

Final arrangements for the cover "Institute" were made. A lawyer in Baltimore was cleared to set up the articles of incorporation in the State of Maryland.  His office was listed as the official address of the "Institute" for any correspondence. Four Directors of the "Institute" were listed, three of whom were pseudonyms. The printing of the letterheads, issue of bona fide stock to the Directors, chartering of the vessel (including the actual transfer of funds", and the establishment of a bank account in Baltimore for "Mediterranean Marine," through which funds to pay personnel aboard and to operate the vessel would be transferred regularly to a bank account.

In June 1950, a joint Bulgarian-Albanian propaganda center was set up in Athens, Greece. The Albanian broadcasts were to be prepared there, based on a joint propaganda policy-directive approved with the British. However, the British were not involved on the operational level. One of the Athens central radio stations would transmit to the vessel a daily teletype broadcast of the next day's program. Spot broadcasts would be transcribed on the boat.

The IRMAY left Baltimore for Miami, Florida, in December 1950 with OPC engineering personnel on board. There were tests conducted of the medium (sky-wave) transmissions on the way. Rough seas off Cape Hatteras, North Carolina, seasickness, and mechanical problems ensued, but the tests were generally positive. The conclusion: "It can be seen that there are no technical radio factors which might limit the effectiveness of BGGIEND project as originally planned."

While in Miami, Captain Holmes made an unknown security violation. The Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI) became aware of the OPC connection to the IRMAY. The Miami office of the Bureau of Customs wanted to inspect the vessel, but OPC contacted the Assistant Deputy Commissioner of Customs with the request to stop the inspection. ADPC Frank Wisner sent a message to Navy Rear Admiral Leslie C. Stevens giving some details of the BGSPEED operation. Admiral Stevens, coincidently, would later become President of the American Committee for the Liberation of Bolshevism – the parent organization for Radio Liberty. Wisner promised Stevens and the Bureau of Customs that any future operations having any bearing on those agencies would be advised by OPC.

OPC decided to let Captain Holmes continue to hold his position until the first port of call in Europe when he would be replaced and returned to the United States, possibly to face prosecution.

In St. Thomas, American Virgin Islands, the name of the yacht was changed to "JUANITA," and the registry changed from the United States to Panama. JUANITA departed from Barbados on February 1, 1951, for Europe and arrived in Patras, Greece, on March 25, 1951.

What could go wrong?  A lot…

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

Now read part 2 on what happened during the catastrophic mission in Europe here.

The Paraguayan President who Brought his Country to Military Catastrophe – Part 3: Devastating Battles for Both Sides

Francisco Solano Lopez was president of Paraguay from 1862 to 1870. He led the country during one of the most devastating defeats in all history – the War of the Triple Alliance. Here, Erick Redington continues this fascinating series by looking at the events in the War of the Triple Alliance, including the Battle of Tuyutí and the Battle of Curupayty.

If you missed it you can read part 1 on the early life of Francisco Solano Lopez here and part 2 on the start of the War of the Triple Alliance here.

A depiction of the Battle of Curupayty.

With Marshal Lopez's advance into Corrientes stunted, he knew that pushing all the way to Uruguay was no longer possible. He had achieved much by aggressively invading the Allied Powers. Their armies had been thrown back on their heels, causing increased dissention between the Brazilians and Argentinians, Lopez's only real hope of victory. A wealth of materiel was captured by the Marshal's army aiding the war effort immensely. The small Paraguayan industrial base would have difficulty throughout the war supplying the army with the materiel it needed to fight. The small Paraguayan nation was proving itself to be very dangerous to its larger neighbors. To some, Lopez looked brilliant. To no one more so than the Marshal himself. 

The Allies knew they would have to control the rivers in order to maintain their supply chain. The first Allied target was Humaitá, called the "Gibraltar of South America." They knew that as long as the fortress held out, they would not be able to advance further into Paraguay and take the capital, Asuncion. The Marshal knew this as well. He was determined to use every effort to defend the fort. But he knew that Humaitá needed further reinforcing. Therefore, the best strategy would be to delay the Allies as long as possible in order to improve the fortifications. In the process, the Allies would further bleed, and potentially, greater dissention would grow between the Brazilians and Argentinians. 

The Marshal also knew that Argentina was fragile at this time. President Mitre had assumed office only a few years before, after yet another civil war. Lopez knew that there were many elements within Argentina who were very sympathetic to him and were perfectly happy to see Marshal Lopez create a strong Paraguay. To these Argentinians, Paraguay was the wrong enemy at the wrong time. The right enemy would always be Brazil. The war would be used throughout as a weapon to attack those in power in Argentina. President Mitre himself was tired of the condescension with which he was treated by the Brazilian officers. They saw him as just another caudillo in a long string of caudillos ruling Argentina. The Marshal hoped that if he could inflict a few further defeats on the Allies, one or both would be willing to come to the peace table and Lopez could get a peace he could live with, rather than the partition and exile that the Treaty of the Triple Alliance called for.

The Marshal Counters

The Brazilian naval commander, Baron Tamandaré would use his fleet to advance further up the river system to allow the Allies to invade Humaitá. When the Allies made a landing at the town of Riachuelo, Lopez sensed an opportunity. The Marshal was not a man to sit back and just take what was coming, so he ordered his fleet to attack the Brazilians. The Paraguayan navy was heavily outnumbered.  The Brazilians had better armored ships with more guns. None of this mattered. What mattered was élan. Lopez would fling his navy in a night attack against the Brazilian fleet and in one brilliant move end the threat of an Allied offensive by having his sailors board the Brazilian ships under the cover of darkness, capture them, and then sail the new prizes back up the river to reinforce the Paraguayan fleet.

Of course, this is not what happened. The ships arrived after sunrise. The Paraguayan commander ordered his ships to pass the Brazilian ships and fire on the ground troops. The Paraguayans would lose more ships and have to retreat upriver. It was a disaster for the Paraguayan navy. Marshal Lopez impetuously ordered his fleet to attack an enemy that heavily outnumbered him with a confusing and frankly ridiculous battle plan to not only defeat the Brazilians but also augment his own fleet. Why did he do this? As we have seen, it was in the nature of the man to take risks and wager everything on bold, Napoleonic, plans. As someone who believed he was a military genius, he believed his plans could work. As a brutal dictator in charge of a police state, no one was brave or foolhardy enough to tell him otherwise. Due to this, a sizable part of the Paraguayan fleet that could have been used in the defense of Humaitá was lost, and future defenses were weakened.

By 1866, the Allies were finally prepared to begin what they saw as the war-winning offensive. The Allies crossed the Paraná River and entered Paraguay. The Marshal was a believer in the offensive-defensive strategy. He did not make a general, theater-wide offensive, but he began launching localized counterattacks to make the Allies keep their guard up and slow their advance. This was in keeping with the Marshal's character, but it was also the sound military move. The Marshal knew this would be a war of attrition. He had to make the Allies bleed. He needed to cause further dissention. Passively waiting to be strangled would only lead to being strangled. He had to fight. 

The local counterattacks, while not leading to battlefield victories, worked their intended purpose. The Paraguayans were able to slow down the Allies, stopping their advance at Estero Bellaco for a time. The Marshal began to grow more confident. He had been mostly successful in his strategy so far. With his increasing confidence grew his willingness to gamble. He now began to envision knocking out the Allied army with one decisive blow. When the Allies began advancing again, Lopez decided to strike the blow. The bloodiest battle in the history of South America began, the Battle of Tuyutí.

Tuyutí

With the Brazilians on the left, the Uruguayans in the center and the Argentines on the right, the Allies were drawn up in a flat, swampy area. The Marshal decided to focus his attacks on the Brazilians and the Uruguayans. Lopez had a very low opinion of Brazilians, and the Uruguayans were the smallest contingent. Initially, the Paraguayans made gains, however the Brazilian artillery would seal the fate of the Paraguayan army, and the Allies came away with the victory. The importance of the victory was not that the Allies won the battle, but that it had been so deadly.

Statistics from the Paraguayan army at this time are problematic at best. Due to the dictatorial nature of the country, and the importance that Lopez placed on propaganda, reported casualty figures from the Paraguayans can be taken sometimes with a grain of salt. The best estimates for battlefield losses were 6,000 dead and 7,000 wounded out of an army of about 25,000 men. The Allies lost over 5,000 men out of about 35,000. For the Allies, the losses were terrible, though replaceable. For the Paraguayans, this was a national catastrophe. Based upon prewar population, the losses in this battle represented over 3% of the people in the entire country. These men represented the cream of the large pre-war army the Marshal had accumulated and led into Argentina and Brazil. His army would never recover. Never again would the Marshal order a mass attack on the Allies. 

With victory comes overconfidence. The Allies, having achieved a major victory now began to advance more rapidly against the Marshal. Where other men would draw back in the aftermath of such a catastrophic defeat, Lopez was as defiant as ever. The Paraguayan army would go on to defend itself well against Allied advances. However, at the Battle of Curuzu, the Paraguayans were defeated again and finally Marshal Lopez was growing concerned. He decided to try a different tack, one which he had not utilized so far: diplomacy.

The Marshal Tries Diplomacy     

With the Allies on the move, and getting closer to Humaitá, the Marshal hoped to capitalize on the war-weariness of his opponents. He unexpectedly invited the Allied leaders to a conference to try to end the war. The Brazilians wanted nothing to do with this conference and refused to negotiate with the Marshal. President Mitre, however, decided to meet his enemy. For Mitre, beset by political opposition at home, facing rebellion in outlying provinces, and weary over his own conduct of the campaign (he was supreme Allied army commander, after all), Mitre wanted to find a way to end the war. For Lopez, this represented a wonderful opportunity. Despite his reputation as an insane warmonger, it was said that in person the Marshal could be very charming and a great conversationalist. He was very well read and quick-minded. For Lopez, this was finally his chance to divide the Allies, get Argentina to leave the war, and then take on the enemy he hated, the Brazilians. And he failed miserably. 

Accounts of the meeting vary, with some saying that the conversation was amicable, and others saying the two men got into an argument. Either way the conference was a failure. President Mitre told President Lopez of his determination to abide by all clauses of the Treaty of the Triple Alliance. This included the article demanding the removal of the Marshal from power before any peace could be had. Lopez could have agreed and lived a comfortable life in exile in Europe or North America. Instead, he refused. He would fight on to the bitter end. And that is exactly what would happen. No peace, but war, war to the knife.

After the failure of the conference, Mitre decided to restart the offensive and attempt to deal the killer blow, reach Humaitá, and from there to Asunción. The invasion of Paraguay was on. The Allied army approached the Paraguayan army entrenched at Curupayty. The Paraguayans had used the truce to improve their fortifications and build further defenses. They had brought in artillery and reinforced the trenches. The Paraguayans only numbered about 5,000 men, a quarter of the advancing Allied force. In their confidence after Tuyutí, many in the Allied camp believed the Paraguayans were on their last legs and ready to fall apart. This overconfidence led to Mitre preparing a battle plan whereby the Brazilian navy would shell the Paraguayans from the river, and once softened up, the Allies would launch a grand assault to rout the enemy. Once the fleet had finished the bombardment, Mitre ordered the men in. 

The Battle of Curupayty can be likened to other thoughtless slaughters like Cold Harbor or the Somme. Allied troops went in and were massacred. The Paraguayans only lost about 50 men in the battle. The Allies, however, lost about 9,000, according to the best estimates. It was a shocking and devastating loss, but it could have been worse for the Allies. The commander of the Paraguayan army was not Marshal Lopez. He would never expose himself to battlefield danger. That was not his way. The field commander was General José Diaz, a good commander in his own right, but he operated within the Paraguayan system of nothing is done without the dictator's permission. Even considering the casualties, the Paraguayans were still outnumbered and outgunned, but they had morale on their side. If they had counterattacked and pursued the Allies, a decisive, perhaps war turning victory could have been achieved. Diaz was not stupid. He was not going to take the initiative and incur the wrath of the Marshal. The Allies were allowed to withdraw back to their entrenchments. Here the war would sit for longer than any of the participants had anticipated. For the Allies Humaitá would have to wait. Recovery from the embarrassment of Curupayty would take far longer than anyone expected. They had much bigger problems at hand.

On the Pale Horse

Part of the original defense plan of Marshal Lopez was utilizing the geography of Paraguay to slow the Allies. Much of the country is located in tropical, low-lying swamps. These swamps bred interminable swarms of mosquitos and other insects. The mosquito was, and still is, a primary vector to transport infectious disease from person to person. For the Paraguayan troops, malnourished and under equipped, disease was a fact of life. For the Marshal, there was no ability to import medical supplies. The traditional Paraguayan cure-all for everything was yerba mate, which was obviously ineffective against infectious disease. Every man lost to disease was a man out of the gun line for the Marshal. There was very little he could do to stop the epidemics though. 

With the defeat at Curupayty, the Allies needed to rest and regroup before another advance. Camp life at this time was dull and unsanitary. Given the geography of the area the Allies found themselves, and the filth of the camps, it is no surprise that epidemics began amongst the Allied troops. Dysentery, cholera, and yellow fever were some of the worst. The conditions in the camps, coupled with the terrible defeat the Allies had taken, would lead to much needed changes within the Allied army, but this was small comfort to those who had been stricken.

Out With the Old…

After Curupayty, the squabbling between the Brazilians and Argentinians only grew worse. The Allied field commander, President Mitre, was called a bungler for directing one of the most lopsided losses in modern military history. Mitre was not happy either. He was growing tired of field service. Rebellions were breaking out against his rule in the outer provinces of Argentina. Many within his own government wanted peace. He believed in the necessity of the war still, but he did not believe that he would be the man to lead it. In January 1868, Mitre would leave his army and return to Buenos Aires.

Also out at this time was the President of Uruguay, Venancio Flores. He was also worn down with campaigning and would leave the army. His term as president was ending anyway, and he was to turn over his powers to a new leader from his Colorado Party. He would be assassinated four days after leaving office. The crime was never solved. 

For Marshal Lopez, these changes symbolized a weakening of his enemies' resolve to make war on him. What he did not know was that with Argentina mostly out of the war, and Uruguay effectively out of the war, the Allies would finally have solved the one major disadvantage they suffered through compared to the Paraguayans: unity of command. And that unity would come in the form of Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, the Marquis de Caxias.

What do you think of the devastating battle for Paraguay and then the Allies? Let us know below.

Now read part 4 on the end of the War of the Triple Alliance here.

References

Saeger, James Schofield. 2007. Francisco Solano Lopez and the Ruination of Paraguay: Honor and Egocentrism. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

Whigham, Thomas L. 2002. The Paraguayan War, Volume 1: Causes and Early Conduct. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2005. I Die with My Country: Perspectives on the Paraguayan War, 1864-1870. Edited by Hendrick Kraay. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.

———. 2017. The Road to Armageddon: Paraguay versus the Triple Alliance, 1866-70. University of Calgary Press.

5 Pandemics in History and Their Unexpected Outcomes

Plagues and pandemics have routinely disrupted the march of human civilization, wrecking economies and killing millions. But as each pandemic subsided, it set in motion a variety of social, political, and cultural changes that lasted far beyond the disease itself. 

Great pandemics in history – the Plague of Justinian, the Black Death, the 16th century American Plagues, and the Spanish Flu of 1918 – revolutionized economies, healthcare, religion, culture, and societal dynamics to an unprecedented degree. History has repeatedly shown that things are never the same after a major outbreak as they were before. Here, Sophie Sanchez looks at some unforeseen yet fascinating outcomes of historical pandemics.

A depiction of people in Tournai, Belgium burying plague victims.

1.     The Plague of Justinian (541-542 CE)

One of the first and deadliest bubonic plagues in recorded history, the Plague of Justinian brought the Byzantine Empire to its knees and devastated significant portions of Asia and Europe. It decimated about a quarter of the population of the eastern Mediterranean, delayed the emergence of northern Europe out of the Dark Ages, sapped the military and financial might of the Byzantine Empire, and shattered Emperor Justinian’s dream of reuniting the Roman Empire. 

The Plague of Justinian had profound effects on the religion and culture of Eurasia and paved the way for the cultural transition from the Dark Ages to the Middle Ages.

One of those unintended outcomes was the Plague’s impact on religion. People were so terrified by the unprecedented and seemingly random destructiveness of the pandemic, they actually believed it would lead to the end of the world. This anxiety pushed people to seek solace from the established religion, which they hoped would both explain and mitigate the horrors of the disease. When it failed to do so, there was general despair and loss of trust, which created a need for a new, more merciful God. Christianity was suffering from immense insecurity at a time when the entire religious structure threatened to break free from its moorings. There was a fear of re-paganization that found a voice in the chroniclers of the time. The circumstances were particularly favorable for the rise of cults and iconolatry such as the popular Cult of Mary. 

Ultimately, the scourge altered the course of history, destroying the Roman Empire, transforming Christianity, and eventually leading to the emergence of modern Europe.

2.             The Black Death (1346–1353 A.D.)

The Black Death, a form of bubonic plague, came to Europe from Asia, leaving death and devastation in its wake. Estimates suggest that it wiped out over half of the population of Europe; in fact, the death toll was so high that the victims’ bodies had to be buried in mass graves.

As people struggled to understand the causes of the Plague, there was a significant impact on religion as many believed the catastrophe was God’s punishment for humankind’s sinful ways. One result of the high death toll was a severe shortage of priests – this paved the way for laywomen to assume more service roles in local parishes. 

Moreover, the inability of 14th century doctors to explain the causes of the plague or alleviate its effects forced Europeans to turn to astrology, earthquakes, and Jewish conspiracies as possible reasons for its emergence. Renewed religious fervor and fanaticism bloomed in the wake of the Black Death, inevitably leading to the persecution of Jews and other minorities. Another popular radical movement that arose during the time of the Black Death was that of Flagellantism, the practice of inflicting pain on oneself, especially with a whip.

3.             The American Plagues (16th century)

The American plagues are a group of Eurasian diseases – including smallpox, measles, malaria, and bubonic plague – brought by European explorers to the Americas. With no prior exposure to these diseases, about 90 percent of the indigenous populations of North and South America were wiped out. The American Plagues contributed significantly to the collapse of the Aztec and Inca civilizations. 

One strange but inevitable consequence of the spread of these diseases was the development of anti-malarial medicines. Malaria arrived with the European conquest of America in the 16th century and rapidly spread all over North, South, and Central America, and the Caribbean, becoming endemic in the wet, hot, low lands. Indigenous Americans treated the disease using cinchona (Peruvian) bark, a tree native to South America. According to a legend, a Spanish Countess who had experienced the efficacy of the medicine in Peru brought it back to Europe, where it was named cinchona in 1742 by Linnaeus. In 1820, two French chemists extracted the alkaloid quinine from cinchona bark; and to this day, quinine remains one of the most effective anti-malarial treatments the world over. Later on, the drug extracted from the bark of the cinchona tree gave rise to a flourishing industry and trade.

4.             Spanish Flu (1918)

The global Spanish Flu pandemic was a virulent strain of H1N1 influenza that is said to have originated on a Kansas farm. It spread like wildfire among soldiers fighting World War I in the trenches of France and Belgium and eventually found its way across the world after picking up genetic material from a bird-infecting virus. 

This global pandemic has the dubious distinction of influencing the course of the First World War and significantly contributing to the Second. An estimated 50 million people, including 675,000 Americans, succumbed to it. Interestingly, some of the victims of the deadly virus included members of the American delegation to the 1919 Paris Peace Conference – many of whom strongly opposed making German reparations a condition of the Treaty of Versailles. With the Americans out of the way, the remaining delegates voted for humiliating Germany with brutal reparations – a key factor that contributed to the rise of Hitler, and therefore to the Second World War. In more ways than one, the Spanish Flu was responsible for “re-sculpting” human populations the world over.

5.             COVID-19 (2019 - Present)

As we painfully inch towards the third year of the coronavirus pandemic, several questions are being asked across the globe. Will we ever return to normal? Will vaccines against the coronavirus prove effective? What will be the long-term social, political, and economic repercussions of the pandemic? Do we really want a resumption of the status quo? 

In many ways, the legacy of the pandemic has already made its presence felt. Few aspects of life have remained untouched by the virus, but here’s one (side) effect that is likely to make itself felt for quite some time. 

It should come as no surprise that some analysts (and fashionistas) predict the mask becoming a wardrobe staple. In the US, mask-wearing is more commonly associated with crime than with public health. But the horrors of the pandemic – overwhelmed hospitals, over-worked healthcare workers, refrigerated trucks with dead bodies – has led some Americans to accept the practice of wearing masks as a public health measure.

With the change in public sentiment, manufacturers are rushing to cope with the massive surge in demand for masks. Popular influencers like Bella Hadid and Kim Kardashian have frequently endorsed masks with their COVID-19-era selfies and Instagram posts, making them a trendy, pop-culture-approved fashion accessory. Though the science behind mask usage is far from exact, the pandemic has certainly transformed government policy, as well as American attitudes towards it. And as the national psyche is expected to be deeply influenced by the pandemic, masks may become a part of post-pandemic America, as they are in Southeast Asia.

What do you think of these historical pandemics? Let us know below.

Sophia is an online ESL/EFL instructor and a passionate educator. She found her true calling — teaching — while she was juggling writing and a 9-5 desk job. When she is not busy earning a living, she volunteers as a social worker. Her active online presence demonstrates her strong belief in the power of networking. If you want to connect, you can find her onFacebook,Twitter, and her blog Essay Writing and More.

Jacqueline Kennedy’s Influence on the Arts in America

In 1963 President John F. Kennedy gave a powerful speech on the arts in America. But what is less known is that Kennedy’s speech was heavily influenced by his wife Jacqueline Kennedy. David Huff explains.

Jacqueline Kennedy in May 1962.

Art and history

On Saturday, October 26, 1963, President Kennedy gave a speech to the students at Amherst College as he dedicated a library named for the American poet Robert Frost, who died on Tuesday, January 29, 1963. The speech was rich, eclectic, and moving as he galvanized a generation of Americans not only to lead lives of civic commitment, but also to challenge the conventional power structure that existed in America at that time.

The speech is well known for its stirring statements in which the late-President issued a clarion call about the hope and possibility for American society. Kennedy, who was ahead of his time, spoke eloquently when he declared:

"I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future"

"I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America, which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction."

Yet, Kennedy also issued a warning that is true today as it was in his time:

"And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

Jacqueline Kennedy and the arts

In our contemporary society, we need to improve the growing differences that divide us as a civilization. The ongoing discussions and vitriolic debates regarding race, poverty, social unrest and economic disparity fail to provide a positive impetus for a consensus as to the course of action. Yet, many Americans do not realize that President Kennedy's innovative speech at Amherst was, in fact, influenced by the artistic mind-set of Mrs. Kennedy when she was first lady. Eclectic and forward thinking, she adopted as her mantra that successful civilizations can achieve a cultural renaissance by cultivating the reservoir of talent and individual ingenuity that resides within its people.  Mrs. Kennedy understood that other parts of the world, such as Europe, had implemented cultural policies not only to preserve their unique cultural heritage, but also to broaden public participation in cultural life. For example, Belgium, France, Denmark, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, Spain, Ireland, Italy, and Britain are countries that promote an active cultural policy in their respective countries. Mrs. Kennedy believed that if these Western civilizations engaged in the improvement of the cultural and artistic fabric of their modern-day societies, America had the power to create a Department of Culture that would provide the basis for an educated exchange on the improvement of our own unique culture.

The creation of a culture department could help oversee the National Endowments for the Arts and Humanities, assist colleges with instituting and preserving arts management programs; and assist in the coordination of complex and myriad tasks that confront major artistic American centers and symphonies. In addition, a Department of Culture could conduct arts and cultural economy studies, develop cultural plans for neighborhoods or cities or towns that elevate eclectic cultural communities and assets, and allocate workforce investment and small business administration, and community economic development funds to arts and culture organizations. 

Furthermore, a culture department could work closely with major American music festival organizers - such as those at Aspen and Interlochen, the Tanglewood Music Festival, and the Wolftrap National Park for the Performing Arts - to encourage and assist young people, via corporate and privately sponsored scholarships, to study the performing arts.

The generous commitment of corporations, foundations, nonprofit groups, individual donors and others to invest time and resources in support of a department of culture would greatly benefit children and youth and provide the impetus for the kind of bold and creative synergy that the performing arts really need for continued growth and development in America. Prominent organizations, such as The Ford Foundation, The Catherine B. Reynolds Foundation, and The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation have demonstrated a keen interest in promoting and supporting arts organizations throughout the United States.

Lack of Artistic Willpower and It’s Consequences

Unless there is a concerted effort, however, on the part of government, corporations, private philanthropy, and grass-roots organizations, the political climate - and debate - concerning the arts is likely to get worse. Throughout our nation, politicians are cutting arts programs in the public schools and universities at both the state and federal level. In addition, artistic institutions, such as symphony orchestras, are struggling to survive due to a lack of corporate sponsorship and poor ticket sales. One might ask if poor ticket sales are a direct result of the decease in music and art programs in public education. As these programs have been the first to be cut in education over the past forty years, there goes any chance for children to gain knowledge and an appreciation for classical music and art.

Conclusion

The creation of a culture department in America is not quixotic, even in these turbulent times. In our multicultural society, the partnership between the government and corporations and individual philanthropy in sponsoring a department of culture would provide the engine for an infusion of creative, engaging and innovative ideas that will inspire people regardless of race, gender, and economic background to reach for something better. Artistic expressions would serve as a beacon of hope and promise in a world enveloped by skepticism and uncertainty. To those who suggest we cannot afford to implement a Department of Culture, I reply that America cannot afford not to do so. We have the funds to create a Department of Culture, we simply need to summon the will and self-discipline to raise the cultural bar in our country. The missing link, however, is the political willingness to embrace, to encourage a forward-thinking enterprise capable of creating a cultural renaissance in America. To that end, the American people - particularly the young - deserve a better society that benefits all of our citizens, not just a few.

What do you think of Jacqueline Kennedy and the arts? Let us know below.

David M. Huff was born in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1968. A violist, he studied with the Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra from 1983-1984. He attended the Interlochen Arts Festival and Interlochen Arts Academy from 1984-1986 and also participated in the Boston University Tanglewood Institute's Youth Program during the summer of 1986. He earned a B.A. in History from West Virginia University and an M.A. in History/Research from West Virginia University. He works in a Washington, DC International law firm as an Intellectual Property Trademark, Litigation, and Patent Specialist.