History often repeats in itself in different ways. Here, Michael Cho gives his take on how patterns processes, and people interact - and come back around throughout history.

Washington Crossing the Delaware, an 1851 painting by Emanuel Leutze.

The study of history has altered my perspective of how and why the world in which I live changes the way that it does through repetition and influence. World history is a constant repetition of patterns of change with the constant rise and fall of different nations, rulers, and ideals. Through the repetitions in history, a deeper understanding of the basis and core of modern society can be found because of the constants that emerge. If history has a pattern, the constants revealed by history can also be the base of understanding of the present and the future in order to explain how and why change occurs. Ideas spark revolutions, single decisions spark war, and actions taken by one person can influence the world for generations to come. The study of history has allowed me to understand the world in which I live in because its patterns reveal the core constants that shape human interactions, allowing me to understand my society today through past societies.

Change can be measured in a pattern of repetition and influence since the beginning of known history. Decisions made affect future generations, nations are made with similar ideals and fall in the same manner, and revolutions inspire other revolutions. A perfect example of this were the Atlantic Revolutions taking place from the 1760s to the 1830s. The Atlantic Revolutions included the: American Revolution, French Revolution, Haitian Revolution, and the Revolutions in Latin America. These revolutions which were both fought on the same ideals and were also heavily influenced by each other with some of the revolutions possibly never having occurred without each other. America’s revolutions came from the Enlightenment, the spread of ideas in Europe which sparked the spread of ideas of liberty, freedom, and constitutional government, changes that would lead to human development and a better future.

American Revolution

The American Revolution was fought between the American colonies and the British over the long period between 1765 and 1791 and reveals the constant of geography in the overall ebb and flow of history. Contrary to popular belief, the American Revolution was largely fought due to the restrictions on free trade that grew out of the geographic advantages the American colonies possessed. The Americans wanted free trade, liberty, freedom, and constitutional government and the geographic distance from Great Britain afforded the colonists the opportunity to develop an independent existence and redefine their relationship. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” They thought these ideals were worth fighting for and signed the Declaration of Independence on July 4th, 1776 and continued to fight for these ideals until the Treaty of Paris which declared the end of the revolutionary war was signed. This reveals how the influence of geography shapes society’s needs, wants, fears and desires, manifesting in the American desire for free trade as the nation moved literally and symbolically further away from the influence of Europe.

As geography shapes societies ambitions, the individuals who comprise that society begin to conceive of new ideas and perspectives to explain those motivations. The American Revolution heavily influenced the French Revolution and a lot of the grounds in which the French Revolution was fought for was a repetition of the American Revolution. French officials signed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen which covered the same topics as the American Declaration of Independence. The first line of the Declaration of the Rights of Man, “1. Men are born and remain free and equal in rights. Social distinctions may be founded only upon the general good,” is a direct expression of the idea of individualism that was at the heart of the American Constitution and Declaration of Independence and redefined liberty and what was possible in a free society for French citizens.

When these French citizens then took action to change their world, the effects of this rippled across its colonial structures through the Haitian Constitution and the revolution of Latin America. Hearing about the end of slavery decreed by Napoleon Bonaparte around the completion of the French Revolution, the people of Haiti and Latin America decided to have their own revolution. Inspired by the previous revolutions and the Enlightenment ideas which had spread to these regions, the Haitians rebelled against the French monarchy and is remembered as the only successful slave-lead rebellion against the governing regime. In so doing, their Constitution applied those same rights to people of color, “There cannot exist slaves on this territory, servitude is therein forever abolished. All men are born, live and die free and French.” This entire ripple effect and process of change next inspired Latin American revolutions led by Simon Bolivar and reveals how geography and human nature interact to change the world.

Today’s world conflict seems unprecedented. War, pestilence, famine, and hate seems to ravage all corners of the Earth, it may seem as if these are unprecedented times. However, the patterns of change throughout history – geography and human nature – can help reveal that the world has endured these forces before and that positive change is possible, even through difficult times.

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

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Did Chinese explorers discover America in the 1420s? This theory was advances in the 2002 book by Gavin Menzies, 1421:  The Year China Discovered America. Here, Capers Jones looks at some of the evidence for this.

Editor’s Note: Many of the claims in the book 1421:  The Year China Discovered America have been challenged as being speculative and many claims have little evidence.

A Chinese woodblock print, that is said to represent Zheng He's ships.

Introduction

In the year 2002 a retired British submarine commander named Gavin Menzies published a controversial book entitled “1421:  The Year China Discovered America.”  The book put forth a speculation that a Chinese Admiral named Zheng had taken a fleet around the world and made landfall in America in the year 1421.

Thirty years before Menzies book, a Baptist missionary in China named Dr. Herndon Harris purchased a map at a shop in Taiwan.   This map now known as the Harris Map was supposedly published in 1418 or 74 years before Columbus took his first voyage.  The map clearly shows both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of America and also much of the continent of South America.  This kind of geographical knowledge should not have been possible in 1418 and probably not until over 300 years later after the voyages of Captain Cook.

The map clearly shows both the north and south poles, both North and South America, Panama, Australia, and all of Africa and Europe.    A world map with this kind of accuracy should not exist in 1418.

This map is apparently based on the world voyages of Admiral Zheng he and shows knowledge of both coasts of North America as well as South America.  Assuming that the reported 1418 date is valid and the map is authentic, it shows that China did indeed have a blue-water fleet that carried out very extensive voyages of exploration prior to Columbus.  In fact it has been suggested that Portuguese spies in China had brought such maps back to Portugal and that Columbus may have seen the Chinese maps prior to his departure.

Chinese ship-building

What may surprise readers is that the Chinese sailing ships circa 1400 were much larger and more sea-worthy than European ships of the same era.

Chinese sailing ships towered over European ships.  Americans and Europeans are not taught much about early Chinese history.

The authenticity of the 1418 map has been challenged on several grounds, and there are claims that it may either be a recent map constructed to prove theories of Chinese nautical prowess or at any rate a recent map pieced together in perhaps the 1700’s from other recent maps.   

Until the 1418 map is authenticated it is premature to judge its accuracy circa 1418.  However in theory no map circa 1418 should be able to show both the Pacific and Atlantic coasts of the Americas and also Canada and the Isthmus of Panama, all of which appear on the Ming map.

Admiral Zheng He was born in 1371 and died around 1433.  He was an actual Chinese admiral and it is known that he did sail a large fleet on seven voyages of exploration.

Chinese maps showing the routes of Admiral Zheng He’s seven voyages do not go as far as the Americas but legends show additional voyages that do arrive in the Americas.

The authenticity of the 1418 map is questionable as of 2022.  However Admiral Zheng He was an actual historical personage and it is known that he was a master mariner who carried out seven voyages of exploration.

Historical data confirms that Admiral Zheng He did command a large fleet of blue-water sailing ships in the early 1400’s.  Whether or not Admiral Zheng He’s fleet reached America is unclear as of 2022.

Surprisingly there is evidence of even earlier visits to America by Chinese navigators.  The evidence is based on American corn, which is a native American crop and should not be found in China before the 1700s.

There are several recognizable images of corn from China, including from the Hongshan culture.  Incidentally the known dates of the Hongshan culture are from 4700 to 2900 BC which is actually older than the use of corn in the Americas.

Earlier visits?

There are even older records of possible visits from China that date back to 450 AD.  Hui Shen is a Buddhist monk who reportedly visited Mexico and Central America circa 458 AD.  He is not reported to have visited North America or the Narragansett Bay, and his legend is included just to show that Chinese court records did indicate some trans-Pacific travel at an early date.  Hui Shen was not a native Chinese but apparently a Buddhist monk from the area of Kabul in modern Afghanistan.

As background, the historical Buddha, Sakyamuni, was born in Northern India in 563 BC and lived to be about 80 years of age.  During his lifetime Buddha formed an order of monks and gave them instructions to travel and spread Buddhism widely.  Thus Buddhism, like Christianity, had a long tradition of missionary travel.

Chinese court records show that Hui Shen and four other monks spent almost 40 years in Central America.  Apparently Hui Shen was presented at court in 502 AD to the emperor Wu Ti of the Liang Dynasty.  The emperor had Hui Shen’s story recorded for court records.  Because Hui Shen did not speak Chinese very well, he apparently was regarded by the Chinese as an ambassador from Central America.

Reportedly Hui Shen and his party traveled by boat along the Aleutian Island chain in a Chinese junk and arrived near Vancouver.  Then the party went down the West Coast of North America and Central America.  It is not clear why they went all the way to Central America, except that perhaps they were aware of the major civilizations to the south.

Although Hui Shen and his party only passed along the West Coast of North America, other Chinese court records indicate some knowledge of the interior.  A description of what might be the Grand Canyon occurs. (Incidentally Hui Shen’s route down the Aleutians might possibly have been used by Paleo-Indians many thousands of years ago.)

Do you think Chinese explorers visited America in the 1420s? Let us know below.

Editor’s Note: You can read more about 1421:  The Year China Discovered America in a book review here and by an archaeologist here.

Copyright © 2022 by Capers Jones.  All rights reserved. Article published on History is Now with the permission of Capers Jones.

References

Gavin Menzies’ book about 1421:  The Year China Discovered America is the prime reference.  Also Google searches on “Admiral Zheng He” or “Ancient Chinese voyages” will turn up additional citations.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones
CategoriesBlog Post

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at how the abdications of Bayonne in France led to chaos in Spain and then the start of revolutionary outcomes in South America.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, his travels in Europe and the US is here, and his later life and as a leader is here.

Joseph Bonaparte as King of Spain in 1808. He became King of Spain following the Abdications of Bayonne.

Napoleon Shackled to a Corpse

Trafalgar, 1805. The defeat of the combined Franco-Spanish fleet at the hands of Britain’s Lord Nelson. The most complete naval defeat of the 19th century. The end of Napoleon’s dream of invading Britain and finishing off Perfidious Albion once and for all. This defeat, despite being coupled with Napoleon’s most stupendous victory at Austerlitz, would lead to a chain of events that would see revolutionary independence movements erupt throughout the Western Hemisphere.

With no chance of invading Britain in the foreseeable future, Napoleon needed to reassess his strategy to defeat his primary geopolitical rival. If he could not defeat Britain on the battlefield, or at sea, then he could strike at the foundation of British strength: trade. Great Britain had nearly inexhaustible sources of wealth from controlling the world’s trade system. British merchants, ships, banks, and refined trading methods dominated the world. Being Europe’s merchant had made Britain fabulously wealthy, and thus able to fund a decades-long global war with Napoleon. Napoleon’s rationale was that if he could remove all of Europe as a British customer, then there would be nowhere for Britain to sell, and therefore, the country would go bankrupt. A bankrupt country could not continue fighting, what was in essence, a world war.

After his defeat of Prussia in 1806, Britain declared the European coastline from Brest, at the extreme western tip of France, to the mouth of the Elbe River to be under its naval blockade. Napoleon responded with his Berlin Decree, which forbade all commerce with the British Isles and declared a counter-blockade. All British goods and ships in any port of France or French ally were to be seized. Further, any ship from any nation that stopped in Britain before coming to the continent was also subject to seizure.

All of Napoleon’s allies officially accepted the Berlin Decree and embargoed trade with Great Britain. The European coastline is long, with many inlets and bays. Against a country with unquestioned sea control, it was impossible to prevent smuggling. All his allies quietly accepted smuggling to keep their economies running. This was especially true of Spain. The one spot in Western Europe that openly defied the Emperor was Portugal.

Portugal had been a British ally for hundreds of years. For the Emperor of the French, master of all between the Atlantic and the Vistula to be defied by the tiny King of Portugal was unacceptable. The country just had to be defeated. The road that began with the decision to blockade British commerce would lead to revolutions half a world away.

Godoy

Manuel Francisco Domingo de Godoy y Alvarez-Faria de los Rios y Sanchez-Zarzosa was one of history’s most notorious social climbers. Beginning his career as a military cadet in 1784, he would be made a Lieutenant General in 1791. When he was made a royal bodyguard after his time as a cadet, he was able to see firsthand the inner workings of the Spanish government. He was able to see how incredibly unintelligent and colossally incompetent King Carlos IV was. He saw that the true power behind the throne was Queen Maria Luisa. He knew the best way to achieve power in that situation. He was a handsome, dashing, and young army officer. The Queen was saddled with a stupid and indifferent husband. He knew what he had to do.

Godoy became the Queen’s lover sometime in 1788, while Charles was still the heir. It is unclear whether the King knew or cared whether Godoy was bedding his wife, but the results for Godoy were immediate. He was showered with titles and rocketed through the military ranks. By 1792, he became Prime Minister of the kingdom.

Graft and nepotism were the twin pillars of Godoy’s government. His family and friends received riches and titles through the influence of the Queen. Carlos, not interested in government or administration anyway, was more than happy to let Godoy do what he wanted. It was Godoy’s policy to tie Spain to the French. His calculation was that it was better to let the British threaten the empire rather than let the French threaten Spain itself.

Napoleon was a leader who liked to find out what motivated someone. Whether it was titles, riches, or glory, Napoleon would use that motivation to get his way. With Godoy, it was all three. Napoleon would join the Queen in showering Godoy with honors and money, in exchange for Godoy’s support for the continuance of the French alliance.

As the years passed, however, relations between the two allies would suffer. The destruction of the Spanish fleet at Trafalgar highlighted the impotence of Spanish military policy. While tied to France, there was zero chance for an independent foreign policy. Economically, Spain was in terrible shape. The richest source of wealth, its vast New World empire, was cut off by the Royal Navy. Napoleon, recognizing the atrophied state of the Spanish army, did not want Spanish troops anywhere near the battlefields of Central Europe. Instead, he would force contributions on Spain in the form of gold and cash to fund the Imperial war machine. Dissatisfaction and resistance to Godoy’s pro-French policy began to coalesce around one man, the man who hated King Carlos more than any other: the heir to the throne, Infante Ferdinand.

Ferdinand vs. Carlos

Relations between the king and his heir could not be any worse. Born in 1784, Ferdinand had been shut out of any power or decision-making authority by his father. Whether this decision was the king’s or Godoy’s is open for debate, but it had the effect of Ferdinand hating both men with an undying passion. Due to this strained relationship, the Infante would become the focus for all those who opposed Godoy’s (and the king’s) policies.

After the defeat at Trafalgar in 1805, Godoy began to realize that something had to change. Spain’s government at the time had little to fear from a displeased public. What they did have to fear was a displeased elite class. The day-to-day machinery keeping any government working has always been the elite class. When the elite turns against the government, the situation can become revolutionary very quickly (see Paris, 1789). Godoy, for all his nepotism and hedonism, was not a fool. He knew he had to do something.

In 1806, Napoleon, fresh off his victory over the Austrians and Russians at Austerlitz, was at war again, this time against Prussia. Napoleon would be facing off against the vaunted legions Frederick the Great had left behind him, along with the rest of the Fourth Coalition. For Godoy, this was the perfect opportunity. He issued a bellicose proclamation which, while not naming France, was intended to be seen as a shot across Napoleon’s bow. It called for the Spanish people to unite against the enemy, though who that was was left unsaid. Godoy hoped that this would appease his enemies, and if Napoleon lost, Godoy would be able to finally stake out an independent policy for his government.

It only took a few weeks for Napoleon (and Marshal Davout) to crush the Prussians at the twin battles of Jena and Auerstädt. The proclamation was withdrawn rather quickly afterward. Godoy would inform his French friends that it was meant for domestic consumption only, and his friendship with the Emperor could never be questioned.

Napoleon was not amused. The only ally of any sizable strength he had was Spain. Now Spain itself could not be trusted. During his conquests, Napoleon had a policy of placing his family in charge of small satellite states on the French border to ensure loyalty. Brothers Joseph and Louis were kings of Naples and Holland respectively. His brother-in-law, Marshal Murat, was Grand Duke of Berg. An idea began forming in Napoleon’s mind.

By 1807, Prince Ferdinand was growing more and more frustrated with the direction of Spain. He knew his father hated him. He even began to fear that Godoy was looking to take the succession from him. Despite being the focus of the anti-French party, Ferdinand took the drastic step of writing to Napoleon himself. He requested the emperor’s help against Godoy and his father the king. Godoy had a good intelligence network and was able to discover the contents of the letter. Using it as proof of a plot, Godoy was able to arrange a raid on the prince’s residence, finding more letters, including further complaints against the king. Ferdinand was arrested for plotting to overthrow his father. Napoleon, however, did not want his fingerprints on this situation and convinced Godoy to squash the affair.

After the Treaty of Tilsit ended the War of the Fourth Coalition, there was one country that openly defied Napoleon’s Continental System embargo on the British, Portugal. He could not allow Portugal to snub its nose at France, but France did not border Portugal. Spain, however, did. French troops would have to go through Spain to get there. An arrangement had to be made, and Manuel Godoy was a man always looking to make an arrangement.

This led to the Treaty of Fontainebleau between Napoleon and King Carlos IV of Spain. This treaty divided Portugal into three parts, a kingdom in the north, a central region, the control of which was to be determined, and a southern part called the Principality of the Algarves. The latter would be given to the man who would be the new Prince of the Algarves, Manuel Godoy, the Spanish Prime Minister. In exchange, French troops would be able to pass through Spain on their way to Portugal.

Tumult of Aranjuez

French troops began entering Spain in late 1807. General Junot’s corps of 25,000 was to be the only force that entered the country. If Great Britain decided to intervene in Portugal, the French could send reinforcements, but only after notifying Carlos IV. General Dupont’s corps entered the country soon after, with no notification. By early 1808, Marshal Moncey led three more corps over the Pyrenees. Many of them were not moving toward Portugal, but instead taking up positions at strategic points throughout the Iberian peninsula.

Although Godoy and Carlos were beginning to suspect something was afoot, they were hesitant to make an open break with the French emperor. Napoleon would reject a request that he provide a suitable princess for Ferdinand to marry.

Further French troops now crossed the border. They began occupying the border forts in the Pyrenees. Little resistance was met. Carlos, and Godoy, still did not want to provide any pretext for open war. The problem for the Spanish was that while it takes two to make peace, only one is needed to make war. Napoleon used his dashing, and hyper-aggressive, cavalry commander Marshal Murat, the primary commander in the peninsula. Murat led his troops toward Madrid.

As Murat approached the capital, the Spanish royal family and Godoy finally realized the danger they were in. However, they had a plan. Carlos may have been the King of Spain, but he was also the King of the four viceroyalties in the Americas. Yes, Spain would fall. There was no stopping Napoleon. But they could continue the fight from Mexico City, Lima, or Buenos Aires. Behind the wooden walls of the British Royal Navy, Napoleon would not be able to reach them from there. The royal family decided to flee.

Much like the flight of their French cousins, the Spanish Bourbons would not make it out of the country. While they were staying in Aranjuez, not far from Madrid, every element of society revolted against the corrupt Manuel Godoy. He was captured by the crowd. Two days later, King Carlos IV was forced to abdicate in favor of Ferdinand. Now the people would finally get the anti-French king that they craved.

Except they wouldn’t. One of now Ferdinand VII’s first acts was to write to Napoleon begging him for his support. Soon, Carlos wrote to Napoleon claiming that he had been forced to abdicate and requested that his old ally help him reclaim his throne. Napoleon, being the benevolent man that he was, invited Ferdinand, and his father Carlos IV, to meet with him in Bayonne, France. Carlos went under the impression Napoleon would support his claim that his abdication was under duress. Ferdinand went assuming that Napoleon would recognize his claim to the throne. Napoleon only wanted to lure both men out of Spain and into custody.

Dos de Mayo Uprising

While Carlos and Ferdinand made their way to Bayonne, Marshal Murat was occupying Madrid. He expected his troops to be treated as allies there to help. Instead, they were treated as an occupying force. Living at the royal palace was King Carlos’ youngest son, Francisco. To protect the young Infante, a crowd assembled to prevent the French from taking him into custody. When the crowd would not disperse, the French troops opened fire. The crowd, now an angry mob having smelled blood, went through the streets looking for French detachments.

Murat, realizing the danger of the situation, declared martial law and set about retaking the city. Utilizing the Imperial Guard, the best troops in the French army, control was slowly and bloodily restored. For the Spanish civilian population, this came with a double humiliation. The Imperial Guard had a battalion of Mamelukes, Islamic soldiers mostly from Egypt. Evoking memories of the Reconquista, it now became a religious and racial fight as well as a nationalistic one.

Upon retaking control of Madrid, Murat ordered military justice imposed on the population. Courts-martial would order the executions of those found guilty. Weapons were confiscated. The soldiers of Spain’s ally now openly acted like the occupation force they were.

Napoleonic Maneuvers

Meanwhile, in Bayonne, Napoleon had the Spanish king and the would-be king under his control. Meeting with Carlos, Napoleon recognized Carlos’ claim to the throne. Then Napoleon convinced him to abdicate that claim in favor of a French prince of Napoleon’s choosing. Meeting separately with Ferdinand, he met stiffer opposition. Ferdinand initially refused to abdicate his claim. After the meeting, Ferdinand received a letter essentially threatening him with death if he did not abdicate. On May 6, only four days after the dos de Mayo uprising, but with no personal knowledge of the events, Ferdinand abdicated his claims in favor of his father.

Napoleon now had what he wanted. Ferdinand abdicated in Carlos’ favor, and Carlos’ had abdicated and handed his crown to Napoleon. Previously, Napoleon had asked his brother Louis, King of Holland to take the Spanish crown. Louis refused. He then turned to his older brother Joseph. Joseph was an able administrator and good with finances. Napoleon thought he would make a pliant King of Spain.

Spain Rises Up

Information moved slowly in the early 19th century. The news of the new King José I of Spain spread like wildfire. Coupled with the events in Madrid, the entire peninsula rose. Many of the governmental administration and the elites were willing to accept Joseph. It was the people who turned this into a revolution.

City after city rose in revolt against the French. This “Spanish ulcer” would bleed the French army for six years. Only a month after the initial uprising in Madrid, General Dupont surrendered his entire corps, 24,000 men, to the Spanish. This further emboldened the people to greater resistance.

All the hopes of the people focused on Ferdinand, now in custody in French territory. He became the desired one. The hope of the entire nation to throw off their Bonapartist oppressors. Since Ferdinand could not rule as a captive, someone had to rule in his name.

Creation of the Supreme Central Junta

All over Spain, groups rising against the French organized themselves. With the government decapitated, and much of the civil service accepting Joseph, new men stepped up to assume leadership. In situations such as these, it can be difficult to get everyone to recognize the same supreme authority.

Many of these groups formed Juntas, or councils, and assumed governmental functions. These groups asserted for themselves authority over a certain geographic area. Fighting the most impressive military machine of the early 19th century was more than a disorganized rabble could handle. There had to be a central authority.

A series of regional Juntas banded together for the creation of a unifying supreme junta. This Supreme Central Junta would govern Spain in the name of King Ferdinand VII. It would be representative of all the people of Spain and the empire. Each local Junta would have representation. They even attempted to be inclusive and invited the viceroyalties and several captaincies-general of the New World to send representatives, albeit fewer in number than those from Spain itself.

Spread to the Americas

When news reached the New World about the French occupation of Spain, most colonial authorities accepted the authority of the Supreme Central Junta. Among the people, however, there was resentment. Why did the regions of Spain each get two representatives in the Junta, while each of their regions only get one each? Why were they even recognizing the authority of this extra-legal body in the first place?

For many in Spanish America, they could understand loyalty to King Ferdinand. What they could not fathom was continued loyalty to Spain. They should have their own Juntas with authority over their own kingdoms, independent of Spain, but still in the name of Ferdinand. This position would eventually be a short jump away from total independence without the king.

The creation of local Juntas and their struggles for local control would meld into the Wars of Independence for the nations of Spanish America. Napoleon had thought he could bring Spain under his control and attain with it the wealth of the Spanish Empire. Manuel Godoy, the feckless Spanish Prime Minister thought he could control a great empire, the king he served, and outwit the great man on horseback. What both men had done, through overconfidence and blundering, was set the spark which led to the conflagration of the Spanish colonies and the collapse one of the world’s largest empires.

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

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

If you are looking for places to visit on your world tour or just to broaden your horizons, then this article could prove very interesting. Here, Amy Hogan looks at eight fascinating unknown historical sites.

Winston Churchill, Harry Truman, and Joseph Stalin at the 1945 Potsdam Conference.

When you visit the historical sites in this article (or indeed anywhere!), you must be prepared for anything. Sometimes things happen: you fly to another country and realize that you don’t have a car. It is expensive to rent a car at the airport and taxis are even more expensive. My suggestion would be to search online to rent a car near me, order a taxi and get to the rental desk. It's more likely that a taxi to the rental company will cost you less than to your hotel!

1. Potsdam, Germany

The city of Potsdam is located in the eastern part of Germany and has a population of approximately 150,000 people. This city has a long and interesting history. And although Berlin is the capital of Germany, significant events took place in Potsdam in both World War One and World War Two.

2.Graz, Austria

Graz has been designated a City of Human Rights and awarded the European Prize for Architecture. The Old Town of Graz and the Eggenberg Castle are listed as World Cultural Heritage sites by UNESCO. In 2003, Graz was the European Capital of Culture and, along with Vienna and Salzburg, is one of the main cities in Austria.

3. Ghent, Belgium

Walking around the city on a summer evening, when all the significant buildings are illuminated by spotlights, will give you an unforgettable experience and remind you of this fascinating history of the city. Although - at the height of summer, stagnant water in the canals emits a persistent tart aroma that can be felt in the city on hot days.

The old part of the city is quite small, and you can get around in a day. It is forbidden to drive cars in the city center though.

4. Mendoza, Argentina

Much of Argentine wine is produced in the province of Mendoza - and this production has a long and intriguing history. There are many wineries in Mendoza, but it is easy to get around them on a bicycle. At the wineries you will be shown the production and treated with delicious wines!

5. Wachau, Austria

Since ancient times, the valley has been covered with many legends and tales telling about the amazing history of the region: part of the European trade route and a famous viticulture region. The significance of the unique cultural landscape of the valley is confirmed by UNESCO. The main highlight here is the monastery in Melk: the “cradle of Austria” and the largest building of the Benedictine order in Central Europe.

6. City of Dijon and Province of Burgundy, France

Burgundy has a great history, perhaps best shown in Dijon, with an exceptional palace and historical center. It is also a French food itinerary destination and is famous for its annual international gastronomy fair.

Burgundy embodies the best that is in France - the beauty of nature and architecture, the freedom of the spirit and the ability to enjoy every day. Among its yellow mustard fields and green vineyards, it is easy to forget about sorrows and anxieties, especially if you admire them while tasting local delicacies and washing them down with fine Burgundy wine.

7. Aix-en-Provence, France

Many people associate France with the Provence region, which has become popular thanks to numerous literary works and feature films. And if Marseille is the administrative capital of this region, then the capital of history and culture can safely be called the town of Aix-en-Provence, which has managed to maintain authenticity amidst its wonderful historical architecture.

8. Nikko National Park, Japan

Nikko National Park was founded on December 4, 1934 and is one of the oldest nature reserves in the country. It is located on the island of Honshu, in the Kanto region, northeast of Tokyo, on the territory of four prefectures: Gunma, Fukushima, Niigata and Tochigi. The area of the park is about one and a half thousand square kilometers. The park includes noteworthy historical Buddhist temples and Shinto shrines.

The places and cities written above are often of great importance for the countries in which they are located. These places are open to the public not to collect more money from tourists, but to tell a story. So that this story is passed from mouth to mouth, and generation to generation.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

Although the exploits of the Second World War are widely known and a huge number of books are published each year covering its history, we should remember that machinery helped soldiers during special operations and numerous battles. It was often thanks to them that soldiers successfully completed their actions. In this article Amy Hogan takes a closer look at five of the best military vehicles of the war.

US-based trials of the Ford GPA Sea jeeps during World War II.

Before we start, we shouldn't forget that nowadays automobiles are playing a huge role in our daily lives. And we don't need to spend a fortune on a car, as we can rent one for days or hours or weeks. Moreover, it does not matter if you want to find a rental car in Dubai or New York, there are numerous car rental companies the world over. They offer a wide range of models, so you can even rent a vintage car and enjoy the atmosphere of the past!

Dodge WC-51

The American Dodge WC-51 was a heavy SUV that became widespread during World War II. The vehicle went into production in 1941, when the war was already taking place, and from 1942 it was delivered to the Red Army as Allied aid. In the military units, the Dodge WC-51 had great value. The unit was  versatile: it was used to set up mobile ambulance stations, provide vital communications in combat situations, and of course it carried weapons. Heavy off-road vehicles such as the Dodge WC-51 were ideally suited to carry not only mortars but also crew and ammunition.

Horch 901

Back in the mid-1930s, German industry began to develop and produce four-wheel drive military vehicles, which were divided into light, medium and heavy size vehicles. These vehicles were often on the battlefield, taking part in many campaigns of the Wehrmacht. There was a wide range of functions, particularly the trucks that had off-road tires and high ground clearance. The Horch 901 was also used as a mobile hospital, communications vehicle, and of course to transport weapons.

Ford GPW Willys

In 1942, the Ford GPW Willys were delivered to the Red Army under the Lend-Lease Program in various versions. This well-proven vehicle had many useful features. It was used for reconnaissance, transportation of commanding staff and even as a gun carrier. In addition, the Willys were equipped with machine guns and other small armaments.

Volkswagen Type 82

The famous first prototype was developed in 1938 and was named VW Type 62. After testing and some modifications the vehicle was given the designation Type 82 and was put into production in November 1940. With a lightweight open four-door body, a folding windshield and a canvas roof and body, it was collectively called the Kübelwagen. The unpretentious and reliable vehicle won the respect of the soldiers. It was thanks to the VW Type 82 that the militray had fewer shortages of spare parts, as the vehicle was easily repairable, extremely light - and moreover it could be lifted by three soldiers if necessary.

Ford GPA

In 1941 the Ford Company produced an amphibious vehicle for a government competition for a lightweight, 250-kilogram capacity floating vehicle. The specification called for a design that could support military waterborne engineering as well as military reconnaissance. Unlike the boats, the amphibious vehicle didn't need to be transported and there were no complicated operations of launching and lifting it back onto trucks for further transportation. In 1942 the vehicle entered service with the US Army.

The Second World War tested not only people, but also their machines. Partly, it was also a war of engineers. At that time, military vehicles, the engineers who designed them, and those workers who implemented the projects all played an essential role, both in the overall outcome of the war and in the lives of many people.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

1856 was a critical year that would change the course of history for the United States. Tensions between the North and the South had been on the rise for many decades, and the threat of civil collapse was imminent. On March 4th, 1857, James Buchanan was inaugurated as the nation's fifteenth president. At the time, Americans believed that Buchanan was the leader necessary to prevent total civil unrest and the South leaving the Union. However, Buchanan’s actions during the Utah War, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott decision failed to resolve the crisis. Many historians rate President James Buchanan as one of the worst presidents in history.

Lillian Jiang explains.

President Buchanan (center) and his cabinet.

Historians sometimes refer to the Utah War as “Buchanan’s Blunder”. In simple terms, The Utah War was an unnecessary confrontation between Mormon settlers (the members of the Church Jesus Christ of Latter-day saints in Utah) and the Armed Forces of the United States from 1857 to 1859. Mormons desired their own isolated territory, to practice freedom of religion. But many Americans and President Buchanan viewed Mormonism and the leaders of the LDS Church negatively, specifically because they practiced poligamy. Tensions between Americans and the Mormans had been growing for a long time, and when Buchanan sent an army of 2,500 troops in what he called the “Utah Expedition '', Mormans assumed that they were being persecuted and armed themselves in preparation for war.

Although no direct battles occured, Mormons feared occupation, and murdered 120 migrants at Mountain Meadows (Ellen, 1). The Utah War or the Mormon Rebellion only lasted for a single year, and congress blamed Buchanan for the unnecessary violent conflict.

President Buchanan’s friend, Thomas L. Kane, who corresponded regularly with Brigham Young, intervened, and convinced the present that all Mormons would accept peace if offered, so the president granted amnesty to all Utah residents who would accept federal authority. (Ellen, 1)

Buchanan’s approach to the crisis only left a bitter aftertaste of his administration. (Stampp, 60).

Inauguration

In the year of President Buchanan’s inauguration, the Panic of 1857 swept the nation. The Panic of 1857 was a financial crisis in the United States caused by a sudden downturn in the economy, which was a result of false banking practices and the decline of many important businesses that were central to the economy, including railroad companies. At the beginning of President Buchanan’s inauguration in 1857, the United States had “$1.3 million dollars surplus and a moderate $28.7 million debt.” (Ellen, 1) When the 16th President of the United States, Abraham Lincoln, took the presidency in 1861, the U.S. Treasury recorded a “25.2 million deficit and a 76.4 million debt… The amount of fiscal accumulated in the years was the largest imbalance by a pre-Civil War leader.” (Ellen, 1).

To ease the financial crisis, President Buchanan ordered the withdrawal of all banknotes under twenty dollars and ordered the state banks to follow the federal government’s “Independent Treasury System,” which required that “all federal funds be deposited into treasuries” (History Central, 1)  instead of private banks. Although this did ease the financial crisis, the Utah War had added millions to the army’s budget (Ellen, 1). The financial crisis also had an impact on sectionalism between the North and South. As the South was not affected by the crisis as much as the North because of the prevalence of slavery, Southern states began to believe they had a far superior economy, which divided the Union even further. On this matter and Buchanan’s actions, historian Mark W. Summers said, “the most devastating proof of government abuse of power since the founding of the Republic.” (Ellen, 1)

Bleeding Kansas

One of Buchanan’s most significant missteps was in regards to the way he dealt with Bleeding Kansas, a period of violent warfare between pro and anti-slavery factions in Kansas. The Kansas-Nebraska Act, passed in May of 1854 by President Franklin Pierce, gave residents residing in Kansas Territory the right to choose whether or not to permit slavery because of Popular Sovereignty, which gave rise to violent confrontations over the legality of slavery. On December 8th, 1957, in his first annual address to Congress, President Buchanan promised to resolve the conflict. However, his future decisions would not promote a resolution between factions and instead would escalate tension and violence.

President Buchanan was careless about whether or not Kansas would become a slave state or a free state. Although Buchanan was morally opposed to slavery, he believed that it ultimately protected by the laws of the constitution. He wanted to admit Kansas into the Union as soon as possible in hopes of settling conflicts. In 1857, Buchanan demanded approval of Kansas’s Lecompton Constitution, which protected the rights of slaveholders because he was politically dependent on Southern Democrats. However, Buchanan endorsed Popular Sovereignty, so he held an election in Kansas, on January 4th, 1858, to decide whether the constitution should be rejected or ratified. The constitution was rejected by a vote of “11,300 to 1,788” (Ellen, 1). In the end, Buchanan conflicting stances on slavery did not gain approbation from neither the Northern nor Southern states.    

Buchanan’s unrelenting support for the constitution and his dedication to Popular Sovereignty ultimately had a destructive impact on the Union. The rejection of the constitution angered many Southerners. The Northerners felt betrayed by Buchanan for protecting slave owners after being so vocally anti-slavery. In his inaugural address, he stated:

To their decision, in common with all good citizens, I shall cheerfully submit, whatever this may be, though it has ever been my individual opinion that under the Nebraska-Kansas act the appropriate period will be when the number of actual residents in the Territory shall justify the formation of a constitution with a view to its admission as a State into the Union (Wilder, 117).

He believed that governing the territories with Popular Sovereignty would reunite the opposing factions, but instead, it aggravated them even further.

Poor judgments

Buchanan’s poor judgments continued into the Dred Scott V. Sandford case as well. The Dred Scott case was when a formerly enslaved man, Dred Scott, sued his master for his freedom in 1846. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 and The Missouri Compromise of 1820 both prohibited slavery in Fort Snelling—what is now present-day Minnesota—therefore, he argued that he had been illegally enslaved in a free territory. (Ellen, 1). After winning his lawsuits in a lower court, the case was handed over to the Supreme Court after eleven years. Despite the long wait, the Supreme Court’s decision did not satisfy the abolitionists. On March 6, 1857, referring to the “Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom”, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney decided:

The powers over person and property of which we speak are not only not granted to Congress, but are in express terms denied. . . . And this prohibition is not confined to the States, but the words are general, and extend to the whole territory over which the Constitution gives it power to legislate, including those portions of it remaining under territorial government, as well as that covered by States. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. (79)

The court determined that African-Americans could not be citizens of the United States and that Congress had no power to prohibit slavery (Swain, 79). Buchanan also concurred with the decision, believing that the Constitution protected slavery. The Republicans quoted Buchanan’s inaugural address to claim that he was aware of the court’s verdict as he had addressed that he would “cheerfully submit” to the decision regarding the Dred Scott case and urged citizens to do the same (Ellen, 1).

This case is one of the most controversial Supreme Court decisions to this date. The result invalidated the Missouri Compromise and further widened the divide between North and South over slavery (Ellen, 1). In his fourth annual address, Buchanan explained that his power was restrained under the Constitution and laws. He stated:

It is beyond the power of any president, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question. (Hirschfield, 70).

His actions or rather, non-actions, towards sectionalism became the rallying point for nations to vote for Abraham Lincoln into office in 1860.

Sectionalism and slavocracy were the most contentious issues at the time. An empowered and decisive leadership was needed to settle the crisis between the North and the South, but Buchanan lacked these qualities as president. His blunders during the Utah War, Panic of 1857, Bleeding Kansas, and the Dred Scott vs. Sandford case only further raised tensions between the factions and left the U.S. in great turmoil. Although Buchanan had good intentions and was trying to prevent the outbreak of an imminent civil war, his administration failed to do so.

What do you think of President Buchanan? Let us know below.

Works Cited

Ellen, Kelly. “Everything Wrong with the Buchanan Administration.” Libertarianism.org, 12 June 2020, www.libertarianism.org/everything-wrong-presidents/everything-wrong-buchanan-administration#_edn15.

Hirschfield, Robert S.. The Power of the Presidency: Concepts and Controversy. United States, Aldine, 1982.

Pray, Bobbie, and Marilyn Irvin Holt. Kansas History, a Journal of the Central Plains: a Ten-Year Cumulative Index. Kansas State Historical Society, 1988.

Stampp, Kenneth M. And the War Came: the North and the Secession Crisis, 1860-1861. Louisiana State University Press, 1970.

Swain, Gwenyth. Dred and Harriet Scott: A Family's Struggle for Freedom. Minnesota Historical Society Press, 2010.

Wilder, Daniel Webster. The Annals of Kansas. United States, G. W. Martin, 1875.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

By the latter half of the 17th century, the rule of Spain in the New World was reaching 200 years. Times were changing, both in the New World and in Europe, and the leaders of Spain knew it. Their problem was what to do about it. Spain had never had a coherent policy in its imperial rule. Since 1492, Spain was seemingly constantly at war, with an endless series of crises thrown into the mix. Solutions had to be found for the here and now, the future would take care of itself.

Erick Redington continues his look at the independence of Spanish America by looking at Venezuelan military leader and revolutionary Francisco de Miranda. Here he looks at Francisco de Miranda’s further travels and how he came to declare independence in one part of South America.

If you missed them, Erick’s article on the four viceroyalties is here, Francisco de Miranda’s early life is here, and his travels in Europe and the US is here.

A painting of General Francisco de Miranda by Martín Tovar y Tovar

Francisco de Miranda, now back in Britain, was determined to carry out the mission he had given himself so many years ago: leading the movement for the independence of Spanish America. This can be seen in his first letter to Prime Minister William Pitt. Miranda addresses himself to Pitt as the “Principal Agent of the Spanish American Colonies, commissioned to treat with the Ministers of His Britannic Majesty.” He had been accredited by no government. What he did understand, however, was the time and the societal structure he lived in. He knew he had to “sound important.” Walk the walk, so to speak. He was showing himself as an important man, the leader of a people, addressing other world leaders. When he was able to meet with Pitt and was asked for his credentials, Miranda would hand Pitt the Act of Paris.

Just as the last time he was in Britain, he knew the British government was the key to financial and military support for his aims. With Britain and Spain at war again, Pitt and his ministry were only too happy to support Miranda, but again, they would only do so on their own terms. Miranda, aware of the duplicitous nature of international politics, had been courting the Americans as well. For all the letters he sent to Pitt outlining plans for expeditions to South America, he was also sending letters to his old friends in the United States. Thomas Jefferson was elected President in 1800, and Jefferson and his new Secretary of State James Madison were counted by Miranda as friends. Miranda knew both men were interested in spreading the “benefits of republican government.” Using the known expansionist designs of the Americans as a counterbalance to the power of Great Britain would help Miranda in his cause. He tried to force on the British a sense of urgency. The British better help him, and by extension keep their influence over him, or else the Americans would help him, and they would have influence.

This would not be enough to force the British into helping him. Miranda knew he would have to pressure the British government into helping him. To do this, he chose to go over the heads of the government, and appeal directly to the British people. The hope was to create overwhelming support for Spanish American independence, that the ministry would be forced to act through public pressure.

Miranda’s Widening Net

One of the most important publications that helped Miranda’s cause was not written by Miranda himself. Also in London at the time was Juan Pablo Viscardo y Guzmán. Viscardo was a Jesuit from Peru who was expelled from Spanish America on royal orders dissolving the Jesuit order in Spanish territory. While in exile, Viscardo became a staunch supporter of South American independence. He would publish the “Open Letter to the American Spaniards.” This publication, seen by many at the time, and by later historians, as a South American Declaration of Independence or Declaration of the Rights of Man, was more akin to a version of Common Sense by Thomas Paine. It laid out all the legal and emotional reasons why Spanish America should be independent.

When Viscardo died in 1798, his papers were given to Miranda, who could recognize the rhetorical power of Viscardo’s arguments. Since Viscardo was no longer around to challenge Miranda, his legacy could easily be adopted and coopted into Miranda’s own operation. This, and other writings by Miranda, would be published in the numerous newspapers and pamphlets that dotted London at the time.

It is also at this time that Miranda would begin to cultivate relationships with many younger firebrands who lived in London at the time. The first was a young man, the illegitimate son of the Viceroy of Peru, Bernardo Riquelme. Later as Bernardo O’Higgins, he would help lead the liberation of Chile, and contribute to the liberation of Peru. O’Higgins, meeting Miranda in his late teens, was extremely impressionable and searching for a father figure to teach him. Miranda filled this role splendidly. The same impetuosity displayed so many times by Miranda would characterize the life and governance of O’Higgins. This secondary role that Miranda took upon himself, that of a father figure and mentor to young revolutionaries would have far-reaching impacts on the course of revolutions throughout South America.

Years would pass before Miranda would have success in his relations with the British government. It was only in 1805 that the British government began seriously studying the many plans Miranda had presented for military action. When this grand study was conducted, it concluded that the best way to foment an uprising in South America was to…attack Buenos Aires. Miranda was devastated. Buenos Aires was not what he considered a ripe ground for liberation. He wanted to go back to his homeland and initiate an uprising there. Just like last time, Miranda was so fed up with the British government, that he decided to leave. Unlike last time though, he would go back to the New World. He would go to the United States.

The Leander Expedition

While in the United States, all the contacts Miranda had made would pay off for him. Whereas in Britain, he had faced roadblocks and frustrations, in the US his friends would outdo each other in helping him. Jefferson and Madison, the President and Secretary of State respectively, would provide him access and (unofficially, of course) weapons made in US armories. He was able to recruit members for his planned expedition without any legal hindrance, regardless of US neutrality laws.

On February 2, 1806, Miranda and his motley crew of about 180 men set sail from New York aboard the Leander (named for Miranda’s young son), the small ship that would give the expedition its name. After a short layover in Haiti, supported there by the revolutionary government of Jean-Jacques Dessalines, Miranda and crew would sail for their target, Venezuela. During the journey, the crew was presented with uniforms for the new army that they were now members of. Miranda unfurled the tricolor that would eventually be the basis for the flags of three nations. After another stop in Aruba for rest and resupply, Miranda was joined by two other ships, the Bee and the Bacchus.

For Miranda, this was the moment his life had been leading up to. He had men under arms following him. Bright, velvet uniforms adorned those fighting in the glorious cause of freedom from colonial tyranny. Proclamations had been written and printed, which once distributed, would drive the people into a revolutionary frenzy. Everything was in place for the victory that Miranda believed was his destiny.

It began to fall apart almost at once. A landing was attempted at the small town of Ocumare on April 27. The Spanish were ready to oppose them with two ships. Miranda would order his ship, Leander, to sail away. The Bee, however, did not get the message and was captured, left to its fate while Miranda retreated.

If at first you don’t succeed…

Arriving back in Aruba, Miranda would receive help from the British. The Royal Navy officers in the area were sympathetic to his cause. With this help, he was finally able, on August 3, to land on Venezuelan soil, at La Vela de Coro, the site of the old colony of Neu-Augsburg. Upon occupying Coro, he found the city almost deserted. The people had been told to evacuate by colonial authorities to escape the barbarities Miranda would visit upon them. For his part, Miranda had ordered persons and property respected. It did not matter, there was no mass uprising in the revolution’s favor.

Within a few days, Spanish forces reacted and began to approach Coro. The hero was not about to let himself be captured by the enemy, so he ordered his men to retreat to the coast. Miranda threatened to leave behind the wounded if it slowed the retreat. One man who voiced complaints was threatened with execution at Miranda’s hand. Once aboard the ship, Miranda would order his expedition to head back to Aruba. The entire invasion lasted eleven days. It was a complete failure. Adding insult to injury, one of the local commanders of Spanish forces was Juan Manuel Cagigal, Miranda’s old friend from 30 years before who now called him a fanatic.

Back to Britain, Again

From Aruba, Miranda would find his way back to Britain. As soon as he arrived, he announced his presence to the government and began planning a new expedition. The new Prime Minister, the Duke of Portland, was more open than Pitt had been to Miranda’s advances. Portland viewed the war against France as the world war that it was and wanted to strike at Spain’s soft underbelly in the Americas. In furtherance to this end, a large expedition was assembled which would strike at Spanish America. Arthur Wellesley, the future Duke of Wellington, would command. Fate, as it always seemed to with Miranda, intervened. Napoleon, with the help of Spain, had forced the Portuguese royal family to flee Iberia and take up residence in Brazil, the largest colony of Portugal. Sensing an opportunity, the British diverted the army meant for South America to Portugal to begin the famous Peninsular Campaign.

Despondent, Miranda could not believe the opportunity that had been lost. A major army under competent command was lost to him and his cause. Shortly, however, fate would intervene again. Napoleon had invaded his own ally, Spain.

Napoleon Provides the Opportunity of a Lifetime

Napoleon had begun to worry about his Spanish ally. Napoleon was willing to accept the horrifically incompetent administration of the Spanish government led by the Queen’s lover Manuel de Godoy, one of the most corrupt men in the annals of history. He was also willing to accept the cartoonishly stupid King Carlos IV and his only slightly less stupid son, Ferdinand. Napoleon understood that the corrupt and stupid can be controlled, especially by someone as brilliant as himself. The problem was the Spanish people were not willing to continue to submit. After several attempts by Ferdinand, and Ferdinand-aligned elements of the Spanish government, to overthrow Godoy and Carlos, Napoleon intervened and tricked both Carlos and Ferdinand to abdicate their claims to the Spanish throne. Napoleon then named his brother Joseph King José I. All over Spain, uprisings began resisting the French occupation of the country. These uprisings and their leadership committees, called Juntas, pledged their loyalty to Ferdinand, now called Ferdinand VII.

Overnight, these events changed the entire dynamic for Miranda. His primary patron had always been Great Britain. He had always looked primarily to Britain for support. Now, Britain and Spain were allies. Instead of trying to undermine Spanish rule in America, now the British wanted to reinforce it. Within a year, Juntas began springing up in Spanish America, officially pledged to the cause of Ferdinand VII.

These Juntas were led by local criollos who occupied second place in the Spanish colonial hierarchy. The taste of power and local self-rule would not be lost by these men. These Juntas were pledged to Ferdinand VII, yes, but not necessarily to Spain itself, a hair-splitting distinction, but a distinction, nonetheless. Here were the mass independence movements that Miranda had been waiting his whole life for. The movements that he felt it his destiny to lead.

Miranda Goes Home

In 1810, the Supreme Junta of Caracas, exerting power supposedly over the whole of Venezuela, removed the colony’s Spanish government. The Junta claimed that it was simply exercising authority on behalf of Ferdinand until he could return to the throne. It was on this basis that a delegation was sent from the Junta to Britain to garner support. This delegation had as one of its members a certain Simón Bolívar. A young hot-headed Venezuelan, Bolívar was awed by Miranda and his reputation. As he was always keen on mentoring young revolutionaries, Miranda took a liking to this young man. When the delegation attempted to persuade Miranda to return to his homeland, it did not take much convincing. What the delegation did not tell Miranda was that their instructions specifically forbade them from bringing him back with them when they returned. It did not matter. Miranda was going home.

The First Venezuelan Congress assembled on March 2, 1811. Declaring itself the legitimate government of Venezuela, it began setting the stage to take complete control. On July 5, 1811, Congress would declare Venezuela independent of Spain. It would also establish the new country as a republic, styled the American Confederation of Venezuela. A constitution was written, allegedly based upon the principles of liberty and reason. It was unveiled on July 14, Bastille Day.

Back in Command

Miranda was given the task of suppressing royalists around Valencia. Given his military experience, this was a natural assignment. It was not the one that Miranda wanted. Although he was able to easily bring these loyalists to heel, Miranda did not want to be overly brutal. He saw these people as countrymen and wanted to reconcile them with the new republic. When he returned to Caracas after his successful campaign, he received a hero’s welcome. The people crowded him on the streets and cheered his name. This further fueled the jealousy felt by members of the Republic’s government. They were afraid that Miranda and his friends, whom they saw as Jacobins and a Masonic conspiracy, of plotting to overthrow the Republic and install Miranda as a dictator. These fears were certainly not alleviated by Miranda’s letters written to the government during his campaign. Miranda did not believe in the federalist bent of the new republic. He was a centralist and made thinly veiled references about how the men with the most experience should be the ones called to ultimate authority.

During these events, the Spanish were not idle. Despite the massive war and insurrection occurring in Spain, the Supreme Junta of Spain was already making plans to re-exert control over Venezuela. With the covert support of the British, the Spanish government was already accumulating troops in Puerto Rico to attempt a reconquest. A political campaign stressing the racial, cultural, and religious ties to Spain was intensified. As Spain gained sympathizers, the government of the Republic became more radical in its laws and pronouncements. One pronouncement granted freedom to any slave who enlisted in the Republic’s army for a term of ten years. This caused many landowners who were already skeptical of the Republic to openly support Spain. On March 26, 1812, a massive earthquake hit Venezuela and caused widespread death and destruction, much of which occurred in areas that had large numbers of supporters of the Republic. It seemed to many people that God himself was turning against the revolution.

Generalissimo Miranda

Only a week after the earthquake, on April 3rd, Miranda was named supreme commander of the army and head of the Republic with dictatorial powers, with the title of Generalissimo of the Confederation of Venezuela. This seeming height of his career would be fraught with challenges, but Miranda, ever confident, believed in his ability to handle them.

The Spanish chose this moment to attack. They besieged the fortress of San Felipe near Puerto Cabello. The commander was his old mentee Bolívar. When the fortress fell, things fell apart rapidly. The Spanish advanced quickly on Caracas. With no military force of consequence between the capital and the battle-hardened Spanish Army, Miranda knew the cause was hopeless. He sent commissioners to discuss surrender terms with the Spanish commander, Domingo Monteverde. Miranda chose to not confide the surrender terms to others in the Venezuelan government. This led to suspicions about his motives. On August 3rd, the Spanish Army took Caracas. What would later be called the First Republic of Venezuela was gone, snuffed out in the blink of an eye.

Betrayal and Arrest

For Miranda, there were only thoughts of exile, yet again. As he was preparing to sail away, other Venezuelan leaders saw this man, supposedly their leader, leaving them. Some believed he was taking the nation’s treasury with him, although the evidence is contradictory. Bolívar and a group of army officers arrested Miranda before he could leave the country. He was handed over to the Spanish. Although the terms of Miranda’s surrender of the country promised him safe passage out, Monteverde gleefully took custody of the prisoner.

Miranda was placed into a cell and secured to the wall by chains. He would be held in Venezuela until transferred to Spain, where he would be held in the La Carraca prison in Cádiz. Charged with treason against the crown, Miranda waited to be tried and executed. But this would not come. Miranda would constantly petition King Ferdinand to release not only him, but his country from bondage. He asked to be sent to exile in Russia or the United States.

Being held in prison is harmful to your health in the best of times. To be held in a 19th century dungeon as a political prisoner was even worse. Miranda was already elderly for the time and suffered from ulcers and rheumatism. On March 25, 1816, he suffered a stroke leading to seizures. Once he recovered, he caught typhus. Only with foreign pressure did Miranda’s Spanish jailers remove his leg irons as a humanitarian gesture. He would linger on for a few months of agony until he died on July 14, 1816, the anniversary of Bastille Day.

Francisco de Miranda was many things. Visionary, a man of letters, a man of the world, he embodied the traits of the ideal man of reason envisioned by the thinkers of the enlightenment. He was also vain, a megalomaniacal, and in the end, overly concerned about his own importance and self-preservation. Like Moses, he would never reach the promised land. Undoubtedly, like Moses, he was one of the primary reasons why his people reached that promised land. The Forerunner, the Precursor, the Moses of South American freedom. All these titles describe Francisco de Miranda.

What do you think of Francisco de Miranda? Let us know below.

Now, read about Francisco Solano Lopez, the Paraguayan president who brought his country to military catastrophe in the War of the Triple Alliance here.

When conjuring up images of the First World War one may visualize the iconic and murderous trenches of the Western Front. Or perhaps the epic dogfights fought between intrepid pilots in rickety machines when aircraft was only in its infancy.  But the global nature of the war witnessed fighting on a massive scale from the frigid waters of the North Sea to the scorching deserts of the Middle East and the mountains of the Alps where. In the Alps close to 700,000 Italians and half as many Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) combatants would ultimately lose their lives in a brutal meat grinder in which combat was at times the not even the most dangerous contender.

Brian Hughes explains.

An trench of the Austro-Hungarian Army at the peak of the Ortler in 1917.

On May 23, 1915, Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary thus abandoning her initial neutrality. It had been nine months since the largest war in European history had begun, starting in August of 1914 when the other Great Powers of Europe, Great Britain, France, and Russia (The Entente) went to war against Germany and her ally Austria-Hungary (The Central Powers) in a complicated yet lethal system of alliances with one of the main aims of the Entente being to check the rising power of Germany on the continent. Italy, like the other belligerent nations, entered the war with the goal of “reclaiming” regions inhabited by Italian speaking peoples such as the Trentino in the Alps and Trieste on the Adriatic Coast, then in the possession of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Italy had only been unified as a cohesive nation in 1861, the first time in which they entire peninsula had coalesced under one government since the Roman Empire. The Entente hoped that by opening a brand-new front especially one so close to the heartland of Austria-Hungary would significantly relive the immense pressure in which the Central Powers had been administering to their foes in the Eastern and Western Fronts respectively.

Italy’s initial plan at the start of war was to begin a major offensive through the mountains of the Trentino in the Alps. Their objective was simple. Utilizing an overwhelming advantage in manpower the massive army would slice through the undermanned and poorly equipped Austro-Hungarian defenses like a hot knife through butter. Exploiting the gaps created by the enormous offensive thrust, the Italians would not only quickly retrieve the much sought-after Trentino region but simultaneously open roads to Ljubljana in present day Slovenia and Vienna, the Imperial Capital. But not everything went according to plan.

For starters, the Italian Peninsula is not ideally poised for offensive military operations to her northeast given that the mountain ranges of this region are amongst the highest in Europe. This gave the Austro-Hungarian defenders a significant advantage in that they could subsequently negate the numerically superior adversaries. Another factor was the lack of combat experience in the Italian Armed Forces. Prior to the outbreak of World War One Italy had fought a series of colonial wars in Africa against the Ottoman Empire. These engagements were comparatively small and drastically differed in men, material, and terrain now present on the Italian Front. This, combined with the outdated and draconian leadership within the Italian Army embodied especially by Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna would yield disastrous results.  It seemed that the Italian High Command did not seem to notice or comprehend the brutality in which industrialized warfare enabled horrific carnage in France, Belgium, and the Eastern Front throughout the first year of the war. In addition to this, recent Central Power successes in Galicia enabled additional troops with valuable combat experience to be moved to the new front.

War at altitude

Prior to the 1984 Siachen dispute between Indian and Pakistani troops battles had for the most part never been waged in as high of altitudes such as in places like the Julian Alps of the Italian Front where peaks rise to an average height of 1300 meters. When fighting in these conditions an enemy’s bullet or stray shell could sometimes be less deadly than the environment itself. Soldiers had to contend with avalanches, rockslides, frostbite, freezing temperatures, and razor-sharp rocks to name just a few of the appalling hazards do not present in other theatres of the Great War. In order to tactically operate under these harsh conditions both Italian and Austro-Hungarian armies fielded units of specially trained Mountain soldiers who maintained the proper skills for conducting warfare in the mountains. The Alpini, on the Italian side were formed in 1872 and were the oldest “mountain corps” in the world. Recruited from the towns and villages along the Italian Alps, the Alpini were adept climbers, skiers, and hunters who were familiar with the latest innovations in mountaineering equipment and could sustain themselves for prolonged periods of time in hazardous mountainous surrounding as often they found themselves perched upon dangerous precipes and slopes in which they had to bivouac. The Habsburg Army confronted the Alpini with their own specially trained mountain corps knowns as the Alpen Kaiserjager. Like the Alpini, these men were recruited from mountainous regions throughout the Empire such as the Carpathians, Tatras, and Balkans. Heroic clashes and counter attacks between these elite units would become a trademark of the war.

The Isonzo (Soca) River Valley would become the major geographical focal point of the conflict, witnessing twelve major Italian Offensives all of which yielded horrific casualty rates. Once again, the Italian High Command did not seem to notice or even care about the difficulties exasperated by the terrain and poor quality of their troops. These murderous offensives would eventually culminate in October 1917 at the Battle of Caporetto, one of the deadliest battles of the Great War in which a combined Habsburg-German army valiantly resisted and ultimately routed a major offensive push by the newly equipped and colossal Italian Army. Caporetto would ultimately be the worst defeat suffered by the Italian Army throughout the war. Roughly 280,000 prisoners were taken in addition to the mass desertions of near 350,000 and some 40,000 killed or wounded.

Recovery

Despite these detrimental setbacks the Italians remarkably recovered. Chief of Staff Luigi Cadorna would ultimately be sacked and was replaced with General Armando Diaz. The war would continue for another year until eventually the Habsburg Army who had held out for years undergoing unimaginable stress and demoralization from near constant shelling, hunger, cold, and the despair of losing friends and comrades would lay down their war weary arms. The last major chapter of the Italian Front occurred on October 23, 1918, in which finally a massive Italian artillery barrage accompanied by an equally formidable offensive finally routed the Austro-Hungarian army forcing an armistice on November 3rd, 1918.

World War One displayed loss of life and unimaginable suffering not yet seen in the course of human history. Despite the inconceivable numbers of men, animals, and materials lost the Italian theatre remains to this day one of the more obscure fronts as ultimately it became yet another stalemate in which old fashioned commanders ordered suicidal charges indifferent to the casualty rates just as on the more famous Western Front. The major difference being the terrain in which the soldiers fought. Instead of the mud in Flanders tit was the snows of the Alps where countless numbers of young men from all over Europe fought, died, and now rest under the placid valleys and dazzling peaks of one of the most beautiful corners of the continent.

What do you think of the Italian front in World War One? Let us know below.

Sources

Websites 

Siachen dispute: India and Pakistan’s glacial fight - BBC News

Caporetto, Battle of | International Encyclopedia of the First World War (WW1) (1914-1918-online.net)

Books 

Gooch, John: The Italian Army and The First World War Cambridge University Press

Macdonald John: Caporetto And The Isonzo Campaign and Sword Military 

Thompson Mark The White War Life and Death on The Italian Front 1915-1919 Basic Books 

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The music of early post-war America has become synonymous with one style: Rock ‘n’ Roll. However, it was The Blues that was key in creating Rock ‘n’ Roll. Here, Matt Austin looks at migration and music in post-war America.

Muddy Waters in 1978. Source: Jean-Luc Ourlin, available here.

It is one of the great narratives of American History: The post-war boom. Following the Second World War, the United States enjoyed rapid, almost limitless, economic development. With Europe reeling from the devastation of war, the United States industrialised quickly to respond to the demand for wartime production. It therefore found itself in a far stronger economic position than prior to the war, to the extent that it was able to pull itself out of the Great Depression, which had ravaged the country throughout the 1930s.

As outlined by Sarah Pruitt, factory production, which had proven to be essential to the war effort, quickly mobilized for peacetime, rising to the needs of consumers.(1) This newfound ability to produce on a mass scale contributed to a post-war boom that was entirely consumer driven. Those who had saved money during the war now had an unprecedented amount of expendable income and as such, the opportunity to purchase affordable houses, cars, clothes and leisure activities, including of course, records.

The music of early post-war America has become largely inseparable with one style: Rock ‘n’ Roll.(2) The rise of Rock ‘n’ Roll and its youth revolution has come to dominate the narrative surrounding the development of music in this period. However, it is often overlooked that it was in fact a different genre that experienced an incredible transition, incorporating styles that would later feed into the vastly more popular Rock ‘n’ Roll: The Blues.

The Blues

As is a frequent consequence of wartime, an increased demand for production results in an increased demand for labour. This was certainly true of the Second World War in the United States, with a large increase in rural to urban migration, most notably among African Americans. This took place against the backdrop of The Great Migration, a period between 1910 and 1970 in which 6 million African Americans moved from the rural South to urban centres in the Northeast, Midwest and West.(3) The demand for labour created by the First World War had initially resulted in considerable spikes in migration,(4) whilst the Second World War created a “second wave” of wartime migration, in which a further influx of migrants moved north seeking to ditch the fields for the factories.(5) Isabel Wilkerson identifies the importance of this decision, noting that: “it was the first time that the nation’s servant class ever took without asking.”(6)

The African Americans who made the trip carried with them what little belongings they had, but more importantly than possessions, they brought a culture that had been cultivated in the rural South. With it they brought their “outdoor” music to urban centres, such as New York or Chicago.(7) These cities subsequently saw a huge rise in street performers, with many notable Bluesmen beginning their careers busking on street corners, such as the Mississippi born influence of the Rolling Stones, Jimmy Reed. It is important to note, however, that the big city was not a complete unknown to Southern Blues musicians of the early 20th Century. For musicians during this time, it was expected, as was industry standard, that records were to be made in the North, with many performers having to make the pilgrimage to record in Chicago or New York, among them “Father of the Delta Blues,” Charley Patton. This northern exposure even extends to the fact that the seminal 1928 recording “It’s Tight Like That” by Georgian born Tampa Red, is often referred to as the first “city” blues, with its style anticipating much of what would follow in later decades.(8)

Difference

Nevertheless, there was however something different about the Blues of the post-war era. Even Tampa Red’s style, although ahead of its time, had a distinct rural quality. The post-war Blues was new, exciting, and revolutionary. These are characteristics it owes to one word: amplification. It is not certain how or when the decision was made to transition from acoustic from electric guitar, but it was a seamless, almost overnight phenomenon, as if the guitarists of the North woke up in the morning and decided to go electric. Francis Davis suggests that the amplification and big beat added to the Blues of the post-war era may have been a necessary response to the roar of the big city.(9) Muddy Waters, upon his arrival in Chicago in 1943, was one such musician to quickly make the transition from acoustic to electric, reasoning that “couldn’t nobody hear you with an acoustic”, against the overpowering noise in the city’s overcrowded clubs.(10)

This created an ever-growing disparity between the music of the rural South and its harder, faster, rougher contemporary in the urban North. What marked this emerging style as clearly different to its elders lay with the increased urgency and flamboyance of its guitar playing.(11) Possibly the greatest example of this can be heard in Elmore James’ 1951 hit, “Dust My Broom”. A tribute to his Delta predecessor Robert Johnson’s 1937, “I believe I’ll Dust My Broom”, in adopting an electric guitar and a slide, Elmore James unknowingly went on to create one of the famous riffs in The Blues.(12) Despite being recorded in Mississippi, James’ version has become emblematic of big city Chicago Blues and more importantly as a symbol of the transition from acoustic to electric, from rural to urban. Only a mere fourteen years separate these songs, yet they sound worlds apart.

Unlike many of his contemporaries, Elmore James was not one of the quarter million African Americans to migrate to Chicago in the 1940s. Rather, upon completing his military service during the war, he returned home to Mississippi. Following early success with a handful of hits, he followed the music and made the move north in the early 1950s. His legacy has endured as a founding influence on the Chicago Blues scene and it is clear why, when listening to the up-tempo, heavy beat of his 1961 “Shake Your Money Maker”, for example. He may have had his start in the delta, but like many of his contemporaries, his style heralded in a new era of popular music; a new era of African American culture.

The Blues is a genre that takes its influence from the everyday troubles faced throughout life. However, one of the most surprising elements of the post-war Blues is an incredible lack of reference to its musician’s surroundings in the industrial North. Despite its new and upbeat style, the music of artists such as Muddy Waters was evocative not of a day spent working in the train yards and factories, but of one in the fields.(13) Guitar mentor Lynwood Perry notes that the Blues of the North was played to dance to, but the Blues of the South possessed a deeper message, telling of the many troubles in life.(14) Where the post-war northern blues truly stand out, is that it ultimately contained elements of both. Not only did it rely on a fast-paced pounding style that would lay the groundwork for Rock ‘n’ Roll, it also had a nostalgic quality to it, an echo of the Southern Country Blues on which many of its artists had been raised. No track better exemplifies this than Muddy Waters’ 1948, “I Can’t Be Satisfied”, with the B-side, “I Feel Like Going Home.” The latter track, with its rather unsubtle title, sent those who listened to the record back home to Mississippi, if only symbolically.(15) This was, in fact, as suggested by Davis, as close to a return trip as many African Americans would have wanted to take.(16) It is certainly true that life was better to Northern migrants than those in the southern states, a notion long held before the Second World War. Giles Oakley states that many compared the pilgrimage North to the Flight Out of Egypt.(17) This homage to the bible would present the North as the Promised Land, an opportunity to escape racial segregation and intimidation in the South.

Tough life

Life in the North however, was not easy. Muddy Waters, despite possessing a highly trained ear and a knack for the guitar, had made the journey for work. And for a black uneducated southerner in 1940s Chicago this meant one thing: hard, manual labour. He possessed no illusions as to his chances of music stardom, and whilst he may have held such fantasies deep in the back of his mind, he ultimately took the first job he could find at a train yard. This was, after all, the last era of American popular music in which its stars were neither youthful, or naïve. They had experienced largely ‘normal lives’ up until that point, as the early Chicago Bluesmen had, after all, moved north for opportunities, and whilst they would certainly have been confident in their abilities (why else would Muddy have packed his guitar?), they were under no illusion that success was not guaranteed.

This is in no way to belittle the efforts of those breaking into the music world in the following decades, a feat that has and will be never be easy. However, the few months spent by Elvis Presley as a truck driver, or George Harrison as an electrician cannot compare to years spent in the fields and factories. This is what arguable gave the big city Blues its distinct, inexhaustible style.

The Second World War modernised America and its musical styles. The Blues was especially not immune to change as a consequence, the transition from field to factory made the slow country blues of the rural South seem even further detached from the pounding electric blues of the urban North. It was the war that brought them there, and the likes of Muddy Waters and Howlin’ Wolf carried with them not only their guitars on their backs, but also the dream of a better life. They took their early influences and adapted them to the harsh backdrop of the urban North and like the cities they now called home, the Blues became fast-paced, loud, and most importantly, inescapable. They were the country’s first Rock stars, a statement that is inclined to make the most devout Blues fans wince, but the decision to amplify the sound of the rural South in the urban North would ultimately place the Blues on a rapid, irreversible path towards its sudden explosion as Rock ‘n’ Roll, the phenomenon that would change the face of American popular music.

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

1 Sarah Pruitt, “The Post World War II Boom: How America Got Into Gear,” History, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.history.com/news/post-world-war-ii-boom-economy#:~:text=After%20years%20of%20wartime%20rationing,war%20to%20peace%2Dtime%20production.&text=Collection%2FGetty%20Images-,After%20years%20of%20wartime%20rationing%2C%20American%20consumers%20were%20ready%20to,war%20to%20peace%2Dtime%20production.

2 Robert Palmer, “The 50s: A Decade of Music That Changed the World”, Rolling Stones, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-50s-a-decade-of-music-that-changed-the-world-229924/.

3 “The Great Migration (1910-1970)”, African American Heritage, National Archives, accessed 12/08/22, https://www.archives.gov/research/african-americans/migrations/great-migration.

4 “America: The Story Of Us”, Episode 8: Boom, History, 2010, accessed 12/08/22.

5 Mike Evans, The Blues: A Visual History (Atglen: Schiffer Publishing, 2014), 82.

6 Ibid, 83.

7 Bruce Conforth and Gayle Dean Wardlow, Up Jumped the Devil: The Real Life of Robert Johnson (Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 2019), 240.

8 Francis Davis, The History of the Blues: The Roots, The Music, The People (Boston: De Capo Press, 1995), 138.

9 Ibid, 181

10 Ibid, 179.

11 Ibid, 198-199

12 Gerard Herzhaft, Encyclopedia of The Blues (Fayetteville: University of Arkansas Press, 1992), 442.

13 Davis, The History of the Blues, 181.

14 Evans, The Blues: A Visual History, 14.

15 Davis, The History of the Blues, 180

16 Ibid.

17 Ibid, 180-181.

Three decades before McCarthyism made its name in the USA, Britain experienced her own version of a “Red Scare” in the 1920s. The British press and the Conservative Party went through strenuous efforts to convince the British public that the Bolsheviks were trying to gain a foothold in Britain and advance the Communist cause. Steve Prout explains.

UK Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald with Christian Rakovsky, Head of the Soviet diplomatic delegation, in 1924.

Post War Britain

The political demographics in Britain had changed in the interwar years. The electorate had expanded to include all males under the age of twenty-one. Many had fought in the war and were returning home to a land promised “fit for heroes” which did not materialise. All women over thirty were now eligible to vote for the first time.

These changes had made their impacts on the long-established two-party dominance of the Liberals and Conservatives in British politics as the Labour had now emerged as a credible political party. They began their first government in 1924 much to the surprise of everybody even the party itself. Alarmists were claiming that socialism was gaining a damaging foothold consequently were opening the doors to Bolshevism. The right wing-controlled media would try to ensure the public believed that this was the reality.

The economy was now becoming under pressure and the post war boom was starting to wane exacerbating already tense industrial relations. Strikes were regular and union membership was growing. The mining industry was feeling the adverse effects of competition from the German and Polish mines who had now challenged British exports in the European market. It gave further concern to the already nervous Conservatives

Socialism was new to the British and its intention were not completely understood. Being as the Russian Revolution was still fresh in people’s minds the combined efforts of the press and Conservatives would blow the picture out of all proportion, but what was happening in Britain was as remote as it could get from the recent events that happened in the USSR.

The Conservative and the First Labour Government

The success of the Labour Party’s first election victory that came as a surprise to everybody including the Labour Party itself and so began this fabrication. The Conservatives stirred up anti Soviet hysteria that they could connect to the Labour Party and thus damage their image. They had plenty of material to exploit and mould into the fearful image they wanted to project. This is what we would call today “Fake news” but it did have its effect.

The new Labour Government immediately attracted unflattering quotes and Churchill, true to literary form, offered no restraint himself by announcing that “The enthronement of a socialist government is a serious national misfortune”; elsewhere on the same topic the Chairman of the Leeds and Yorkshire Bank clearly expecting a blooded coup stated, “now is the time for unflinching courage.” Their fears were completely unfounded.

Labour in fact kept to the mainstream path of politics and the status quo of British politics remained unviolated. By the time Labour had achieved office the members that were of a Trade Union affiliation comprised less than half (98 out of 191). Furthermore their membership was no longer exclusively working class - middle and upper classes had also joined their ranks. For a myriad of reasons many viewed old guard politicians as the reason for the cause of the Great War which still remained unforgiven and left deep scars in every village and town in Britain.

Another subtle fact also ignored by the antagonists was that Labour also actively avoided recruiting communists into their ranks, a fact the press chose to overlook. Only two MPs, Walther Newbold and Shapurji Saklatvala, for a short amount of time were on the benches in the House of Commons. The former quickly lost his seat and his enthusiasm from communist ideals. In fact, they repeatedly refused Communism in both the Party and the Trades Union Congress.

Even if Labour were a radical party, they did not command a majority in Government to bring any change about as they depended on the support of the Liberals to vote in their favour in the House of Commons. The reality was Labour also lacked experience, and the economic and political picture of this period was one that required stability not radicalism so in effect they were realists. As MacDonald would remark they were “in office but not in power. “

Labour’s early recognition of the USSR in 1924 created another furore. So did the financial negotiations on trade that ensued but came to no fruition. The Labour Government in fact showed no favouritism to the USSR. The talks of a loan to the Soviet Union were subject to certain conditions, one being the satisfaction of the war debt owed to Britain. There was an idea of opening British goods to the Soviet market that would help Britain’s floundering economy. There was nothing in these negotiations to indicate a blossoming friendship.

Much to the media’s silent disappointment, there would be no socialist revolution.

The Russian Revolution and its aftermath

The USSR was still augmenting its post revolution position and was far too weak economically and militarily to even consider further communist expansion beyond its borders. She was still recovering from losing a succession of wars with Poland where she ceded ninety percent of her lucrative industrial lands. She was isolated with no dependable allies, the exception being the Rapallo Treaty with her former and future adversary, Germany.

This did not stop the British press - it was determined to manufacture a threat and another opportunity came along in the form of a fake document called the Zinoviev letter purported to be from Moscow ordering underground communist sedition in Britain. It coincidentally appeared and was published while MacDonald’s first Labour government was in office. The incident was more akin to a damp fuse than a major incident. Taylor terms it “a puzzle of no historical importance” and it did not actually cause the demise of the first Labour Party. Its authenticity was questioned by the King himself, but it did not reach the public ear and it would have been too late for his words to have any impact.

Internally the USSR had a multitude of problems meaning her energies had to be focused on these issues, namely the famines which resulted in Lenin appealing for help from the wider world. Lenin even contemplated on back-pedalling on some of his communist policies to introduce a limited degree of private enterprise to combat the economic devastation. Any talk of worldwide revolution within the ranks in the USSR was purely fanciful words expressed only by the deluded and the wishful thinking idealists. The media had to look elsewhere and further afield that place was in China.

The Chinese Uprisings

In March 1927, another opportunity was seized upon by the media. In Nanjing, China local soldiers began looting the British, US and Japanese embassies in what was known as the Chinese Uprisings; six foreign nationals were killed two of whom were British which resulted in an immediate demand for retribution. The media immediately saw this as tangible evidence of a Red Menace showing its hand and threatening British interests. Meredith Atkinson summed up the anti-Soviet hysteria spread at the time by comparing it with the crusades of previous centuries: “All Holy wars fade into insignificance beside the fanatical Jehad of the Red International.” This was an exaggeration.

The Comintern (a Soviet backed international organisation founded in 1919 to expedite the spread of communism) was no tangible threat anywhere and it played little part in the unrest in China. The disquiet was more down to Britain’s application of her imperialism that resulted in unequal commercial and trading terms. Nationalistic fervor rather than any communist intent was the underlying driving force all along and Britain was seeing this grow in her possessions around the globe, namely Iraq, India, Ireland, and Egypt. The truth was that the British failed to recognize the changing times and an Empire that was becoming untenable to maintain.

The typical British response was to use force to re-impose their authority as they did in Iraq and Ireland failing to realise that their own heavy-handed suppressive ways did nothing to calm the discontent or arrest the Empire’s decline - if anything it accelerated it.

The Home Front and the aftermath of the General Strike

The judiciary, law enforcement and the government all but abused their positions to suppress any communist presence or opinions. Britain had only recently become a proper more inclusive democracy in the early part of the century with expanding the electorate, but it appeared people could still be persecuted for their political beliefs if it were not palatable with the newly elected Conservatives.

The Home Secretary William Joynson-Hicks whom HG Wells described at the time one as somebody who “represents the absolute worst element in British political life” was particularly energetic in these endeavours. Hicks was renowned for his ruthless persecution of members of the British Communist Party. In 1925 he would be instrumental in the imprisonment of twelve individuals just based on their political beliefs, one of who was Harry Pollit, the General Secretary of the British Communist Party.

This antipathy was evident in his early political career when he called Kier Hardie a “leprous traitor.”  Hickson was a strange and contradictory individual who on the one hand was a firm supporter of the female vote but on the other could discard democratic ideals.

The General Strike of 1926 for all its grand scale and disruption only resulted in four thousand arrests out of millions of strikers. There was minimal property damage and Churchill's forebodings of mass violent action and sedition failed to happen as only a thousand of those arrested served a prison sentence. The strike was unsuccessful and did not require the use of any governmental emergency powers. The desire revolution never existed in mind or body of the people or the strikers, but this did not stop Churchill trying his best in being typically provocative by labelling British workingmen as the enemy. Bellicose and true to form he used a newly founded British Gazette to loudly promote this distorted view. His attitude during the strike was one of a minister being on a war footing and demanding an “unconditional surrender” of the strikers rather than seeing it as a genuine protest with genuine grievances and concerns

Attitudes in 1925 emanating from the Trade Unions were about negotiation, as AJP Taylor remarked, and were not about Bolshevism. Incidents of striking by 1925 were only a tenth of what they were in 1921, further pointing to evidence that any intensity was diluted. Most union leaders did not see class war as a tool for change. The old class arguments were outdated and were replaced by more progressive attitudes. Ernest Bevin in fact wanted to work with the employers to bring change.  The press of course continued its antagonistic line unnecessarily.

Conclusion

The Red Menace incident was an isolated piece of British history that was forgotten amid the headlining events that shook Europe between the two world wars and the. It is interesting and frightening how the British government could easily meander around the judicial and democratic ideals to deal with opposing political views for a threat that was essentially contrived by themselves.

Had this have been a decade later in the 1930s then there would have been some justification for a Red Menace as the USSR executed its purges, intervened in Spain, and allied itself to the Nazi Regime in 1939. Even so, this does not excuse the political suppression at home or abroad.

The inter war years do have their interesting aspects as we see how Britain came to terms with the changes following the First World War and how she behaved in the build up to the second.

What do you think of Britain’s 1920s communist scare? Let us know below.

Now, read Steve’s article on Britain’s relationship with the European dictators in the inter-war years here.

References

Ariane Knusel -British Conservatives, the Red Menace and Anti-Foreign agitation in China 1924-1927 – Cultural History 2013- Edinburgh University Press

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press

Extracts from Chronicles of the Twentieth Century – Longman -1987

Jonathan Dimbleby -Barbarossa: How Hitler Lost the War – Penguin Books 2021