The Scientist who Outsmarted the Luftwaffe

Reginald Victor Jones, known as R.V. Jones, was one of Britain's most brilliant scientific minds during the Second World War. His unparalleled contributions to intelligence, particularly in countering the Luftwaffe's technological advancements, earned him a prominent place in the history of science and warfare.

Terry Bailey explains.

R.V. Jones (left), DCI James Woolsey, and Jeanne de Clarens.

Early life and education

R.V. Jones was born on September 29, 1911, in Herne Hill, London, to a family of modest means. From an early age, he exhibited an intense curiosity for how things worked, which led him to pursue studies in physics. Jones attended Alleyn's School in London before securing a scholarship to Wadham College, Oxford. At Oxford, Jones studied physics under some of the most distinguished scientists of the time, including Frederick Lindemann, later known as Lord Cherwell, who became a key advisor to Winston Churchill during the war.

Jones graduated with a first-class degree and remained at Oxford to conduct research in atmospheric physics. His deep interest in scientific instrumentation and precision led him to become an expert in high-frequency measurements. In 1936, he completed his Doctorate focusing on spectroscopic measurements, which laid the groundwork for the skills he would later apply to military intelligence and post contributions.

Joining the British Air Ministry

In 1939, as tensions in Europe escalated into war, Jones was recruited by the British Air Ministry, eventually working in scientific intelligence. He joined a small but elite team of scientists tasked with monitoring and analyzing German technological developments. His role quickly evolved into one of the most crucial during the war, becoming responsible for understanding and countering German advancements in radar, electronic warfare, and guided weapons.

R.V. Jones's most significant work came under the Directorate of Scientific Intelligence, where he reported directly to Churchill's scientific advisor, Frederick Alexander Lindemann, (1st Viscount Cherwell). Jones' task was to stay ahead of German technology, which meant intercepting, analyzing, and neutralizing it before it could be deployed effectively against the Allies.

The Battle of the Beams

One of Jones' earliest and most celebrated contributions was in the Battle of the Beams, a critical episode in the air war between Britain and Germany. Early in the war, the Luftwaffe began using radio navigation systems to guide their bombers over long distances during nighttime raids. These systems, such as the Knickebein, Lorenz, and X-Gerät, relied on a series of radio beams transmitted from the German-occupied continent, which the bombers would follow to reach their targets in Britain.

Jones, recognizing the threat posed by these beams, set to work analyzing how they functioned. Using a combination of intercepted German communications, captured equipment from down enemy aircraft and scientific reasoning, he discovered that the beams were highly directional and precise. The German bombers would fly along these invisible paths and drop their bombs when they intersected at pre-arranged points over British cities.

Jones proposed a series of countermeasures that were both simple and effective. His team developed techniques to jam or distort the beams, leading German pilots astray. Additionally, he arranged for false signals to be transmitted, causing the Luftwaffe to drop their bombs over empty fields instead of their intended targets. This deception was so successful that German crews often believed their bombs had hit home, while British cities remained relatively unscathed.

Operation Biting and countering German radar

The Germans were developing their advanced radar system at the same time as the British. As a scientific intelligence officer attached to the Air Ministry, Jones was able to untangle the clues which led to understanding Germany's radar capabilities, notably the highly effective Würzburg radar.

Jones was instrumental in instigating Operation Biting, the daring raid designed to obtain a working model of the German Würzburg radar. By 1941, the British were aware that the German radar systems were highly effective at detecting Allied aircraft, especially during bombing missions over occupied Europe. However, the precise nature of how the operational capabilities of these radars remained unclear. Jones, based on intelligence reports and radio intercepts, not only confirmed the existence of the radar but was also convinced that obtaining physical components from a German radar installation would provide the necessary insight for the British to develop effective countermeasures.

The opportunity arose when a Würzburg radar was located near Bruneval, on the French coast. Jones was instrumental in convincing the British high command to authorize a raid to capture the radar system. Operation Biting took place in February 1942, with British paratroopers seizing and dismantling key parts of the Würzburg radar. The successful retrieval of these components allowed Jones and his team to analyze the technology, leading to the development of electronic countermeasures that disrupted German radar accuracy. This not only improved the effectiveness of British bombing campaigns but also laid the foundation for further technological advances in electronic warfare.

His broader efforts to understand and neutralize German radar formed a key component of Britain's overall defense strategy, allowing the Allies to maintain the upper hand in the battle for air superiority. His contributions were critical in reducing the threat posed by German air defenses, in addition to paving the way for aspects of Operation Bodyguard.

The Intelligence war and operation bodyguard

Beyond the Battle of the Beams and radar countermeasures, Jones was instrumental in a wide array of intelligence efforts that significantly altered the course of the war. Perhaps one of his most vital contributions was the small part he and his department played in Operation Bodyguard, the extensive deception campaign that misled the German high command about the location of the D-Day landings.

The role R. V. Jones played in this operation though small was extremely significant, by monitoring German radar systems and electronic communication his input was crucial to its success.

Operation Bodyguard fed false information to German intelligence through a combination of radio broadcasts and fake infrastructure—such as the famous "ghost" army under General Patton, in addition to the double cross program that turned German agents to transmit false information.

Jones' knowledge of German technologies helped steer a number of the aspects of the deception that ensured the Germans believed the main invasion force would land at Calais rather than Normandy.

However, his efforts in the intelligence war extended to the development of countermeasures against German V-weapons. As early as 1943, British intelligence began receiving reports of a secret German weapon capable of causing massive destruction from long range. This was the V-1 flying bomb, soon followed by the more advanced V-2 rocket.

Countering the V-Weapons

Jones became part of the team that unraveled the mystery of the V-weapons and devised defenses against weapons. The V-1, often referred to as the "buzz bomb," was essentially a pilotless aircraft powered by a pulse jet engine. It could travel at high speeds and deliver a significant explosive payload over a reasonable distance. After analyzing intelligence reports, aerial reconnaissance, and even fragments of crashed V-1 bombs. Jones concluded that the weapon was likely to be used against London in a terror campaign.

Jones and his team helped devise several countermeasures, including anti-aircraft defenses, night-fighter tactics, and even attempts to jam the gyroscopic guidance system of the V-1 bombs. Although the V-1 caused significant destruction, Jones' contributions in reducing its effectiveness and helping target the launch sites minimized its overall impact.

The V-2 rocket, which came later, posed an even greater threat. Travelling faster than the speed of sound, the V-2 was impossible to intercept once launched. Jones, however, worked tirelessly to pinpoint the locations of the V-2 launch sites and relay this information to the Allied bomber command. His work in this area, while less publicized than his earlier contributions, played a significant role in limiting the V-2's potential for devastation.

Achievements and Recognition

Jones' achievements during the war were numerous, and he became one of the most trusted figures in British military scientific intelligence. His scientific acumen and ability to outthink the enemy's engineers earned him a reputation as a genius in the field of electronic warfare. In 1946, he was appointed Companion of the Order of the Bath (CB) for his contributions to the war effort.

Perhaps Jones' greatest legacy was his influence on the emerging field of electronic warfare. His work laid the foundation for many of the technologies and strategies used in subsequent conflicts, including the Cold War. His relentless focus on precision and understanding the enemy's technological capabilities set the standard for scientific intelligence work for decades to come.

Following the war, Jones returned to academic life. He became the Chair of Natural Philosophy at the University of Aberdeen, where he inspired a new generation of scientists. He also wrote extensively about his wartime experiences, most notably in his autobiography, 'Most Secret War' which remains one of the most important accounts of scientific intelligence during the Second World War.

In addition to his contributions to military science, Jones was involved in a variety of scientific projects throughout his career, including work on spectroscopy, astronomy, and atmospheric physics. His broad scientific interests and ability to apply his knowledge to practical problems ensured that his impact extended far beyond the battlefield.

Legacy

R.V. Jones passed away on December 17, 1997, but his legacy as one of Britain's most important wartime scientists endures. His work in scientific intelligence fundamentally changed the way wars were fought, demonstrating the power of knowledge and technological understanding in shaping military outcomes.

Jones is remembered not just for his wartime achievements but also for his lifelong dedication to science. His ability to blend theoretical knowledge with practical application was key to many of his successes, and he remained a firm advocate for the importance of science in both national defense and civil progress.

As the world continues to advance in the fields of electronics, intelligence, and warfare, the principles that R.V. Jones championed remain as relevant as ever. His life serves as a reminder that, even in the darkest times, the human capacity for innovation and intellect can serve as a powerful weapon against those who seek to harm.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Political War Over Tennessee Prohibition

It seems accepted that today’s political atmosphere is more divisive, caustic, and contentious than any since the Civil War. But from research for the author’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company (Amazon US | Amazon UK), at least in Tennessee, the late 1880s through 1920 were even more contentious and volatile over the issue of prohibition.

Clay Shwab explains.

A 1915 advert for Cascade Whisky from the Rock Island Argus.

Nashville

From the 1890s through the tumultuous years leading to Prohibition, the city of Nashville was very much like the wild west—a bustling, exciting, changing, and dangerous place. Political debates and rallies were frequently held in the downtown streets with hordes in attendance. Legal fun may have been hard to find in pre-Music City Nashville. Gunfire was frequent. In 1908, a senator and editor of the Nashville Tennessean, Edward Carmack, was shot and killed on Union Avenue after he attempted to shoot a one-time friend and editor of the Nashville American, Duncan Cooper. Their dispute related to prohibition.

From 1890 through 1920, Tennessee was a political war zone between the Wets and the Drys, the anti-prohibitionists and the prohibitionists, with entrepreneur and owner of the George Dickel whisky company, V. E. “Manny”  Shwab, as the chief strategist and field general for the Wets. Shwab owned the state’s most valuable distillery producing the “famous” Cascade Whisky, “Mellow as Moonlight”–at the time, a far more popular and well-known whiskey than Jack Daniel’s. The wet and dry battle blew Tennessee politics apart to the point that the Republican and Democrat parties split in half and reformed along prohibition position lines. The anti-liquor proponents were  known as “Fusionists”.

Cascade Hollow Seizure

Senator Carmack’s shooting provided the Drys the martyr they needed. In 1909, shortly  after the shooting, Tennessee passed  Bill #11 banning the  manufacture of alcohol. Malcolm Patterson, Tennessee governor and Shwab ally, vetoed the bill, but the legislature overrode his veto. Five days later, in what was the largest federal seizure of any kind, Shwab’s Cascade Hollow Distillery was shut down. Nine thousand barrels of Cascade whisky were seized along with the distillery’s six buildings and 600 acres. The whiskey alone was values at over $30 million in today’s dollars.

Newspapers were unabashedly biased, giving wildly differing “factual” accounts of events. According to reports, Shwab was either “the debaucherer of more young men than any other man in Tennessee” because of his whiskey company and many saloons, or a “one man Tammany Hall”, or “Nashville’s richest citizen” and a philanthropic, consensus building visionary, dragging Tennessee into the 20th century while elevating Tennessee whiskey to a stellar reputation. Newspapers throughout the country and Canada covered the seizure with headlines such as: “Big Still Taken by U.S.”, Chicago Tribune;  “Raid on Whiskey”, Vicksburg, Mississippi; “The Cascade distillery is the most valuable property of the kind in the state”, Nashville Banner; “Chattanoogans Think it Was Prompted by Politics”, Chattanooga. To emphasize the importance of the distillery to the state, the Nashville American stated that from 1905-1908, Manny’s Dickel company that distributed Cascade paid one fourth of the taxes paid by all distilleries in middle and west Tennessee combined, including Jack Daniel’s.

Tennessee Prohibition was not to go into effect until January of the next year, 1910. The alleged violation was tax evasion due to the common practice known as “equalization of wantage”. During the process of aging whiskey in wooden barrels, evaporation occurs. The government required payment of tax on a minimum of  40 gallons per each 50 gallon barrel, even if there were only 35 gallons remaining after evaporation. To avoid paying tax on non-existent whiskey, distillers would take whiskey from barrels holding more than 40 gallons and add it to barrels containing less. The seizure occurred on Thursday, April 1. Through Manny’s connection with the U.S. Attorney General and some powerful Tennessee allies, the distillery was back in Shwab’s hands the following Monday after posting a bond of $275,000 ($8.4 million today).

Bill #11 did not stop the fight. In 1911, thirty four Republican legislators retreated to Decatur Alabama to deny a quorum to vote on legislation—referred to by them as “the liquor election bill”—that would lead to the reversal of Tennessee’s prohibition on distilling. Shwab had assured the bill’s successful passage allegedly by bribing six Republicans. The April 12, 1911 Nashville Banner headline exclaimed “High-Handed Corruption Alleged in Election Bill Fight…Member or Members Have Been Fixed—Money Furnished by Well Known Liquor Dealer.” The allegation was that the Shwabs had furnished over $20,000 ($660,000 today) to “fix” votes. With the legislative process ground to a halt, the April 14, 1911 Memphis Commercial Appeal  opined that “the whole public machinery of the state would be clogged so long as the present situation exists.”

And the “present situation” persisted. The May 4th  Tennessean deemed Prohibitionist legislators who were supporting the bill, “arrant hypocrite and… mutton-headed ignoramuses” who have “…an inherited affliction which cannot be cured and for which [they] should be pitied, and not censured.” So much for objective journalism. By June 26, the three-month stand-off must have finally subsided as the legislature had a quorum to pass resolution #57 calling for an investigation into the slush-fund allegations as well as new allegations against several legislators. In July, Governor Ben Hooper vetoed the joint resolution. The fight persisted.

Boss Crump and Liquor by the Drink

In October 1913, Governor Hooper called a special and highly contentious legislative session of both houses. The issues were the shipping of liquor into Tennessee from other states and the “Nuisance Bill”. The bill would “declare a saloon, gambling den, bawdy house, or any other business the conduct of which is a violation of the law, a  public nuisance.” Similar to modern day anti-abortion bills considered by some states, any five qualified voters could shut a business down in an effort to get around public officials who were seen as ignoring the activity. For example, Shwab was consistently accused of using his influence to avoid raids  on his saloons as well as influencing legislation and dictating nominees for office.

Thirty-nine year old mayor of Memphis, E.H. “Boss” Crump, went to Nashville to fight and alter the legislation and to secure Manny’s support. Crump would be a major figure in Tennessee politics for the next twenty years, very much following in Shwab’s footsteps. He wanted to manipulate the language of the law so eleven of his wards could sell liquor by the drink. Manny was all for it, as it would allow liquor to be sold in the major cities. Papers referred to the issue as a “battle royal”. According to the Knoxville Journal:

Backing up mayor Crump and his henchmen was V. E. Shwab the wealthiest whiskey man in Tennessee the owner of Cascade, and the Gibraltar of the whiskey interests in Tennessee.…He was seen to talk with various members of the house and senate on the floor of the Maxwell (hotel) lobby this morning…Some little excitement went the round in whispers this morning when it got started that the whiskey interests are threatening the weak-kneed fellows.

Indicative of the atmosphere in Nashville, the Bristol Courier declared “The Tennessee Legislature has been in session and nobody has been killed, not even Boss Crump”. The lobbyists were accused of “threatening dire consequences to those who have accepted courtesies from them.” But the Crump and Shwab forces were unsuccessful. On October 14, 1913, the Tennessean exuberantly announced “John Barleycorn Knocked Out in Second Round”, declaring “Nashville Arid”. Shwab moved operations to Louisville to continue distilling and selling his renowned Cascade internationally until federal prohibition in 1920.

Clay Shwab’s book, Manny Shwab and the George Dickel Company, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

The Man Who Suffered a Brain Injury – And Helped to Change Medicine

His body rests at Cypress Lawn Cemetery near San Francisco where he died in 1860. His head sits at the Warren Anatomical Museum in Boston. Here, Terry Hamburg tells us about a man who suffered a brain injury and the changes it caused – Phineas Gage.

Phineas Gage in the time after his accident.

Phineas Gage is perhaps the most famous neurological patient in modern history, called one of the “great medical curiosities of all time” and a “living part of medical folklore.” Malcolm MacMillan of the University of Melbourne records that two-thirds of introductory psychology textbooks cover Gage and his significance: "He was the first case where you could say fairly definitely that injury to the brain produced some kind of change in personality.” At the time, study of the brain is very rudimentary. Phrenologists, who accessed personalities by calculating protrusions on the skull, are still respected. The famous case of Phineas Gage will become a critical step in modern brain science.

September 1848

The young, robust, gregarious lad is employed as munitions foreman for the Rutland & Burlingame Railroad in Vermont. It is the most dangerous job in the crew. A standard blasting procedure involves boring a hole deep into rock, stuffing it with explosive powder and fuse, then using a tamping iron to pack in sand or clay to contain and direct the blast. Proud of his profession, Gage commissions an especially large custom-made tamping rod: three feet seven inches long, 1.4″ in diameter, and weighing over thirteen pounds.

The most dreaded mishap in munitions is a premature explosion.The tamping rod rockets into the left side of Gage’s face in an upward direction just past the lower jaw angle. Traversing the upper jaw and fracturing the cheekbone, it passes behind the left eye, through the left side of the brain, and flies out the top of his skull.

Gage is catapulted, lands hard on his back, convulses for a time, but is able to speak after a few minutes. He walks with little assistance and sits upright in an oxcart for a bumpy one mile ride to his town lodgings. True to the pioneer macho man legend, Gage shrugs off the injury, announcing he is not “much hurt” and expects to be back at work in a few days. His recovery from this horrific event is one of top medical stories of the era. Doctors worldwide exchange ideas and theories on the details and implications of the accident. For the next generation, it becomes the standard against which other injuries to the brain are judged. Some refuse to believe that anyone could survive such an ordeal – it must be a fabrication or a trick.

Despite his own optimism, Gage’s convalescence is long, difficult, and uneven, which requires further attendance by his physician, John M. Harlow, who garners fame as the doctor who treats the man who should not be. By April 1849, the patient is proclaimed to be in good physical health. Gage has, however, lost vision in his left eye and sustains a large forehead scar and a deep depression on top of his head “beneath which the pulsations of the brain can be perceived,” Dr. Harlow noted. “He has no pain in his head but says it has a queer feeling which he is not able to describe.”

After recovery

For a brief time after recovery, Gage exploits his newfound fame as a one-man traveling exhibit at New England venues, including an event organized by P.T. Barnum, where he is the object of both morbid curiosity and praise. This sort of exposure is soon overexposed, and the still robust Gage continues to work at various jobs as a farmer, stable and coach service owner, and a long-distance stagecoach driver, but he suffers from occasional seizures and then epilepsy, dying in 1860 twelve years after his injury. There are many reports that he underwent dramatic and negative personality changes – becoming a dishonest, ill-tempered, brawling lout. Gage’s steady work history and other contemporary assessments suggest such claims are exaggerated.

Phrenologists contended that destruction of the mental “organs” of Veneration and Benevolence caused Gage’s behavioral changes. Harlow may have believed that the organ of Comparison was damaged as well.

Dr. Harlow requests and receives the patient’s skull. He is bequeathed the most famous tamping rod in history, which Gage carried wherever he went, inscribed: This is the bar that was shot through the head of Mr Phineas P. Gage at Cavendish, Vermont, Sept 14, 1848. He fully recovered from the injury & deposited this bar in the Museum of the Medical College of Harvard University.

These artifacts, along with a plaster cast of Phineas Gage’s head created during an 1850 examination, are the most sought-out items at the Warren Anatomical Museum on the Harvard Medical School campus.

Terry Hamburg is director emeritus of the Cypress Lawn Cemetery Heritage Foundation. His recently published book Land of the Dead: How The West Changed Death In America explores how the demands of survival and adaptation in the Gold Rush western migration changed a multitude of American customs, including the way we bury and grieve for our ancestors. California and San Francisco serve as case studies. Visit his author page: https://www.terryhamburgbooks.com.

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis: The Visionary Scientist Who Played a Key Role in World War 2

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, born on Septembe, 26, 1887 in Ripley, Derbyshire, is often remembered for his role in the development of the famous "bouncing bomb" during the Second World War. However, his contributions to science, engineering, and aeronautics extend far beyond this iconic invention. A visionary in the truest sense, Wallis's legacy includes groundbreaking work in airship design, aircraft development, and advanced weaponry, in addition to, shaping the course of 20th-century technology.

Terry Bailey explains.

Barnes Neville Wallis.

Early life and education

Wallis's early life provided the foundation for his eventual career in engineering. His father, Charles Wallis, was a doctor, but young Barnes developed an early fascination with mechanical objects, much to his father's frustration. After attending Christ's Hospital school in Sussex, where he displayed a knack for mathematics and science, Wallis pursued an apprenticeship at Thames Engineering Works. However, he subsequently changed his apprenticeship to J. Samuel White's, the shipbuilder based at Cowes on the Isle of Wight originally training as a marine engineer, he took a degree in engineering via the University of London external program.

Contributions to Airship design

Wallis's early career saw him make significant contributions to the development of airships. In 1913, he joined Vickers, a company heavily involved in aeronautics, where he began working on lighter-than-air vehicles. He played a pivotal role in the design of the R100, a large British airship intended for long-range passenger travel.

The R100 project was part of a competition with the government-sponsored R101, which ultimately ended in disaster with the crash of R101, a craft of a different design to the R100. While the R101's failure effectively ended the British airship program, the R100 itself was a technical success, in large part due to Wallis's innovative structural design, which utilized a geodesic framework. This design became a hallmark of Wallis's work.

The geodesic framework was notable for its strength and lightweight properties. This design not only enhanced the airship's durability but also reduced its overall weight, making it more fuel-efficient. The R100's successful transatlantic flight to Canada in 1930 was a testament to the efficacy of Wallis's design, even though the airship program was ultimately scrapped after the R101 disaster.

Transition to aircraft design

After the decline of airship development, Wallis turned his attention to aircraft design. His expertise in geodesic structures led him to work on the Vickers Wellington bomber, which was used extensively by the Royal Air Force, (RAF) during the Second World War. The Wellington's geodesic structure made it incredibly resilient to damage. Unlike conventional aircraft, the Wellington could sustain considerable battle damage yet continue flying due to its ability to retain structural integrity even after losing large sections of the skin or framework.

This durability made it a valuable asset during the war, particularly during the early bombing campaigns. Wallis's work on the Wellington showcased his ability to apply innovative design principles to aircraft, extending the operational capabilities and survivability of warplanes. The Wellington aircraft became one of the most produced British bombers of the war, with more than 11,000 units built, attesting to the practical success of Wallis's engineering philosophy.

The Bouncing Bomb and the Dam Busters Raid

Wallis is perhaps most famous and remembered for his invention of the bouncing bomb, which was used in the Dam Busters Raid (Operation Chastise) in 1943. This operation targeted key dams in Germany's industrial Ruhr region, aiming to disrupt water supplies and manufacturing processes critical to the Nazi war effort. The bouncing bomb, officially known as "Upkeep," was an ingenious device that skimmed across the surface of the water before striking the dam and sinking to the optimal depth, then detonated when a hydrostatic pistol fired. In addition to, upkeep two smaller versions were also developed, High-ball and Base-ball.

The design of the bomb required not only advanced physics and mathematics but also extensive practical testing. Wallis conducted numerous experiments with scaled-down prototypes to perfect the bomb's trajectory and spin, ensuring it could bypass underwater defenses and inflict maximum damage, before conducting half and full-scale tests of the bomb. The Dam Busters Raid, though not as strategically decisive as hoped, was a major tactical and propaganda victory that demonstrated the effectiveness of precision engineering in warfare. It also solidified Wallis's reputation as one of Britain's foremost wartime inventors, and designers.

Beyond the Bouncing Bomb: The Tallboy and Grand Slam

While the bouncing bomb is Wallis's most well-known design, his development of the "Tallboy" and "Grand Slam" bombs was arguably more impactful. These were so-called "earthquake bombs," designed to penetrate deeply into the ground or fortifications before exploding, causing immense structural damage. The Tallboy, weighing 12,000 pounds, was used effectively against hardened targets such as U-boat pens, railway bridges, and even the German battleship Tirpitz, which was sunk by RAF bombers in 1944.

The Grand Slam, a 22,000-pound bomb, was the largest non-nuclear bomb deployed during the war. Its sheer destructive power was unparalleled, and it played a crucial role in the final stages of the conflict, helping to obliterate reinforced German bunkers and infrastructure. Wallis's work on these bombs demonstrated his understanding of the evolving nature of warfare, where the destruction of heavily fortified targets became a priority.

Post-War Contributions: Advancements in supersonic flight

After the war, Wallis continued to push the boundaries of engineering, particularly in the field of supersonic flight. He began working on designs for supersonic aircraft, foreseeing the need for faster travel in both military and civilian aviation. His proposed aircraft designs included the "Swallow" which was a supersonic development of Wild Goose, designed in the mid-1950s and was a tailless aircraft controlled entirely by wing movement with no separate control surfaces.

The design intended to use laminar flow and could have been developed for either military or civil applications, both Wild Goose and Swallow were flight-tested as large (30 ft span) flying scale models. However, despite promising wind tunnel and model work, these designs were not adopted. Government funding for Wild Goose and Swallow was cancelled due to defense cuts.

Although Wallis's supersonic aircraft designs were never fully realized during his lifetime, they laid the groundwork for later advancements in high-speed flight. The variable-sweep wing technology he envisioned was later incorporated into aircraft such as the F-111 Aardvark and concepts of supersonic flight in the iconic Concorde, the world's first supersonic passenger airliner. Wallis's vision of supersonic travel outlined his enduring ability to anticipate technological trends.

Marine engineering and submersible craft

Wallis's inventive spirit was not confined to aeronautics. In the post-war years, he became involved in marine engineering, focusing on the development of submersible craft and weaponry. One of his notable projects was the development of an experimental rocket-propelled torpedo codenamed HEYDAY. It was powered by compressed air and hydrogen peroxide that had an unusual streamlined shape designed to maintain laminar flow over much of its length.

Additionally, Wallis also explored the development of deep-sea submersibles. His work on underwater craft highlighted his interest in new forms of exploration and transportation, aligning with the burgeoning post-war interest in oceanography and underwater research. As part of this exploration of underwater craft, he proposed large cargo and passenger-carrying submarines, that would reduce transportation costs drastically, however, nothing came of these designs which probably would have transformed ocean-going transportation.

Due to Wallis's experience in geodesic engineering, he was engaged to consult on the Parkes Radio Telescope in Australia. Some of the ideas he suggested are the same as or closely related to the final design, including the idea of supporting the dish at its center, the geodetic structure of the dish and the master equatorial control system.

Later life and recognition

Throughout his life, Wallis maintained a strong commitment to education and mentorship. He was an advocate for the advancement of engineering as a discipline and frequently gave lectures to students and professionals alike. Wallis became a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1945, was knighted in 1968, and received an Honorary Doctorate from Heriot-Watt University in 1969 in recognition of his outstanding engineering achievements. Additionally, he was awarded the Royal Society's prestigious Rumford Medal in 1971 for his work in aerodynamics.

Even in his later years, Wallis remained active in engineering, particularly in exploring the future potential of space travel. His forward-thinking ideas on rocket propulsion and spacecraft design, though largely theoretical at the time, hinted at the emerging field of space exploration, which would become a global endeavor in the following decades.

Wallis passed away on October, 30, 1979, leaving behind a legacy of innovation that continues to inspire engineers and inventors worldwide. His impact on both military and civilian technologies is a testament to his brilliance and determination to push the boundaries of what he knew was possible but others often did not.

Legacy

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, was a true polymath whose influence extended across multiple disciplines. While he is best known for his wartime contributions, particularly the bouncing bomb, his legacy goes far beyond a single invention.

From the geodesic structures of airships and bombers to supersonic aircraft concepts and deep-sea exploration vehicles, in addition to, his innovative ideas on ocean and space exploration and travel. Wallis's career spanned an astonishing range of technological advancements. His ability to marry theoretical physics with practical engineering solutions made him a giant of 20th-century science and technology.

Wallis's story is not just one of wartime ingenuity but of a lifetime spent striving to solve complex problems with creativity and persistence. His contributions continue to resonate today, reminding us that the spirit of innovation is timeless.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

What are the Old Hill Figures Dotted Around Britain?

Britain possesses over sixty hill figures of varying size and design that are carved into her hillsides. They invite both admiration and curiosity. Most are laid out on hillsides that have underlying chalk foundations. These figures are so huge that that they can be viewed from miles around and are especially visually effective on bright summer days. Most of these figures are made up of white horses, but amongst the others there are two giants (one in a naked depiction), a multitude of crosses, various military commemorations, a stag, a lion, a panda, a kiwi, and a kangaroo.

Steve Prout explains.

The Uffington White Horse. Source: World Wind, available here.

The description of this activity has been termed “leucippotomy” for the carving of horses and “gigantotomy” for giants (there are currently four of this kind in Britain). Whether these adopted terms are intended to be applied seriously is debatable since they do not appear in the dictionary. The name usually attached to such figures are geoglyphs. This peculiarity has been a phenomenon that has continued from the 1700s into modern times, one of the latest being a horse that was created in 1999 in Devizes, Wiltshire but there have been subsequent ones. Wiltshire is home to most of Britain’s hill figures but there are others in Scotland, Wales, and the North of England - but their presence is few and far between,  for example only two figures are to be found in Scotland.

Only a handful are considered to have authentically ancient uncertain origins and of the others few pose any mystery and only minor ones if any. Those that were created in the twentieth century are the easiest to explain and can be traced to a specific event. Perhaps these reasons for the more modern examples offer the answer to some of the earlier and unexplained figures. Some created in the 1800s continues to present minor puzzles simply because their creation was unrecorded due to simply being forgotten, confused, or dismissed as frivolous acts - examples of this are the first Westbury Horse and the Rockley Down or the Broad Town Horses.

Wartime Commemorations

The early twentieth century saw a variety of new figures appear on numerous hillsides in Britain to join the plethora of white horses. Many of these hill figures were inspired by the events from the First World War. At the end of the war people needed an outlet to grieve, remember and honor the sacrifices they suffered. It was something that needed to match the gravity and sheer size of the tragedy and sacrifice. Every village in England had lost friends, relatives and loved ones and few families were unaffected from the war. Shoreham, a town in Kent, was one of the villages that between May and September 1920, entrenched a thirty-meter chalk Christian style cross into a nearby hillside for this purpose. As it lays solitary in quiet pastures its presence resonates in that quiet serene countryside hill. Its creator was a Samuel Cheeseman, whose motivation emanated from the tragic loss of his two sons in the First World War. The memorial is also dedicated to a further forty-eight inhabitants of the village who also perished alongside them.

A similar style cross was carved at a village in Lenham for the same reasons. Lenham is in that same county of Kent, twenty-three miles away from its earlier counterpart at Shoreham. It is similar in design and is double the size of the Shoreham Cross. It was created a year later by a certain Mr G H Groom who was the local Headmaster.

In Wiltshire, a variety of military inspired figures appeared across the landscape that was previously dominated by a multitude of white horses until the early twentieth century. The post war period was a frustrating time for soldiers that were awaiting demobilization. The sheer size of the task to administer the demobilization process was a slow and frustrating process for the men waiting and for those who were challenged with making this monumental task happen. Most of these men were not regular soldiers, only conscripted for the duration of the war and they quite understandably wanted to return home quickly now the fighting was over. It led to the problem of finding ways to keep these soldiers occupied.

The soldiers from New Zealand based at Bulford, Wiltshire set about carving a giant Kiwi into the hillside above their camp. They clearly took their inspiration from the Regimental Badges of Fovant Down that were created two years previously. The kiwi was designed in 1918 by a Captain H Clarke who was an engineer. It is quite incongruous compared to some of the other figures present in Wiltshire as the Kiwi is not native to Britain. It is interesting to note that as time passes on, its significance and the one-time presence of its New Zealand creators will be forgotten - and the very existence of a kiwi will puzzle some heads. It covers over four hundred feet or one and a half acres of land. For the present the Bulford Kiwi still serves as a lasting reminder to the presence of the soldiers of New Zealand that fought on the side of Great Britain.

The First World War also inspired the creation of the Regimental badges of Fovant Down, the best and most obvious example. Before the crosses of Shoreham, Lenham and the Bulford Kiwi, various regiments from the Dominions and the British Army gathered in 1916 for the purpose of carving fourteen individual badges onto the hills at Fovant Down, Wiltshire. Again, the main reason was to occupy the soldiers from the horrors that were being reported from the various fronts, alleviate the feeling of homesickness, and provide a release from the relentless grind of military training. Today those badges that remain still serve to remind us of those sacrifices made by those men, but sadly a number have now long overgrown or have been lost beyond any hope of restoration due to a lack of maintenance. The badges included an outline map of Australia, a badge representing the Royal Army Medical Core, City of London Rifles, a rising sun for the Australian Commonwealth Forces, a Kangaroo, the Devon Regiment, Royal Fusiliers, and The Royal Warwickshire Regiment. Others were added after World War Two.

Royal connections

Britain’s incoming Kings and Queens also appear to have inspired the creation of other hill figures. The Hackpen White Horse in Wiltshire and the First White Horse in Littlington, Sussex were carved in 1838 to celebrate the ascent of Queen Victoria to the throne. Other monarchs were also celebrated in similar fashion. The White Horse in Osmington, just outside the coastal resort of Weymouth, is one the largest white horse hill figures in Britain. It is unique in the fact that it is the only figure to feature a rider who represents King George III. From 1789 King George held Weymouth under Royal Patronage and even visited the town on numerous occasions. In 1815 a group of army engineers are believed to have carved this figure into the hillside to occupy their time whilst they waited and prepared for an invasion by Napoleonic forces from the continent. This never materialized and the figure remains today. A different hillside representation to a monarch is the Wye Crown, in the county of Kent. This was carved in 1902 by a local Agricultural College to celebrate the coronation of King Edward VII.

Antique follies and examples of strange indulgences

There were other reasons for such a myriad of hill figures. The southern part of Britain, in particular Wiltshire, are abundant in White Horse hill figures. Only one horse in Uffington is of genuine antiquity and its origins remain unknown. The rest originate from the 1700s and 1800s. Most of these hill figures pose no mystery as to their origins and for those that do, mostly the mysteries are very minor ones. Some hill figures were not inspired by history - some are recorded as being the product of whimsical and frivolous acts on the part their wealthy and indulged landowners. Examples of this are the First and Second Horse at Westbury, one of the most famous and well known of all hill figures of England.

The first Westbury figure is believed, according to investigations in the 1700s, to have been an antique folly. This very bizarre behavior was contagious amongst certain wealthy landowners in the 1700s. These landowners made claim to possess or discover various objects of antiquity on their land. In some cases, a cairn, burial mound or hill figure would suddenly be “discovered” as was the case at Westbury. Many of these claims would at the time go unchallenged since local tenants would not want to upset their wealthy and influential landlords. It may have been for the simple fact that the more rational thinkers of the population saw it for what it was and that it was a frivolous act that occupied much valuable land. An investigation in 1742 with local people put the creation of the first horse around 1700 or as the investigation quoted “wrought within memory of persons still living or recently dead”. The fact was that this “antique horse” 1778 was willingly destroyed in 1778 on the orders of the landowner and was quickly remodeled by a certain Mr Gee. Perhaps this proves that maybe they knew more of the horse’s origin and that its claims to be of an older age were untrue.

The case of the nearby Cherill Horse (alternatively known as the Oldbury Horse due to its proximity to the nearby castle of the same name) in Wiltshire is another example of this strange behavior. It can be seen with the naked eye from the top of the hill above the Westbury Horse. It was designed by a Dr Alsop two years after the restoration of its relation in Westbury. This restoration allegedly gave him his inspiration, most probably combined with puerile jealousy “of that landowner has one got one, then I want one too.”  To sum up the witnesses at the time Alsop was referred to by local townsfolk as “the mad doctor,” due to the unnatural preoccupation of carving a giant white horse on a Wiltshire slope whilst shouting instructions and directions to his workers from a megaphone!

Many more in Wiltshire were to follow, most of which are accompanied by various conflicting accounts. Perhaps the act of turf cutting was becoming tiresome as others were appearing at Pewsey, Alton Barnes and Broad Town, and few people may not have the sense of urgency or importance to produce a correct account of these events. Many perhaps naturally thought that these figures were unlikely to remain permanent features as land after all was a valuable resource. In the latter case they were mistaken because many of these varying models prevail today.

Another example of whimsicality in a completely different location, is the Kilburn Horse of Yorkshire, one of only a few hill figures present in the North of England. It was carved under the whim of a travelling businessperson called Thomas Taylor. He was inspired, after being present and witnessing the festivities during the scouring and maintenance of the Uffington Horse, to carve a White Horse in his own home county and in 1857 he did just this. The horse can still be seen today in Yorkshire in the Hambleton Hills, Thirsk.

There are two modern examples of surprising appearances on our hillsides. One happened in the 1980s and that is the case of the Luzley Horse near Manchester. It is now lost after being allowed to be overgrown by vegetation, but its origins can be easily researched, and its story found in local paper archives. It was carved by a retired railway worker William Rawsthorne. He hid his work as he gradually worked on his figure over a period then surprised the local inhabitants by unveiling it one night to surprise them as a new day greeted them. It received a mixed reaction and it is now lost.

Another example is the case of the Laverstock Panda that has all but disappeared. It appeared in the early hours of January 1969 as part of a student prank known as “rag week” by the undergraduates of North Wales College at Bangor. All kinds of explanations were offered such as this Panda served as a homing device for Soviet Satellites and that it was a celebration of East-West co-operation over the London Panda called Chi-Chi (by the London and Moscow Zoo) who brought the two Pandas together for mating purposes. This is normal in studying the history of hill figures - in the absence of any solid facts the most outlandish explanations appear over time or almost immediately to fill the void, while often dismissing the more prosaic and usually correct explanations.

Conclusion

There is very little mystery about Britain’s hill figures that trouble historians’ or archaeologists’ heads. There are some that do lack any solid explanation; however, does that really create a mystery? Morris Marples, who was the leading authority on the subject, aptly summed up the overarching motive for their origins, their continued existence and creation. While he was discussing the Uffington Horse he stated that “man has always like to commemorate his achievements by the erection of some distinct monument and this is assuredly a very effective monument as later imitators realized.”  This is certainly true of many of the hill side artworks we know about, especially those made in the twentieth century.

Aside from the focus of the English monarchy and the Great War there exist further examples with further motives such as the Dover Castle Aeroplane of 1909 that celebrated Louis Bleriot’s first crossing of the English Channel and the second White Horse in Devises, Wiltshire carved in 1999 that marked the coming of the millennium. Marples was right in that man does enjoy celebrating and always seeks to leave a lasting imprint showing his efforts, sacrifices, and achievements in expressive and grandiose ways - so there is no reason to assume that our ancestors were any different. We just do not have the benefit of history being recorded.

Hill figures are no different in purpose from say a cenotaph, a plaque, a stone cross, monument, or even a specific building being named in honor of a person or event. Therefore, for those few that pose us minor mysteries we can at best only be satisfied with a close approximation of the truth. We should as Marples said accept the “simplest answer as it is usually the correct one.”

The art of hill cutting continues today but less frequently and with a more muted response. Like our ancestors we also have day to day things that pre-occupy us while these activities are undertaken. In Leicester, a procession of galloping white horses is cut into a main roundabout, and in a school in Devises a smaller copy of the town’s famous horse has been cut into the school playing fields. Whatever the motive there is no argument that these figures make the landscape of Britain more intriguing and a pleasure to view. Furthermore, by diligently maintaining them we will continue to remember their significance in our history.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Sources

Discovering Hill Figures – Kate Bergamar – 1997 – Shire Publications

White Horses and other Hill Figures – Morris Marples – 1981 – Alan Sutton Publishing

Lost Gods of Albion - Paul Newman - 1998 – Sutton Publishing Ltd

The Hill figure Homepage.co.uk – Dr Mark Howes

Family Separations in U.S. Immigration History: A New Issue, or as American as Baseball and Apple Pie?

Candidate Donald Trump thrust immigration issues at the Southern border into the forefront of American politics in the early weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign.   But even then, the issue was not new.

Joseph Bauer, author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), explains.

A teacher, Mary R. Hyde, and students at the Carlisle Indian Training School. Source: here and here.

At least two years before 2016, large numbers of Central American families, nearly all from the Northern Triangle countries of Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador began to arrive in walking caravans at the Texas Border.  Well before Donald Trump emerged, the U.S. immigration system at the border was overtaxed.  Ronald Reagan knew it; George W. Bush (fluent in Spanish) knew it; Barack Obama knew it.  All tried to address it, explaining that congressionally authorized resources were simply inadequate to manage the realities permitted by U.S. immigration law, especially the legal right foreign nationals to seek asylum or refugee status under a federal statute essentially unchanged since 1965.

Efforts for change and improvement all died at the altar of partisan self-interest.  Legislators from across the country—not only those with constituents on the border—concluded that any solution would be more problematic to individual political fortunes than continuing the status quo and arguing the positions most favored by the particular local and regional voters they needed to be elected.

Stoked by political rhetoric from both sides, the public worried about large numbers of new citizens entering the country. Legitimate worries included concern about the strain on public health, school resources, and transportation infrastructure in local communities.  Unfounded worries included concerns about crime.  Numerous studies have documented that immigrants, including those entering legally by asylum and even those “undocumented” persons who are in the U.S. without legal status, commit crimes at materially lower rates than American-born citizens.[1]  The other objection, that newcomers cause Americans to lose or find jobs, has also been refuted. Employers hiring large numbers of workers almost unanimously want as many immigrants allowed in as is possible to fill jobs for which they cannot find applicants otherwise.  And increases in the number of immigrants, by adding to the economy and success of businesses, actually increases the wages and employment opportunities of American-born citizens.[2]

2017 and 2018

But in 2017 and 2018, the Trump administration moved, without Congressional authority, to stop the Central American caravans with a new measure:  the broadscale involuntary separation of parents from their children at the Texas border, primarily at El Paso.  The intent of the new policy was deterrence: to discourage asylum seeking families from making their journeys.  If they began to be separated, finding themselves in different countries, it was thought, the seekers would stop seeking.

The program was initially undisclosed by the administration (on the ground that it was merely a “pilot program”) and drew little public or media attention.  It worked as follows.

 A family presented itself to the Border Control agents at the crossing (the recommended pathway for entrance) or on American soil near the border, having managed to reach it by other means (not recommended, but still a legal way to seek asylum under U.S. law).  Following brief interviews, nearly all parents were either detained temporarily in a government facility without their children or summarily deported and sent to the Mexican border, again without their children.  The children, regardless of age, were immediately deemed “unaccompanied minors,” since their parents were no longer present with them, and turned over to the custody of the Homeland Security Refugee Service for temporary housing, often in a church-affiliated respite center, and then ultimately placed in either American foster homes or the home of a qualifying relative somewhere in the U.S., if such a person could be identified.  If a relative could be found at all, the process was often lengthy.

Data on the actual number of children taken from their parents during the Trump Administration are imprecise.  But studies by relief organizations such as the American Council of Catholic Bishops, the Lutheran Immigrant and Refugee Service, and the Washington Office on Latin America have documented that at least 2,000 children were removed from parents between February 2017 and the date the policy became public and official in May 2018; another 2,500 were separated in the 50 days thereafter.   Some estimates are as high as nearly 6,000 children and 3,000 families.  The Trump administration ostensibly stopped the practice on June 20, 2018, in response to public furor and condemnation from all sides of the political spectrum.[3]   Anti-immigrant positions might earn votes for some politicians, but taking children from their parents earned votes for nobody.   What it did was provoke the abhorrence of  the vast majority of (but not all) Americans.

Historical context

But was the widescale forced separation of parents and children in 2018 actually new in historical American immigration policy and practice?  Could such a policy have been a reality earlier in the American experiment?  The truth—many would say sad truth—is that it was.  Two prior examples are obvious and known to most Americans.

The first was the long period of legal slavery in the U.S., when millions of African and Caribbean black men and women were forcibly transported to the United States with the approval of the federal and state governments and held here in involuntary servitude.  Those slaves who were able to bring their children with them, or who gave birth to them once here, were routinely sold to new owners, never to see their children or grandchildren again.  There is no denying that slavery in the U.S. was tragically replete with the separation of families.

The second instance was the common practice for decades in the 19th century of removing Native American children from their natural parents and tribes and placing them either in “Indian” boarding schools or the strange Christian homes of white Americans.  (A moving portrait of the practice—and its harmful effects—is depicted in Conrad Richter’s classic novel, The Light in the Forest.)  These involuntary relocations were massive.  Federal and state governments separated as many as 35% of all American indigenous children from their families, according to a 1978 report by the US House of Representatives.[4]

Most of us learned of the above practices in our American educations, if incompletely.  But many may be surprised to learn that family separation in the U.S. occurred at the hands of some state and city governments even into the early 20th century, condoned or overlooked by the federal government.   Prior to 1920, when specific immigration rules were enacted by Congress, state and city governments, motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment, removed an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 children of Irish and Polish immigrants and placed them in Protestant or Anglo-American households, away from their local areas.[5]

We can hope that such interference with the family unit, based on religious hatred, would be unthinkable today.  But it is part of our past.

2015 report

In 2015, the American Bar Association’s Commission on Immigration published a report entitled

Family Immigration Detention, Why the Past Cannot be Prologue.  The report addressed the difficult and sad question of the morality of detaining whole families at the border under the Obama administration.  It preceded the family separation policy that the Trump administration implemented 3 years later, which most Americans believe was even sadder and more immoral.

The authors of the ABA report must be disappointed.  The “past” that it examined—the detention of whole families—did not improve.  Instead, it worsened, with a government policy that, at least temporarily, divided the nuclear family unit itself.

In this instance, we did not advance from the lessons of our past.  But in history, there is always hope.  Maybe we will learn them at last.

Joseph Bauer is the author of Sailing for Grace (Running Wild Press 2024), a novel that explores a white widower’s quest to fulfill a promise to his dying wife: to reunite Central American parents with their children separated from them at the Texas Border in 2018.  Mr. Bauer’s previously published novels are The Accidental Patriot (2020), The Patriot’s Angels (2022), and Too True to be Good (2023).  His latest finished manuscript of historical fiction about the lead-up to and conduct of WWII is titled, Arsenal of Secrecy, The FDR Years, A Novel.

[1] See e.g., Undocumented Immigrant Offending Rate Lower Than U.S.-Born Citizen Rate, University of Wisconsin research study funded by the National Institute of Justice (September 2024).  This and many other studies conclude that undocumented “illegal” immigrants commit about or less than half as many crimes as Americans for the same number of persons.  This is true across all kinds of crimes, including murders, other violent crimes, and drug trafficking.  Admitted asylum seekers and refugees also commit far few crimes than American-born counterparts.

[2] Immigration’s Effect on US Wages and Employment, Caiumi, Alessandro and Peri, Giovanni, National Bureau of Economic Research (August 2024).

[3] Many sources, including an audit by U.S.  have reported that family separations at the Texas border continued in significant numbers well after the Trump Administration announced a halt to them in June 2018.  See e.g., Long, Colleen; Alonso-Zaldiver, Ricardo. “Watchdog: Thousands More Children May Have Been Separated”. U.S. News & World Report, January 18, 2019.

[4]Sinha, Anita. An American History of Separating Families, American Constitution Society, November 2, 2020.

[5]Americans today almost unanimously believe that our Constitution, by its First Amendment, assures inviolate an individual and collective right to freedom of religion and worship.  But that Amendment, until applied to State and local governments much, much later, did not prevent any state from religious discrimination in its own laws.  Catholics were so generally despised in Massachusetts in the early days of our nation that Catholic priests were forbidden by state law from living there and subject to imprisonment and even execution if they did.

Adolf Hitler: When Shame becomes Dictatorship

Thousands of political science books and magazines discuss the idea of ​​democratic transformation. For example: how can a country once under authoritarian rule, transform from that to individual and democratic rule? And what do we truly know about dictatorships? Can a democratic country transform into a dictatorial country, despite the pre-existence of a constitution and elections?

Probably the most well-known example of this is Germany: which had a parliament; a multi-party system; laws protecting elections; and laws protecting individual freedoms. At the time, the illiteracy rate was almost zero percent,yet it transformed from a democracy into an expansionist dictatorship in 1933, after Hitler's rise to power.

Nora Manseur and Kaye Porter explain.

Banknotes awaiting distribution during the 1923 German hyperinflation. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-R1215-506 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Early life of Adolf Hitler

A complex history creates the foundation of a man who was able to order the deaths, either directly or indirectly, of over 60 million people. Hitler was a frustrated painter and a vegetarian. His forces occupied 11 countries, some of which he occupied partially, and others completely. Among these countries were Poland, France, Holland, Denmark, Norway, Luxembourg, Yugoslavia, and Greece. Whether we like it or not, the man who failed his initial entrance examinations and who was passed over for positions of leadership, still captured the psyche of nations. Hitler changed the course of history.

The leader of Nazi Germany was born in Austria in 1889. He had reason to hate and fear his father, who was violent towards his mother and used to beat them both severely. In 1907 he attempted to join the Academy of Arts in Vienna, but was rejected twice after he failed the entrance exam. After the death of his mother, Klara Pölzl, at the end of the same year, he moved to live in Vienna, one of the most prominent capitals in Europe. At the time, Vienna’s mayor was a known anti-Semite called Karl Lueger. As a young man who had experienced much violence and rejection, his settlement in Vienna contributed to shaping his ideas, both because of the prominence of and Leuger’s feelings towards the Jews.    

World War I broke out in 1914, so at age 28 Hitler volunteered to join thearmy, where he received the Medal of Courage twice during the war. Despite that, he was not promoted. According to his commanders at the time, Hitler did not have the leadership skills necessary. In 1918, the November Revolution took place in Germany, which led to the transformation of Germany from a federal constitutional monarchy to a democratic parliamentary republic.      

End of the war

With the end of the war, Germany surrendered and Kaiser Wilhelm II abdicated the throne, and was ordered to be exiled in the Netherlands. In 1919, the Treaty of Versailles was signed, where Germany was obliged to pay large reparations to the winning side. This was also a new chance, and a new opportunity for Germany. Freed from an authoritarian monarchy, it was now possible for there to be a political opening. German philosophical studies flourished, and new political parties began to spread - and spread their ideas.

The new authorities began to penetrate these new groups and parties. They hoped to use this openness to know more about their ideas and orientations. Hitler, who was still in the army, was one of the informants. In 1919, as an undercover informant he went to a bar where some parties were meeting for discussions, to spy on one of the right-wing parties: the Nazi Workers' Party.

Unlike others in Germany at the time, Hitler did not see this as an opportunity for the nation to grow and form new ideas. The sudden decision to surrender, instead felt like a keen betrayal and only fed the anger inside the young man. After Hitler heard their discussions, he was very impressed by their ideas about the parties' betrayal of the German Army, and their scapegoating of Jews in Germany’s defeat. Rather than informing others of the anger, Hitler instead joined them. In a short time, he became one of the most prominent leaders in that party eventually known as the National Socialist German Workers' Party

Nazi Party

Their goals, plainly, were against Judaism, communism and capitalism. Their arrogance was equally as lofty as they believed that as part of the Aryan race, they were themselves descendants of the inhabitants of the legendary continent of Atlantis. To them, who else should rule the world and return Germany to her proud place with all her former glory, power, and prestige? The Nazi Party carried out propaganda and issued its own newspaper to spread its ideas and beliefs. They attracted the attention of additional officers who were against the surrender decision and the government’s plans to reduce the size of the army.

An early ally of Hitler’s was an officer in the German Imperial Army, Ernst Röhm. Initially a friend and ally of Hitler, Röhm was also the co-founder and leader of the “Storm Troopers,” the original paramilitary wing of the Nazi Party. Rather than dispose of the weapons he had taken possession of, Röhm instead armed the militias and party members with them. With a country unstable from a war, and weapons in the hands of angry men who blamed outsiders for their shame and defeat, the party was well positioned to strike for power.

In 1921, Hitler was elected leader of the Nazi Party, and in 1923 the golden opportunity appeared. Because Germany did not have the money to pay its reparations to the Allies, the government decided to print money. The amount of money printed increased without the value increasing in proportion, and the German mark lost its value and collapsed. Prices increased, and a wave of great inflation hit Germany and became known as German hyperinflation.

Continuing instability

In response to the failure to pay reparations imposed by the victorious powers after World War I and the Treaty of Versailles, France and Belgium occupied the Ruhr region of Germany. Hitler felt that this was an opportunity to seize power without elections, and staged a coup d’etat. This failed. Hitler      was arrested and was sentenced to five years in prison. The Bavarian Supreme Court pardoned him, however, and Hitler only remained in prison for nine months before he was released.              

In 1928, Hitler decided to participate in the elections, losing by 2.5%, as the Germans once again rejected the Nazi proposal. But when the American stock market collapsed in 1929, it had a major impact on the whole world. As unemployment in Germany reached up to an estimated 6 million, the atmosphere became ripe for radical proposals -fertile ground for right-winger Nazis and left-wing      Communists.

The Nazi Party took advantage of the opportunity to appear as saviors of the German people, for example, by providing aid to the unemployed, which made them the most popular party in Germany. In 1932, the Nazi Party, led by Hitler, became the largest German party, winning 37% of the votes. In 1933, the President of Germany appointed Hitler as chancellor, and Hitler came to power.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Isambard Kingdom Brunel: Britain’s Greatest Engineer?

Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806–1859) is widely regarded as one of the greatest engineers in history. His pioneering work on bridges, railways, and tunnels, in addition to, ships dramatically shaped the industrial landscape of Victorian Britain and left a lasting legacy on modern engineering and transportation that eventually reshaped the world. Brunel's genius for problem-solving and his relentless pursuit of innovation made him a towering figure of the 19th century, whose contributions to society endure to this day.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ship the SS Great Eastern in 1858.

Early Life and Education

Brunel was born on the 9th of April, 1806, in Portsmouth, England, to a French father, Marc Isambard Brunel, and an English mother, Sophia Kingdom. Marc Brunel was an accomplished engineer in his own right, working on various mechanical and civil engineering projects in Britain. From an early age, Isambard was exposed to the world of engineering, with his father encouraging his intellectual curiosity and fostering his talents.

Brunel was educated at prestigious institutions in England and France, where he developed a strong foundation in mathematics, mechanics, and engineering principles. His formal education began at the Henri-Quatre School in Paris and continued at Lycée Saint-Louis before he returned to England. He then apprenticed under his father, gaining practical experience and learning firsthand from an expert engineer. This mentorship would lay the groundwork for his illustrious career, and the pair would collaborate on several major projects.

The Thames Tunnel: A Landmark Feat of Engineering

One of the earliest and most significant projects that shaped Brunel's career was the Thames Tunnel, which he worked on alongside his father. Started in 1825, this tunnel was the first to be successfully constructed under a navigable river, connecting Rotherhithe and Wapping in London. It was an ambitious project fraught with challenges, including financial troubles, technical difficulties, and hazardous working conditions.

Brunel took on a leadership role as the chief assistant engineer, displaying his characteristic resourcefulness. He helped develop innovative techniques, such as the use of a tunnelling shield—a safety structure that allowed workers to dig safely through the riverbed without the tunnel collapsing. The tunnel itself was considered a marvel of engineering at the time, overcoming immense pressures and the threat of constant flooding.

Though the Thames Tunnel was beset by numerous setbacks and took nearly two decades to complete, its successful opening in 1843 was used only for pedestrian traffic until the 1860s, when it was converted to railway use.

The Thames Tunnel solidified Brunel's reputation as a rising star in civil engineering. The tunnel remains in use today as part of the London rail network, a testament to its durability and Brunel's engineering vision.

The Great Western Railway: Revolutionizing Transportation

Brunel's most famous and far-reaching contributions came in the realm of railway engineering. In 1833, before the Thames tunnel was complete, at just 27 years old, he was appointed chief engineer of the Great Western Railway (GWR), a project that would cement his legacy. His vision was to create a seamless rail connection between London and Bristol, facilitating the movement of goods and passengers across the country with unprecedented speed and efficiency.

Brunel's design for the GWR was innovative in multiple ways, but one of his most notable decisions was to use a broad gauge of 7 feet, rather than the standard gauge of 4 feet 8½ inches. He believed the wider gauge would allow for greater stability, faster speeds, and a more comfortable ride for passengers. While the broad gauge did offer some advantages, it was ultimately phased out in favor of the standard gauge, due to the logistical complications of operating different rail systems across the country.

Nevertheless, Brunel's work on the GWR was groundbreaking.

His commitment to high-quality engineering was evident in the construction of viaducts, tunnels, and stations, all designed with precision and an eye for aesthetics. Two of the most famous structures built for the GWR are the Box Tunnel and Maidenhead Railway Bridge.

The Box Tunnel, completed in 1841, was the longest railway tunnel in the world at the time, stretching 1.83 miles, (approximately 2.95 kilometers), through the chalk hills of Wiltshire. It was an extraordinary feat of engineering, requiring meticulous planning and execution. Legend has it that Brunel aligned the tunnel's construction so that on his birthday, the 9th of April the sunlight would shine straight through from end to end.

Earlier the Maidenhead Railway Bridge, with its flat, wide arches, was another testament to Brunel's brilliance. Completed in 1838, it was revolutionary in its use of low-rise arches that allowed for a stable railway crossing without compromising the integrity of the structure. Today, the bridge remains in use, another symbol of Brunel's lasting contributions to British infrastructure.

The Clifton Suspension Bridge: A Masterpiece of Design

One of Brunel's most iconic works, the Clifton Suspension Bridge in Bristol, stands as a symbol of his bold engineering vision. While the bridge wasn't completed during his lifetime, Brunel began work on it in the early 1830s after winning a design competition. His daring design called for a suspension bridge spanning the Avon Gorge, with a total length of 234 yards, (214 meters).

The construction of the bridge faced numerous financial and technical difficulties, however, it was eventually completed in 1864, five years after Brunel's death. Needless to say, the Clifton Suspension Bridge has since become an enduring symbol of British engineering, celebrated for both its functional design and its graceful beauty. The bridge, still in use today, is often seen as a testament to Brunel's ingenuity and his ambition to create structures that were as visually stunning as they were practical.

Engineering the Seas: Brunel's Ships

Brunel's talents were not limited to land-based engineering. His foray into maritime engineering led to the construction of three revolutionary ships that would set new standards in shipbuilding and sea travel.

SS Great Western (completed 1838): This was Brunel's first foray into shipbuilding and the world's first steamship designed for transatlantic service. The Great Western was a wooden paddle steamer, which was considered the largest passenger ship of its time. It successfully made the journey from Bristol to New York in 15 days, marking the beginning of regular steam-powered transatlantic crossings. The ship's success proved that steam-powered vessels could dominate long-distance sea travel.

SS Great Britain (completed 1845): Brunel continued to push the boundaries of maritime engineering with the SS Great Britain, the first ocean-going ship to be built with an iron hull and driven by a screw propeller. At 322 feet long, (just over 98 meters), it was the largest ship afloat at the time. The SS Great Britain combined the best of both worlds, using both sails and steam power and set a new benchmark for ship design. It revolutionized shipbuilding, influencing the design of future iron and steel ships.

SS Great Eastern (completed 1859): Brunel's most ambitious and controversial ship was the SS Great Eastern, intended to be the largest ship in the world and capable of carrying 4,000 passengers. It was an extraordinary engineering feat—692 feet long, (almost 211 meters), and 18,915 tons, (over 19218 metric tons). Unfortunately, the Great Eastern was plagued by mismanagement, cost overruns, and technical difficulties, making it a commercial failure. However, its design innovations, particularly in terms of double hull construction, had a lasting impact on shipbuilding practices.

Lasting Contributions and Legacy

Isambard Kingdom Brunel's career was marked by audacity, innovation, and an insatiable desire to push the limits of what was possible in engineering. His work on railways, bridges, tunnels, and ships not only transformed Britain's infrastructure but also laid the foundation for modern engineering practices.

Brunel's achievements extended beyond the technical. His vision of an interconnected Britain, where goods and people could move quickly and efficiently across the country and beyond, helped drive the Industrial Revolution and fostered economic growth. His pioneering use of materials such as iron, his development of new construction techniques, and his application of steam power to transport set new standards for engineering that would influence future generations of engineers.

While not all of his projects were commercial successes, Brunel's contributions to society are undeniable. His work on the Great Western Railway alone reshaped the British economy and transformed cities such as Bristol, which became key industrial hubs. Brunel's bridges, tunnels, and ships remain iconic landmarks, serving as testaments to his genius and the transformative power of engineering, in addition, to interconnecting travel.

In recognition of his extraordinary contributions, Brunel was honored in his lifetime and continues to be celebrated posthumously. In 2002, he was named second in a BBC poll of the 100 Greatest Britons, a fitting tribute to the man whose work helped build the modern world.

In conclusion, Isambard Kingdom Brunel's life and career were defined by an unwavering commitment to innovation and a drive to overcome engineering challenges. From the Thames Tunnel to the Great Western Railway, the Clifton Suspension Bridge, and his revolutionary ships, Brunel's work touched nearly every aspect of transportation in the 19th century. His inventions and achievements not only reshaped the physical landscape of Britain but also left an indelible mark on the history of engineering, making him a true visionary whose legacy continues to inspire.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

What was the Purpose of Britain's 'Cripps Mission' to India in 1942?

The 1942 Cripps Mission took place during the middle of World War 2. It was an attempt in March of that year by Britian to secure greater Indian co-operation to World War 2. It involved Stafford Cripps, a member of the British cabinet, meeting various Indian political leaders.

Bilal Junejo explains.

A sketch of Stafford Cripps.

Whenever it is the purpose of a (political) mission which has to be ascertained, it behoves one to ask three questions without delay: why was the mission sent at all; why was it sent only when it was; and why did it comprise the individuals that it did. Unless such well-meaning cynicism is allowed to inform one’s analysis, it is not likely that one will be able to pierce the veil cast by official pronouncements for public consumption upon the true motives of those who were instrumental in bringing about the mission’s dispatch in the first place. There is, alas, no such thing as undue skepticism in the study of a political event.

So, to begin with, why was the mission in question — which brought with it an offer of an immediate share for Indians in the central government (Zachariah, 2004: 113) if they accepted “a promise of self-government for India via a postwar constituent assembly, subject only to the right of any province not to accede (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — dispatched at all? A useful starting point would be Prime Minister Churchill’s declaration, when announcing in the House of Commons his administration’s decision to send a political mission to India, that:

“The crisis in the affairs of India arising out of the Japanese advance has made us wish to rally all the forces of Indian life to guard their land from the menace of the invader … We must remember also that India is one of the bases from which the strongest counter-blows must be struck at the advance of tyranny and aggression (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 4).”

Japan in the war

Since entering the war just three months earlier, Japan had already shown her might by achieving what Churchill would call “the worst disaster and largest capitulation in British history” — namely the surrender of over 70,000 British and Commonwealth troops in Singapore, a British possession, in February 1942 (Palmer, 1964: 299) — and occupying thereafter the British colony of Burma, on India’s eastern border, in March — a development which marked the first time since the outbreak of war in September 1939 that India, Great Britain’s most cherished imperial possession, was directly threatened by the enemy. No such threat (or a vociferous demand for independence) had arisen at the time of World War I, which was why no similar mission (with a concrete offer) had been dispatched then. For over two years after its outbreak, no mission was dispatched during World War II either, even though a clamor for independence, spearheaded by the Indian National Congress (India’s largest political party), was existent this time. It was only the Japanese advance westward that changed the picture. In Burma, the Japanese had been “welcomed as liberators, since they established an all-Burmese government (Palmer, 1964: 63).” To the British, therefore, it was imperative that the Indians were sufficiently appeased, or sufficiently divided, to eliminate the risk of the Japanese finding hands to have the gates of India opened from within —not least because even before Japan entered the war, it had been reported that:

“Arrangements are in progress for an inter-Imperial conference on war supplies to be held in Delhi … [where] it is expected that the Governments of East Africa, South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Burma, and Malaya will be represented … to confer … on mutually developing their resources to provide the maximum for self-defence and for Great Britain … India (my emphasis), with her vast and varied resources and her central position, is the natural pivot for such arrangements (The Times, 8 August 1940, page 3).”

Small wonder, then, that the premier should have described the proposals which the Mission would be bringing as “a constructive contribution to aid India in the realization of full self-government (The Times, 12 March 1942, page 5).” But whilst a desire to garner Indian support for repelling the Japanese would seem able to explain why the mission was sent at all (as well as when), would that desire have also been sufficient to elicit on its own a public offer of eventual self-government from an imperialist as committed as Winston Churchill? As late as October 1939, in a letter to Jawaharlal Nehru (one of the principal Indian leaders), the non-party Stafford Cripps, who had established quite a good rapport with Nehru (Nehru, 2005: 224-5), would be writing (with reference to the Chamberlain administration) that:

“I recognise that it is expecting a great deal more than is probable to expect this Government to do anything more than make a meaningless gesture. The addition of Winston Churchill [to the Cabinet, as First Lord of the Admiralty] has not added to the friends of Indian freedom, though he does look at matters with a realism that is an advantage (Nehru, 2005: 398).”

Realism?

Were the Mission’s proposals a (belated) sign of that ‘realism’ then? Even though just six months earlier, shortly after drawing up with President Roosevelt the Atlantic Charter — a declaration of eight common principles in international relations, one of which was “support for the right of peoples to choose their own form of government (Palmer, 1964: 35)” — Churchill had created “a considerable stir when [he] appeared to deny that the Atlantic Charter could have any reference to India (Low, 1984: 155)”? As it turned out, it was realism on Churchill’s part, but without having anything to do with recognizing Indian aspirations. That is because when Churchill announced the Mission, his intended audience were not the Indians at all — not least because they never needed to be. The indispensability of India to the war effort was indisputable, but there was hardly ever any need for Churchill to appease the Indians in order to save the Raj. Simply consider the ease with which the Government of India, notwithstanding the continuing proximity of Japanese forces to the subcontinent, was able to quell the Congress-launched Quit India Movement of August 1942 — which was even described in a telegram to the premier by the Viceroy, Lord Linlithgow, as “by far the most serious rebellion since that of 1857, the gravity and extent of which we have so far concealed from the world for reasons of military security (Zachariah, 2004: 117).” The quelling anticipated Churchill’s asseveration that “I have not become the King’s First Minister in order to preside over the liquidation of the British Empire. For that task, if ever it were prescribed, someone else would have to be found … (The Times, 11 November 1942, page 8).” When British might in India was still a force to be reckoned with, what consideration(s) could have possibly served to have induced the Mission’s dispatch just five months earlier? What would Churchill not have gained had he never sent it?

There are two aspects to that, the second of which also addresses the third of our original questions — namely why the Mission was led by the individual that it was. The first aspect was Churchill’s desire, following the debacle in Singapore, to reassure not just his compatriots but also his indispensable transatlantic allies that something was being done to safeguard resource-rich India from the enemy (Owen, 2002: 78-9). With India “now a crucial theatre of war in the path of Japanese advance, Cripps exploited US pressure to secure Churchill’s reluctant agreement to the ‘Cripps offer’ (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” This was not very surprising, for given that he was president of a country which not only owed her birth to anti-imperialism but had also just subscribed to the Atlantic Charter, Roosevelt could not afford domestically to be seen condoning (British) imperialism anywhere in the world. The American view was that Indian support for fighting Japan would be better secured by conciliation than by repression (The Daily Telegraph, 13 April 1942, page 2), and Roosevelt even sent his personal representative, Colonel Louis Johnson, to India to assist in the negotiations (Clarke and Toye, 2011). Under such circumstances, Churchill could have only confuted the Americans by first making an offer of which Washington approved to the Indians, and then proclaiming the futility thereof after it had been rejected by them (The Daily Telegraph, 1 April 1942, page 3). As he wrote before the Mission’s dispatch to Linlithgow, a fellow reactionary who would do much to sabotage the ‘Cripps offer’ by his (predictable) refusal to reconstruct the Executive Council in accordance with Congress’s wishes (removing thereby any incentive Congress might have had for consenting to postwar Dominion status) (Moore, 2011):

“It would be impossible, owing to unfortunate rumours and publicity, and the general American outlook, to stand on a purely negative attitude and the Cripps Mission is indispensable to proving our honesty of purpose … If that is rejected by the Indian parties … our sincerity will be proved to the world (Zachariah, 2004: 114).”

Public relations

As anticipated, this public relations gesture, “an unpalatable political necessity” for the gesturer (Moore, 2011) and therefore proof of his ‘realism’, worked — all the more after Cripps, who considered neither Churchill nor Linlithgow primarily responsible for his failure in India (Owen, 2002: 88), proceeded to “redeem his disappointment in Delhi by a propaganda triumph, aimed particularly at the USA, with the aim of unmasking Gandhi as the cause of failure. One result of the Cripps mission, then, was … [that] influential sections of American opinion swung to a less critical view of British policy. In this respect, Churchill owed a substantial, if largely unacknowledged, debt to Cripps (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” The ulterior motive behind sending the Mission became evident to some even at the time. As Nehru himself reflected after once more landing in gaol (for his participation in the Quit India Movement):

“The abrupt termination of the Cripps’ negotiations and Sir Stafford’s sudden departure came as a surprise. Was it to make this feeble offer, which turned out to be, so far as the present was concerned, a mere repetition of what had been repeatedly said before — was it for this that a member of the British War Cabinet had journeyed to India? Or had all this been done merely as a propaganda stunt for the people of the USA (Nehru, 2004: 515)?”

A desire, therefore, to satisfy the Americans, who were his intended audience, would explain why Churchill acquiesced in the Mission. But now we come to the other aspect which was alluded to earlier — namely why it was the Cripps Mission. To begin with, Cripps, a non-party person since his expulsion from the Labour Party in January 1939 for advocating a Popular Front with the communists (Kenyon, 1994: 97), had, shortly after the outbreak of war in September, embarked upon a world tour, convinced that “India, China, Russia, and the USA were the countries of the future (Clarke and Toye, 2011)”, and that it would therefore be worth his country’s while to ascertain their future aims. “In India Cripps was warmly received as the friend of Jawaharlal Nehru … [and] though unofficial in status, Cripps’s visit was undertaken with the cognizance of the India Office and was intended to explore the prospects of an agreed plan for progress towards Indian self-government (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But whilst this visit helped establish his bona fides with the Indian leaders and gave him such a knowledge of Indian affairs as would later make him a publiclysuitable choice for leading the Mission (The Daily Telegraph, 22 April 1952, page 7), Churchill had more private reasons for choosing Cripps in 1942 — as we shall now see.

Going abroad

After becoming prime minister in 1940, “Churchill [had] used foreign postings cannily to remove potential opponents and replace them with supporters; as well as Halifax, Hoare and Malcolm MacDonald (who was sent to Canada as high commissioner), he sent five other Chamberlainite former ministers abroad as the governors of Burma and Bombay, as minister resident in West Africa and as the high commissioners to Australia and South Africa. Several others were removed from the Commons through the time-honored expedient of ennobling them (Roberts, 2019: 622).” Similarly, the left-wing Cripps was also sent out of the country — as ambassador to Moscow, where he served for eighteen months, Churchill contemptuously observing when it was suggested Cripps be relocated that “he is a lunatic in a country of lunatics, and it would be a pity to move him (Roberts, 2019: 622).” To us, this remark shows how the Cripps Mission vis-à-vis India was inherently frivolous; for had Churchill considered the fulfilment of its ostensible aims at all important, would he have entrusted the Mission to a ‘lunatic’ (rather than to, say, Leopold Amery, who was his trusted Indian Secretary, and who had already dissuaded him from going to India himself (Lavin, 2015))?

However, after America entered the war, “Churchill [for reasons irrelevant to this essay] came to think Cripps a bigger menace in Russia than at home and sent permission for him to return to London, which he did in January 1942 … [to be] widely hailed as the man who had brought Russia into the war (Clarke and Toye, 2011)” — this at a time when Churchill himself was grappling with a weakened domestic position (Addison, 2018), which the fall of Singapore would do nothing to improve. Anxious to win over the non-party Cripps, who was now his foremost rival for the premiership (Roberts, 2019: 714), Churchill “brought him into the government as Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” Rather than engage in domestic politics, however, Cripps “chose to invest his windfall political capital in an initiative to break the political impasse in India (Clarke and Toye, 2011).” But, “as Churchill may well have calculated in advance, the Mission failed and Cripps’s reputation was diminished (Addison, 2018).” The political threat to Churchill decreased considerably, for failure in India meant that Cripps’s removal as Leader of the House of Commons was “inevitable” (The Times, 22 April 1952, page 6). Who could have aspired to the premiership under such circumstances? The Mission had not even been a gamble for Churchill (who would have never sent Cripps only to add to his political capital), since the offer’s provision, prudently inserted by Amery (Lavin, 2015), for a province’s right to refuse accession to a postwar Indian Dominion was certain to have been welcomed by the Muslim League (India’s foremost Muslim political party) — which had declared its quest for some form of partition as early as March 1940 (with the Lahore Resolution), and the retention of whose support during the war was crucial because the Muslims, “besides being a hundred million strong, [constituted] the main fighting part of the [Indian] Army (Kimball, 1984: 374)” — but equally certain to have been rejected by the Hindu-dominated Congress (which was already irked by the stipulation that Dominion status would be granted only after the war, which nobody at the time could have known would end but three years later). Not for nothing had Churchill privately assured an anxious King George VI shortly after the Mission’s dispatch that “[the situation] is like a three-legged stool. Hindustan, Pakistan, and Princestan. The latter two legs, being minorities, will remain under our rule (Roberts, 2019: 720-1).”

Conclusion

To conclude, given his views on both India and Cripps, it is not surprising that the premier should have entertained a paradoxical desire for the Mission to succeed by failing — which it did. By easing American pressure on Downing Street to conciliate the Indians and politically emasculating Stafford Cripps at the same time, the Mission served both of the purposes for which it had been sent so astutely by Prime Minister Churchill.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Bibliography

Addison, P. (2018) Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32413 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Clarke, P. and Toye, R. (2011) Sir (Richard) Stafford Cripps. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/32630 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Kenyon, J. (1994) The Wordsworth Dictionary of British History. Wordsworth Editions Limited.

Kimball, W. (1984) Churchill & Roosevelt: the complete correspondence. Volume 1 (Alliance Emerging, October 1933 - November 1942). Princeton University Press.

Lavin, D. (2015) Leopold Charles Maurice Stennett Amery. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/30401 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Low, D. (1984) The mediator’s moment: Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru and the antecedents to the Cripps Mission to India, 1940-42. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086538408582664 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Moore, R. (2011) Victor Alexander John Hope, second marquess of Linlithgow. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/33974 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Nehru, J. (2004) The Discovery of India. Penguin Books India.

Nehru, J. (2005) A Bunch of Old Letters. Penguin Books India.

Owen, N. (2002) The Cripps mission of 1942: A reinterpretation. The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History [Online]. Available at https://doi.org/10.1080/03086530208583134 [Accessed on 20.05.24]

Palmer, A. (1964) A Dictionary of Modern History 1789-1945. Penguin Reference Books.

Roberts, A. (2019) Churchill. Penguin Books.

The Daily Telegraph (1 April 1942, 13 April 1942, 22 April 1952)

The Times (8 August 1940, 12 March 1942, 11 November 1942, 22 April 1952)

Zachariah, B. (2004) Nehru. Routledge Historical Biographies.

The Disputed U.S. Presidential Election of 1876

The 1876 U.S. presidential election is one of the most contentious and controversial elections in American history. This election has a fraught legacy: After months of bitter fighting, lawmakers made a fateful compromise to put one man in office by effectively ending Reconstruction, leading to a century of intensified racial segregation in the South. It involved a dispute over electoral votes that was eventually resolved through a political compromise.  It was not our country’s finest moment.

Lloyd W. Klein explains.

Rutherford B. Hayes.

The Candidates

The candidates were a reform-minded Democrat and a Reconstructionist Republican. Rutherford B. Hayes was the governor of Ohio and was the Republican candidate. His campaign focused on reform and a commitment to civil rights, particularly for African Americans in the South. Before the war he had been a Cincinnati lawyer and abolitionist. He ran against Samuel J. Tilden the governor of New York, the Democratic candidate. He was known for his efforts in fighting corruption, particularly in New York City’s Tammany Hall. Tilden had been a War Democrat who opposed slavery; Tilden opposed Abraham Lincoln in the 1860 presidential election but later supported him and the Union during the Civil War.

The Democratic VP candidate was William A Wheeler, a man about whom Hayes had recently said, “I am ashamed to say: who is Wheeler?" He was a congressman from New York whose opposition was even less prominent. Wheeler was nominated because he was popular among his colleagues and had worked to avoid making enemies in Congress. In addition, he provided geographical balance to the ticket.

The Republican VP candidate was Thomas A Hendricks, the Governor of Indiana and a former US Senator and congressman. Hendricks’s record consisted of challenging the military draft and issuing greenbacks; however, he supported the Union and prosecution of the war, consistently voting in favor of wartime appropriations. Hendricks adamantly opposed Radical Reconstruction. After the war he argued that the Southern states had never been out of the Union and were therefore entitled to representation in the U.S. Congress. Hendricks also maintained that Congress had no authority over the affairs of state governments.

It was widely expected that Tilden and the Democrats would ride a popular wave into office after 16 years of Republicans and the scandals of President Grant’s administration.

Only one of these candidates had had a successful military experience in the war. Hayes, a lawyer, businessman, and abolitionist, was a war hero who went on to serve in Congress and later as Ohio’s governor, where he championed African American suffrage, Hayes was wounded five times, most seriously at the Battle of South Mountain in 1862. He earned a reputation for bravery in combat, rising in the ranks to serve as brevet major general. He was a lawyer from Cincinnati (educated at Kenyon College and Harvard) with no formal military training. After the war had returned to politics. He had displayed great courage in the Kanawha Division, working under George Crook and David Hunter.

He was not the only potential candidate with a war background. William T Sherman was the commander of the Army but had no interest whatsoever. Grant had intentionally given Winfield Scott Hancock, a Democrat, obscure assignments away from the South.  He did receive some votes in the convention in 1876 for the nomination but 1880 would be his real attempt for the office. It was widely assumed during 1875 that incumbent President Ulysses S. Grant would run for a third term as president despite the poor economic conditions, the numerous political scandals that had developed since he assumed office in 1869, and a longstanding tradition set by George Washington not to stay in office for more than two terms. Grant's inner circle advised him to run for a third term and he almost did so, but on December 15, 1875, the House, by a sweeping 233–18 vote, passed a resolution declaring that the two-term tradition was to prevent a dictatorship.

The initial favorite in 1876 was James G Blaine of Maine. He had the lead in delegates but was 100 votes short of the majority, as the southern states would not support his views. Hayes won the nomination by appealing in a conciliatory manner to the Southern Republicans, which left Frederick Douglass confused about whether the new black southern vote was wanted.

The Election Campaigns

In 1876 it was the tradition that the candidates did not campaign, and their surrogates made their cases locally. The Republicans expected to lose. The poor economic conditions made the party in power unpopular. Both candidates concentrated on the swing states of New York and Indiana, as well as the three southern states—Louisiana, South Carolina, and Florida—where Reconstruction Republican governments still barely ruled, amid recurring political violence, including widespread efforts to suppress freedman voting. Democrats, whose voter base resided in the former Confederacy, had been partly shut out of the political sphere; now, with Republican Ulysses S. Grant facing charges of corruption, Tilden’s reform-minded candidacy seemed like a well-timed opportunity for Democrats to regain political power.

The Republican outlook was indeed bleak. Hayes was a virtual unknown outside his home state of Ohio. Henry Adams called Hayes "a third-rate nonentity whose only recommendations are that he is obnoxious to no one". Hayes’s most important asset was his help to the Republican ticket in carrying Ohio, a crucial swing state. For the Democrats, the newspaperman John D. Defrees described Tilden as "a very nice, prim, little, withered-up, fidgety old bachelor, about one-hundred and twenty-pounds avoirdupois, who never had a genuine impulse for many nor any affection for woman".

The Democratic strategy for victory in the South relied on paramilitary groups such as the Red Shirts and the White League. These groups saw themselves as the military wing of the Democrats. Using the strategy of the Mississippi Plan, they actively suppressed both black and white Republican voting. They violently disrupted meetings and rallies, attacked party organizers, and threatened potential voters with retaliation for voting Republican.

During the election of 1876, Southern Democrats who supported Wade Hampton for governor used mob violence to attack and intimidate African American voters in Charleston. Republican Governor Daniel Henry Chamberlain appealed to President Grant for military assistance. In October 1876, Grant, after issuing a proclamation, instructed Sherman to gather all available Atlantic region troops and dispatch them to South Carolina to stop the mob violence.

It’s a cliché to say that in America, race is always on the ballot. But in 1876, it was probably the central issue.  The election process in Southern states was rife with voter fraud—on the part of both parties—and marked by violent voter suppression against black Americans. Under Reconstruction, African Americans had achieved unprecedented political power, and new federal legislation sought to provide a modicum of economic equality for newly enfranchised people. In response, white Southerners rebelled against African Americans’ newfound power and sought to intimate and disenfranchise black voters through violence.

Voter suppression was rampant in the post-Confederacy South. Many historians argue that if votes had been counted accurately and fairly in Southern states, Hayes might have won the 1876 election outright. “[I]f you had a fair election in the south, a peaceful election, there’s no question that the Republican Hayes would have won a totally legitimate and indisputable victory,” wrote Eric Foner.

Election Night

On election night, Hayes was losing so badly that he prepared his concession speech before turning in for the night. His party chairman went to bed with a bottle of whiskey. “We soon fell into a refreshing sleep,” Hayes later wrote in his diary about the events of November 7, 1876. “[T]he affair seemed over.”

But after four months of fierce debate and negotiations, Hayes would be sworn into office as 19th president of the United States. Historians often describe his narrow, controversial win over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden as one of the most bitterly contested presidential elections in history.

Just a few days following the election, Tilden appeared poised to narrowly clinch the election. He had captured 51.5 percent of the popular vote to Hayes’s 48 percent, a margin of about 250,000 votes. But Tilden had amassed only 184 electoral votes—one shy of the number needed to reach the 185 electoral votes necessary for the presidency. Hayes, meanwhile, had 165. Election returns from three Republican-controlled Southern states—Louisiana, Florida and South Carolina—were divided, with both sides declaring victory. Together, the states represented a total of 19 electoral votes, which along with one disputed elector from Oregon would be enough to swing the election Hayes’s way.

Hayes’ proponents realized that those contested votes could sway the election. They seized the uncertainty of the moment, encouraging Republican leaders in the three states to stall, and argued that if black voters hadn’t been intimidated away from the polls—and if voter fraud hadn’t been as rampant—Hayes would have won the contested states. With a Republican-controlled Senate, a Democrat-control

The Disputed Election

At the end of election day, no clear winner emerged because the outcomes in South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana were unclear. Both parties claimed victory in those states, but Republican-controlled “returning” boards would determine the official electoral votes.  “The elections in three states—Florida, Louisiana, and South Carolina—were alleged to have been conducted illegally,” the senators of those states wrote in a statement.“

Republicans and Democrats rushed to those three states to watch and try to influence the counting of the votes. The returning boards determined which votes to count and could throw out votes, if they deemed them fraudulent. The returning boards in all three states argued that fraud, intimidation, and violence in certain districts invalidated votes, and they threw out enough Democratic votes for Hayes to win. All three returning boards awarded their states’ electoral votes to Hayes.

Meanwhile in Oregon, a strange development added that state to the uncertain mix. Hayes won the state, but one of the Republican electors, John W. Watts, was also postmaster, and the US Constitution forbids federal officeholders from being electors. Watts planned to resign from his position in order to be a Republican elector, but the governor of Oregon who was a Democrat, disqualified Watts and instead certified a Tilden elector.

The U.S. Constitution provided no way of resolving the dispute, and now Congress would have to decide. As Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, and Republicans dominated in the Senate, the two sides compromised by creating a bipartisan electoral commission with five representatives, five senators and five Supreme Court justices.

Electors cast their ballots in state capitals on December 6, 1876. Generally, the process went smoothly but in four capitals—Salem, Oregon; Columbia, South Carolina; Tallahassee, Florida; and New Orleans, Louisiana—two sets of conflicting electors met and voted so that the US Congress received two sets of conflicting electoral votes. At this point, Tilden had 184 electoral votes while Hayes had 165 with 20 votes still disputed.

When the Electoral College does not give a majority to a candidate, such as ties or when there are uncertain electors involved, they are called contingent elections. An example of a tie was the 1800 election, and it required a compromise for Jefferson to be president over Burr. After that, a legal remedy was agreed on. Another contingent election was in 1824 when John Quincy Adams was ultimately elected over Andrew Jackson, a result that was reversed in 1828.

Why wasn’t the election resolved in the states, like they are supposed to be? The Constitution outlines what is supposed to happen in these situations, but it didn’t actually happen in 1876.

That year the contingent election system was bypassed when there was a contested outcome. At the height of Reconstruction, the issue was not that no candidate got a majority in the Electoral College, but rather that the three Southern states – Florida, Louisiana and South Carolina – sent multiple slates of electoral votes to Washington, DC, after the state elections were disputed. And in Oregon, there was a dispute over one elector. The question was which were the legitimate sets of electors.

The Constitution stipulates that the electoral votes be directed to the President of the Senate, who was Republican Thomas W. Ferry. Although Republicans argued that he had the right to decide which votes to count, Democrats disagreed and argued that the Democratic majority in Congress should decide.

The Compromise of 1877

A compromise was reached. In an unprecedented move, Congress decided to create an extralegal “Election Commission.  Congress created a special bipartisan commission, to determine which candidate should get the 20 disputed electoral votes. So on January 29, 1877, the Electoral Commission Act established a commission of five senators (three Republicans, two Democrats), five representatives (three Democrats, two Republicans), and five Supreme Court justices (two Republicans, two Democrats, and one independent) to decide which votes to count and resolve the dispute. However, the independent Supreme Court justice refused to serve on the commission and was replaced by a Republican justice.

In the disputed Presidential election of 1876 between the Republican Rutherford Hayes and the Democrat Samuel Tilden, Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide to whom to award a total of 20 electoral votes which were disputed from the states of Florida, Louisiana, South Carolina and Oregon. The Commission was to be composed of 15 members: five drawn from the U.S. House of Representatives, five from the U.S. Senate, and five from the U.S. Supreme Court. The majority party in each legislative chamber would get three seats on the Commission, and the minority party would get two. Both parties agreed to this arrangement because it was understood that the Commission would have seven Republicans, seven Democrats, and one independent.

Obviously that independent would be the one to decide. Both parties wanted the same man: Justice David Davis, a friend and former colleague of Abraham Lincoln. Judge Davis was a brilliant and ethical man, and was reputed as such in his lifetime. This episode proves it beyond any doubt, and exactly why few know about it is astounding. Davis, who was the most trusted independent in the nation. According to one historian, "No one, perhaps not even Davis himself, knew which presidential candidate he preferred." Just as the Electoral Commission Bill was passing Congress, the legislature of Illinois elected Davis to the Senate. Democrats in the Illinois Legislature believed that they had purchased Davis's support by voting for him. However, they had made a miscalculation; instead of staying on the Supreme Court so that he could serve on the Commission, he promptly resigned as a Justice, in order to take his Senate seat. His replacement, a Republican, voted for Hayes.

In late January, the commission voted 8-7 along party lines that Hayes had won all the contested states, and therefore the presidency, by just one electoral vote. They ultimately gave the votes to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes even though Democrat Samuel Tilden got more popular votes.  With 185 votes to Tilden's 184, Hayes was declared the winner two days before he was inaugurated.

And just exactly how was this decision reached? Tilden and the Democrats gave up the election, which in all fairness, they probably did win because they got something in return. Disputed returns and secret back-room negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House. The commission voted 8 to 7 to award the electoral votes from South Carolina, Florida, and Louisiana (and one from Oregon) to Hayes.  But that was not the end of the election.

 

What Happened Behind Closed Doors

Democratic members of Congress threatened to prevent the count of electoral votes and delay the resolution of the election with frequent adjournments and filibusters. With the threat of delay, Democrats hoped to win some concessions from Republicans. Furious Democrats refused to accept the ruling of the special commission and threatened a filibuster. So, in long meetings behind closed doors, Democrats and Hayes’ Republican allies hashed out what came to be known as the Compromise of 1877: also known as the Wormley Agreement, the Bargain of 1877, or the Corrupt Bargain: an informal but binding agreement.

Finally, just after 4 a.m. on March 2, 1877, the Senate president declared Hayes the president-elect of the United States. Hayes—dubbed “His Fraudulency” by a bitter Democratic press—would be publicly inaugurated just two days later.

A secret backroom deal decided the election. The negotiations put Republican Rutherford B. Hayes in the White House—and Democrats back in control of the South. Hayes would become president on the condition that he ended Reconstruction in the South. Hayes secured his win by agreeing to end Reconstruction. he filibuster of the certified results and the threat of political violence in exchange for an end to federal Reconstruction. Two issues interested Democrats—restoring their control of governments, and thus white supremacy, in the South (and removing the last of the federal troops) and a federal subsidy for railroads. However, it is doubtful that Hayes, his supporters, and Democrats reached any sort of deal beyond what Hayes promised to do in his letter of acceptance. Samuel J. Randall, the Democratic Speaker of the House, realizing that creating chaos would backfire on the Democrats, finally ruled the filibusterers out of order and forced the completion of the count in the early hours of March 2, 1877.

In fact, even as the electoral commission deliberated, national party leaders had been meeting in secret to hash out what would become known as the Compromise of 1877. Hayes agreed to cede control of the South to Democratic governments and back away from attempts at federal intervention in the region, as well as place a Southerner in his cabinet. In return, Democrats would not dispute Hayes’s election, and agreed to respect the civil rights of Black citizens. Just two months after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his compromise and ordered the removal of the last federal troops from Louisiana. These troops had been in place since the end of the Civil War and had helped enforce the civil and legal rights of many formerly enslaved individuals.

The disputed 1876 presidential election resulted in a compromise in which Republican Rutherford B. Hayes became president in exchange for the withdrawal of federal troops from the South. This effectively ended Reconstruction. Southern white Democrats, known as "Redeemers," regained control of state governments. They systematically dismantled Reconstruction-era reforms and restored white supremacy through laws, violence, and intimidation. The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the establishment of Jim Crow laws, which enforced racial segregation and disenfranchised African Americans. These laws undid many of the advances made during Reconstruction. In conclusion, while the Radical Republicans initially succeeded in imposing their Reconstruction policies, their gains were largely undone by the end of the 19th century, leading to nearly a century of segregation and disenfranchisement for African Americans in the South.

More stringent enforcement and a more robust federal military presence and oversight in the South could have provided more protection for African Americans and ensured the implementation of Reconstruction policies. This would have helped prevent the rise of white supremacist groups and the rollback of civil rights gains. I don’t think extending the occupation past 1876 would have; however, the damage was done.

With this deal, Hayes ended the Reconstruction era and ushered in a period of Southern “home rule.” Soon after his inauguration, Hayes made good on his promise, ordering federal troops to withdraw from Louisiana and South Carolina, where they had been protecting Republican claimants to the governorships in those states. This action marked the effective end of the Reconstruction era, and began a period of solid Democratic control in the South. Soon, a reactionary, unfettered white supremacist rule rose to power in many Southern states. In the absence of federal intervention over the next several decades, hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan flourished, and states enacted racist Jim Crow laws whose impacts continue to be felt today. For their part, white Southern Democrats did not honor their pledge to uphold the rights of Black citizens, but moved quickly to reverse as many of Reconstruction’s policies as possible. In the decades to come, disenfranchisement of Black voters throughout the South, often through intimidation and violence, helped ensure the racial segregation imposed by the Jim Crow laws—a system that endured for more than a half-century, until the advances of the civil rights movement in the 1960s. In this sense the 1876 presidential election provided the foundation for America’s political landscape, as well as race relations, for the next 100 years.

Key decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court struck at the protections afforded by Reconstruction-era constitutional amendments and legislation. The Court’s decision in the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), established that the 14th Amendment applied only to former enslaved people, and protected only rights granted by the federal government, not by the states.

Three years later, in United States v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court overturned the convictions of three white men convicted in connection with the massacre of more than 100 Black men in Colfax, Louisiana in 1873, as part of a political dispute. The men had been convicted of violating the 1870 Enforcement Act, which banned conspiracies to deny citizens’ constitutional rights and had been intended to combat violence by the Ku Klux Klan against Black people in the South.

The Supreme Court’s ruling—that the 14th Amendment’s promise of due process and equal protection covered violations of citizens’ rights by the states, but not by individuals—would make prosecuting anti-Black violence increasingly difficult, even as the Klan and other white supremacist groups were helping to disenfranchise Black voters and reassert white control of the South.

Ten years later, the debacle would also result in a long-overdue law: the Electoral Count Act of 1887, which codified Electoral College procedure. This was recently further supplemented after the events of January 6, 2020.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

Foner, Eric (2002) [1988]. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution, 1863–1877. New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.

Grant, Ulysses S. (2003) [1885]. Personal Memoirs. New York: Barnes & Noble, Inc.

McFeely, William S. (1981). Grant: A Biography. New York: Norton.

https://www.history.com/news/reconstruction-1876-election-rutherford-hayes

https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/educational-resources/disputed-election-1876

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/confusion-voter-suppression-and-constitutional-crisis-five-things-know-about-1876-presidential-election-180976677/

https://guides.loc.gov/presidential-election-1876

https://www.history.com/topics/us-presidents/compromise-of-1877

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/1876-election-most-divisive-united-states-history-how-congress-responded/