The Tale of Two First Ladies. Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce

In this article, Wendy S. Loughlin tells us about the results of a recent poll of first ladies. And discusses possible reasons why Jane Pierce came last in the poll and Eleanor Roosevelt first. 

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jane Pierce walk into a bar…

Well, maybe not. While Eleanor Roosevelt would have been more than comfortable walking into a bar (or a coal mine) and talking with whomever she met, Jane Pierce probably would have preferred to spend her time in isolation. Which, during her first two years as first lady, she did. 

A portrait of Jane Pierce.

It comes as no surprise that Eleanor Roosevelt takes the top spot in a recent ranking of first ladies. She always has. The ranking, based on a survey of historians, scholars and political scientists, has been conducted five times in the past 31 years. It evaluates first ladies based on 10 criteria: background; value to the country; being the White House steward; courage; accomplishments; integrity; leadership; being her own woman; public image; and value to the president.

Jane Pierce, wife of 14th president Franklin Pierce, comes in last.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a sentient American adult who isn’t aware of Eleanor Roosevelt and the multitude of reasons she is considered the best first lady. But most people don’t know much - or perhaps anything - about Jane Pierce, and why history does not look kindly on her.

Jane Pierce did not attend her husband’s inauguration in March 1853, nor did she preside over any inaugural balls, because there were none. Franklin Pierce moved into the White House directly following his swearing-in, but his wife took more than two weeks to join him there, and would inhabit the place almost like a ghost for the four years of his administration. The author Nathaniel Hawthorne, a close friend of Franklin Pierce, once referred to her as “that death head in the White House.”

And no wonder. By the time she became first lady, a week before her 47th birthday, Jane Pierce had lived through the deaths of all three of her sons. The first, Franklin Jr., died three days after birth in 1836. The second, Frank Robert, died of typhus in 1843 at age four. The loss of her third son, eleven-year-old Benjamin, was perhaps the most devastating. Born in 1841, “Benny” was just two years old when Frank Robert died, and became the sole focus of his doting mother. In January 1853, after Franklin Pierce’s election but before his inauguration, the family was involved in a train accident while traveling to Washington from Boston. Benny’s head was crushed and partially severed in the crash, and he died on the spot, his parents as witnesses.

Deeply religious, Jane Pierce hated politics and had prayed that her husband would lose the election, a sentiment apparently shared by Benny. Now, on the verge of becoming first lady, she believed God had taken her child because he would have been a distraction in the White House. When she finally joined the new president in Washington, she retreated to the upper rooms of the executive mansion and shirked all duties usually required of the first lady, spending her time instead writing sorrowful letters to Benny. She had the White House decorated in the black bunting of mourning. Her health, always uncertain, continued to suffer. Historian Richard Norton Smith calls her “the most tragic of the first ladies.”

Jane Pierce with her son Benjamin.

Quiet in the White House

Washington has always been a social town and the position of first lady has always been primarily a social role. To some extent, the political (albeit indirect) contributions of many of the first ladies have come through their prowess as hostesses, through which they have created the social settings that allowed for political relationships and agreements to flourish. Franklin Pierce took office at a time when such agreements were sorely needed - on the eve of the civil war, the country was deeply divided over slavery - but Jane made no public appearances for the first two years of the administration.

Eventually, she came around… kind of. She attended a reception on New Year’s Day 1855, her first public appearance, and sporadically served as hostess for the remainder of her husband’s term. But when she did, she usually wore black and had “a sad, distracted look.”

Like Calvin and Grace Coolidge, Franklin and Jane Pierce were a classic case of opposites attract. It has been speculated that “Silent Cal,” famously dour and taciturn, may have achieved the presidency in part because of Grace, who had such an ebullient personality she was nicknamed “Sunshine” by the White House staff. Similarly, the outgoing Franklin and the withdrawn Jane were a seeming mismatch. And while they were purportedly devoted to each other, Jane may have done as much to hurt her husband’s presidency as Grace did to help hers.

Or maybe Franklin Pierce did enough damage on his own. Regarded by historians as one of the worst presidents in history, Pierce pursued policies that likely perpetuated the breakdown of the union and led to war. Though he had been elected in a landslide, he failed even to win the nomination of his party for a second term.

And therein lies a kind of conundrum regarding the first ladies ranking. To a certain extent, the reputation of the president’s wife will always be inextricably tied to that of her husband.  Before you compare Jane Pierce to Eleanor Roosevelt, compare the abysmal presidency of Franklin Pierce to that of Franklin Roosevelt, a four-term president who led the country through World War II, died in office a hero and is still remembered as one of the best presidents in U.S. history (In C-SPAN’s 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey, Roosevelt is ranked third from the top, and Pierce third from the bottom).

Of course, Eleanor Roosevelt was a great first lady in her own right. Her contributions to human rights, to international relations and to the role of first lady remain unmatched, and her work continued even after she left the White House. She is one of the most admired women in American history. But how would we regard her today if she had come into the White House grieving the loss of a child, or if her husband had been a failure?

Tell us what you think. Do you have a favorite first lady? Share your thoughts below…

Read more great history in our digital magazine History is Now. It is available by clicking here and downloading the app for iPad and iPhone. It is also free for up to two months if you subscribe!

References

• Siena Research Institute/C-SPAN First Ladies Study: http://www.siena.edu/sri/firstladies
• National First Ladies Library, Jane Pierce biography: http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=15
• C-SPAN, “First Ladies: Influence & Image” – Jane Pierce: http://firstladies.c-span.org/FirstLady/16/Jane-Pierce.aspx 
• Anne Middleton Means, “Amherst and Our Family Tree”: http://books.google.com/books?id=Zcw0AAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Amherst+and+Our+Family+Tree&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MNwcU6OuC8emygGw2oGwBw&ved=0CEQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Amherst%20and%20Our%20Family%20Tree&f=false
• New Hampshire Historical Society – manuscript collection: http://www.nhhistory.org/libraryexhibits/manuscriptcollection/manuscript.html
• Philip B. Kunhardt III & Peter W. Kunhardt, “The American President”: http://books.google.com/books?id=m-pNPgAACAAJ&dq=Kunhardt+american+president&hl=en&sa=X&ei=57YcU4ysH4TuyAHX-YHIBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAA 
• C-SPAN 2009 Historians Presidential Leadership Survey: http://legacy.c-span.org/PresidentialSurvey/Overall-Ranking.aspx
• Burlington Free Press, “Burlington-born first lady Grace Coolidge was happy to ‘talk for two’”: http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/article/20130224/ARTS/302240006/Burlington-born-first-lady-Grace-Coolidge-was-happy-to-talk-for-two-
• The White House, Franklin Pierce biography: http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/franklinpierce
• The New York Times, Eleanor Roosevelt obituary: https://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/bday/1011.html

How World War I continues to affect Iraq, Israel, Lebanon and the wider Middle East

In this article, Ben Parten considers the mandate system that was set up after World War I by Britain and France. This system allowed European Powers to rule countries including Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon. And its effects last to this day.

The First World War is called the Great War for a reason; its violence set the tone for the 20th century, and its aftermath posed new challenges to traditional political leadership. Yet, despite the title of a “world” war, the Great War’s global significance is often understated. In America, for instance, young students are often taught that the primary outcomes of the war were that it opened the door to Nazi Germany and established the United States as a world power. Those are both true, but there is one major consequence of the Great War that should be added to that list. To see this other significance, Americans and other Westerners should shirk their Western perspectives and look outside of Europe, particularly to the Middle East and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman’s demise opened up a large swath of land unclaimed by a world power and enabled the Allies to decide how it should be divided. With the Treaty of Sevres, the Allies drew up artificial boundaries for countries that have come to be the states of the “modern” Middle East. However, in the state-making process, the litany of different sects and ethnicities in the region were amalgamated into nominal nations, causing instability that America and other Western powers are still dealing with today.

The Wailing Wall or Western Wall, circa 1920. This site of worship in Jerusalem was to become a site of controversy after World War I.

Great Britain and the Mandate System

Great Britain and France began thinking about how to partition off the former Ottoman Empire in 1916.  As made famous in the motion picture Lawrence of Arabia, the British and the French had been conducting secret negotiations regarding the ownership of Syria. The Sykes-Picot Agreement, as it has come to be known, acknowledged France’s claim to greater Syria while giving Great Britain rights to Palestine and Mesopotamia (Iraq). As the war came to an official end in 1919, the question of how to officially divide the Ottoman lands was once again raised. Gathering in San Remo, Allied diplomats agreed to divide the lands into separate entities called mandates. These mandates would act as glorified colonies operating under the façade of self-determination and self-governance until their charters expired in the 1940s.

The British desire to control parts of this region derived from its economic interests in the Persian Gulf.  Therefore, Mesopotamia was transformed into the Kingdom of Iraq. Combining the three territorial capitols of Basra, Baghdad, and Mosul into Iraq gave the British a strong foothold in the region with direct access to the Persian Gulf and India. The other motivating factor for the British was their pledge to support Jewish settlement in Palestine as promised in the Balfour Declaration. The British incorporation of Jewish settlement in Palestine prompted immediate resistance from local Arab leaders. Thus, the Kingdom of Trans-Jordan was established to provide stability to the region and pacify the local Arabs.

No matter the theoretical objectives behind the British mandates, they lacked practical sense. For instance, Iraq became an ad hoc state where no national sentiments existed. The cities of Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra were grouped together when they previously shared a separate and distinct identity. Mosul had a longstanding connection with the mountain lands of Southern Anatolia and Western Syria. Baghdad tended to be more urban, linking itself to east-west trade. Basra identified itself as a self-sustaining seaport, aligning itself more with the Gulf States than with Iraq. Underlying this regional divide was the great sectarian division amongst the populace. Over half of the population were followers of Shia Islam, yet the British named Faysal ibn Husayn, a Sunni, King of Iraq. There was also a large contingent of Kurdish people living in the Northeast portion of the Kingdom. Even under Faysal’s rule, these three distinct religious and ethnic (the Kurds are often identified as their own ethnicity) groups still adhered to clan loyalty and tribal governance, making state led unification and leadership difficult. 

Likewise, continued Jewish settlement in Palestine aroused tension between the Jewish immigrants and the native Palestinians. One of the first outbursts of violence occurred over the right to the access the Wailing or Western Wall. For centuries the Wall has served as a holy site for Jews to pray at in honor of the ancient kingdom of Israel, but the Wall also makes up the Dome of the Rock where Muslims believe Muhammad ascended into heaven. As both sides claimed lawful access to the wall, the intensity of the dispute boiled over into violence and riots that spread across the city. This same type of violence erupted again in the late 1930s after the British decided that the mandate was inoperable and recommended a separate Arab and Jewish state.

Greater Lebanon

Problems with the mandate system were not limited to the British mandates. For instance, the French divided their mandate to create Greater Lebanon in 1920 in order to provide refuge to the Maronite Christians, whom the French felt obligated to protect. The Maronites were the primary sect of Mt. Lebanon and Beirut, but the surrounding areas of Greater Lebanon were predominantly Muslim.  To quell Muslim dissatisfaction and ensure Maronite authority, the two sides, along with French help, established The National Pact. The Pact created a ruling government that would always place a Maronite as president, a Sunni as Prime Minister, and a Shi’a as President of the General Assembly regardless of population. The political hierarchy created by the National Pact was spun by the French and Maronite population in a way that celebrated diversity, but, in the end, it only convoluted Lebanese identity. The Maronites saw Lebanon as an extension of the Mediterranean; whereas the Muslims purported that Lebanon belonged to a Pan-Arab world. It is not hard to imagine then that sectarian strife would eventually explode, as it did in the fifteen-year-long Lebanese Civil War.

The primary failure of the mandate system was its attempt to create Western style nationalism in an area where nationalism had neither existed previously nor maintained the proper conditions for statehood. Forcing the number of different sects and ethnicities to exist under one political body was bound to cause fissures and division amongst the political and social structure of those states. Today, the states created by the San Remo Conference are still in existence and the sectarian disunion continues to plague the region. The fundamental difference between now and the years following The San Remo Conference is that the United States has replaced Great Britain and France as the primary intervening power. Since the 1970s America has been forced to deal with the geo-political headaches that were caused by World War I and the policies of its immediate aftermath. Nearly one hundred years after it ended, it is time to reconsider the Great War’s global impact to include the formation of the “modern” Middle East.

By Ben Parten

You can read more about change that World War I brought by reading our short article about women and World War I here.

An Inuit Family with Children in 1917 – Image of the Week

This week’s image is of an Inuit family going about their business in 1917.

Following last week’s quite majestic image, this week we have an image that is altogether more humble.

Historical context seems less relevant for an image as endearing as this. Simply put, the image is of an Inuit family from 1917. Far away from the realities of the Great War, this Artic scene is centered on a boy staring into the camera. It almost looks like he is about to smile. At least it appears that there is a smirk about to appear. His parents are occupying themselves and working away – probably in the same way that Inuit people had been doing for centuries. Almost hidden in the left is a small baby, in the baby’s mother’s pouch. They are all in what appears to be traditional, warm clothing.

The original caption associated with the photo reads:

"AN ESKIMO FAMILY. Tenderness and responsibility in their treatment of children is a virtue of the Eskimo which binds them closer to the brotherhood of civilized peoples."

The image originally appeared in National Geographic in 1917 and is by George R. King.

Catch all of our articles by subscribing to our rss feed - click here.

George Levrier-Jones

Bizarre World War I – The New Body Armor that Failed

In this relatively light-hearted article, Adrian Burrows tells us about a new World War I military invention that never took off – Body Armor.

The First World War revolutionized warfare on an epic scale. Cavalry became redundant against the machine gun. The deployment of metal monstrosities soon to become known as tanks forever changed infantry’s role in battle. The development of airplanes as weapons of war transformed the battlefield into a three dimensional arena in which military commanders had to consider all avenues in order to finalize their strategy, while the use of poison gas forever changed our ethical and moral standpoint on the rules of warfare. All of these factors meant that officers on both sides faced a never-ending tirade of considerations when thinking about how to defeat their enemies.

However, this article isn’t about any of those military changes; this might make you wonder why they were written in the introduction to this article. To that I would give you this answer: tanks, airplanes and machine guns were all successful in their development and use but that doesn’t interest me at this moment in time. Rather, what I’m going to be considering are the military developments that were not successful. The ones that didn’t take off. The genius (and not so genius) ideas that almost revolutionized warfare… but not quite. First up, I’ll be looking at personal body armor.

Personal Body Armor

Quite frankly the headgear provided to soldiers at the start of the First World War was not fit for purpose. Some provided no protection whatsoever, such as the cloth French Kepi cap - which while it gave no protection to the head certainly made you look incredibly dandy. Other helmets made you a target, such as the German Pickelhaube helmet that had an easy-to-spot spike on top. The development of the Brodie, Stahlhelm and Adrian helmets over the course of the war cut mortality rates and assisted in reducing head injuries. So, some bright sparks considered… Why stop there? If a helmet is good, then surely covering a soldier in a metal suit would be even better! Or would it…?

Brewster Armor.

Brewster Body Armor

In the first picture is the Brewster body armor (named after its inventor Dr. Guy Brewster), developed by the United States Army towards the end of the war. Whilst it was very clumsy and heavy it could withstand the bullets from a Lewis Gun. Its problems occurred due to maneuverability being massively reduced and the small issue of the helmet not turning. This led to visibility for the soldier on the inside being zilch.

This didn’t stop Dr. Brewster from excitedly telling America of his invention. But being a man of both action and science, Dr. Brewster didn’t just tell people about his invention, he demonstrated it. The picture below is of Dr. Brewster in his armor; the accompanying article describes how the American military tested his armor by shooting at the suit while Dr. Brewster was inside it. You would think that one or two shots would be sufficient to prove the protective qualities of the armor, but that was not the case for the American military. Its soldiers unleashed a ‘rain of bullets’ at the good Doctor.  Apparently the military top bods were very pleased as no bullets penetrated the armor’s thick hide. I can only imagine that Dr. Brewster was very pleased about this too. At the end of the experiment Dr Brewster declared that being shot by a machine gun while wearing his armor was only about ‘one tenth the shock which he experienced when struck by a sledge-hammer.’ One has to wonder how he knew what it felt like to be hit by a sledgehammer.

Brewster Body Armor as shown in the article.

Unfortunately for Dr Brewster, his body armor never took off. This has always struck me as a shame, for after all, surely the Brewster Armor was a precursor to a real life Iron Man suit (and let’s face it, we’ve all been waiting for one and the fact that’s it’s 2014 and nobody has invented it yet is terribly disappointing).

Final Thoughts

Clearly the Brewster armor was unsuitable for the requirement of life in the trenches and warfare across no-man’s-land. Yet there is still some fascinating theorizing that suggests that if body armor was provided to soldiers then thousands of lives could have been saved.

The majority of injuries to soldiers in the First World War were caused by shrapnel to the chest and head. Surely then, if a soldier could protect these areas their chances of survival would have drastically increased? The Brewster Armor was absurd in many ways yet at its core Dr. Brewster had a very positive desire - to keep soldiers alive.

Alas, over the four years of the First World War, very few developments were made in the field of body armor; it took some two years for most soldiers to get a metal helmet rather than a cloth cap. Perhaps if someone had managed to design and mass produce effective body armor then hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved by the end of the war.

Adrian Burrows works for Wicked Workshops, an organization that brings historical workshops to primary schools across the UK. They are currently doing many workshops about World War I. Click here to find our more about this great organization.

Want to read more about an unknown aspect of World War I? Click here to find out about the underground battlefield of WWI tunnel warfare.

Selected References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Body_Shield

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/body-armor2.htm

http://2pep.com/funny%20pics/extreme%20funny%20stuff%20cool%20%20images/Weirdbodyarmorinhistory_149CF/funnyoddityweirdbulletproofvestsbodyarmorinhistory10.jpg

http://www.sepiachord.com/index/retro-body-armor/

http://io9.com/5917559/10-retro-body-armors-that-will-transform-you-into-an-old+school-iron-man

Why is Ukraine in such turmoil? History, Russia and Ukraine...

In this article Stevan Bozanich provides us with some of the historical context to the current problems in Ukraine by looking at three ages in Ukrainian history: the Middle Ages, the Great War, and the very recent past.

Quite often it is helpful to view current events within their historical context in order to understand ‘why’ and ‘how’ things have come about. The events occurring in Ukraine at the moment are no different. Many media reports speak of an East-West divide, with Russian and Western interests vying for control within Ukraine. While this is partially true, this only tells a part of the story. There are a number of other factors involved, but to understand them all a little better, the wider context needs to be seen.

Maidan protests in Kiev. January 2014. Picture: Mikola Vacelychko

Ukraine: Middle Ages to Imperial Russia

Russian and Ukrainian historical and religious identity is traced through a Slavic identity. To Russia the unity of this identity is important and an inseparable element of this identity is Ukraine. In the Middle Ages a confederacy known as the Kievan Rus, an Christian Orthodox group of Slavs, emerged roughly within the modern-day borders of Ukraine. This group was overrun by the Mongols in the 13th century and forced to disperse. Some of them ended up in modern-day Russia, others remained within modern-day Ukraine and made up other parts of other nations such as Belarus. From the 14th to the 16th centuries the people in modern-day Ukraine were controlled by Polish and Lithuanian principalities, and then overrun by Cossacks in the 17th century. With the rise of Russia as an imperial power, a thirty year struggle ensued between Russia, Poland, Turkey, and the Cossacks for control of fertile Ukrainian land. In this struggle everything west of the Dnieper River, which runs through Kiev, went to Poland while everything east went to Russia. By the end of the 18th century Poland itself would be partitioned and the Polish territories of Ukraine would be further divided between Austria and Russia. The Austrian lands became “Ruthenia” and the Russian lands became “Little Russia”; the term “Ukraine” was outlawed within the Russian territories.

First World War

Through the period of Imperial Russia, the idea of Ukraine as a ‘nation’ was non-existent. It was not until the twentieth century, and more specifically around the Great War, that Ukrainian national identity began to be discussed among literate peoples. This urban literate class pushed for the Ukrainian language in schools, newspapers, and books. They also pushed for land reforms and civil rights tied to Ukrainian language-usage. With these social reforms, the people of Ukraine were granted access to schools, courts, and political representation. In 1917, during the First World War, these reforms faced opposition from Russians within these territories and the Russian government. The Ukrainian nationalist movement looked to Russia’s enemies in the Great War, Germany and Austria, for help. This led Germany and Austria to offer assistance to Ukrainian nationalists. Soon enough though, Russia capitulated to Germany with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, effectively removing the country from the war.

With Russia’s defeat Germany granted Ukraine independence through a puppet government that was subordinate to Germany and obligated to supply Germany food from its rich land. Then, as Germany itself faced defeat at the hands of Great Britain and the United States, it was forced to withdraw from Ukrainian lands. As a power vacuum ensued, Polish troops moved in along with Western-backed White Army troops and Russian-backed Red Army troops. This tripartite annexation was important for the ongoing Russian Civil War. The Ukrainian nationalist cause had the smallest slice of the pie, so to speak. By 1921 the Bolsheviks had won the civil war and at the Soviet-Polish Treaty in Riga, Ukrainian territory was once again partitioned. Within Russian-held lands, the Ukrainian nationalists who had sided with Germany and Austria were punished. Josef Stalin, for example, starved the people of Ukraine for their push for independence in what many nations recognize to be a genocide.

In a Modern Context

Ukrainians lived under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for the majority of the 20th century. Upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine was granted independence and its borders drawn using its republic status within the USSR. Because of this, the country is divided amongst Ukrainians, Russians, Tartars, and other ethnic groups. For example, in a recent census, 77% of the population claims Ukrainian ethnicity and 17% Russian ethnicity. In areas closer to the Russian border, the number of Russian speakers becomes the majority. Certainly this is part of the division within Ukraine and many media outlets have picked up on this East-West divide.

However, the problems in Ukraine are deeper than merely East-West. In Donetsk, the former pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich stronghold in the far east of Ukraine, approximately 5,000 people participated in the protests in Kiev against the new, pro-Western government. Certainly this is proof of matters being deeper than an arbitrary geopolitical divide. Another region within Ukraine, and one that has been in the news a lot lately as well, is Crimea. In the north of Crimea many people claim to be ethnic Ukrainians, are bilingual and have some Ukrainian loyalty. In the center and south of the peninsula, Tartars make up 15-20% of the population, speak Russian, oppose Russian annexation, and support the Ukrainian revolution. These statistics speak against suggestions of partition along east-west boundaries. No partition would be acceptable to any portion of the population.

With Ukraine caught in the middle of an east-west push and pull, through several annexations and partitions, and a muddled ethno-linguistic population, the current events in Ukraine are convoluted and confusing. While no answers can be found as yet, putting the events occurring in Ukraine within their correct historical context helps us to understand how and why these events are unfolding. History can sometimes offer us an answer to today’s problems, but not always. What history can always do, however, is offer us answers to how we got there.

What do you think about events in Ukraine? How does history help us explain the situation? Comments below.

This article is by Stevan Bozanich. You can read more about Russian history by clicking here to read about the fall and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Selected References

• Rodric Braithwaite, “Ukraine Crisis: No wonder Vladimir Putin says Crimea is Russian,” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukraine-crisis-no-wonder-vladimir-putin-says-crimea-is-russian-9162734.html
• Glen Kates, “The Conflict in Ukraine: More Complex Than You Might Think,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/the-conflict-in-ukraine-more-complex-than-you-might-think/284118/
• Walter G. Moss, <em>A History of Russia, Volume I: To 1917</em>, (London: Anthem Press, 2005).
• Alexander Motyl, “A House United,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/22/a_house_united
• Brian Whitmore, “Is it Time for Ukraine to Split Up?” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/is-it-time-for-ukraine-to-split-up/283967/

When the Cold War became Hot – The Summit Series between the USSR and Canada

In this article, Matthew Struth tells us the story of the Summit Series, a number of ice hockey games that took place at the height Cold War. These games took place during détente and were anything but friendly…

When the American ping-pong team played in China in 1971, it was seen as a step toward negotiation and cooperation between the USA and China in the Cold War. A year later, Canada made its own attempt to bridge the gap with the USSR, using a game so dear to both nations’ hearts: ice hockey. This was the Summit Series.

The Summit Series, widely considered to be the eight best played and the eight bloodiest and dirtiest ice hockey games of all time, was not called that at the beginning, but it’s a name that has since gained widespread acceptance.

In 1972, Leonid Brezhnev ruled the USSR with an iron but intelligent hand. However, Canada was still dealing with the aftermath of the October Crisis; only the idea of hockey kept even nominal unity in the country. It was in these conditions that Canadian Sports Executive, Joe Kryczka, announced the Canada-USSR Series.

The belief was that the Canadians would easily trounce the Soviets. Even in the Eastern Bloc, the thinking was that Canada would win easily. Orders from Moscow were to play well and win a couple of games. Even the Kremlin didn’t believe the Soviets would win.

The Canadians got one of the greatest wake-ups in their history though: that when it came to hockey, there were others who could match up with the best in the National Hockey League (NHL).

When the first game was done, the Soviets won with a humiliating seven goals to Canada’s three.

A Canadian hockey rink has never been so quiet.

Paul Henderson of Canada celebrating a very important goal in the USSR in September 1972.

On to the USSR

The Canadians were devastated. It showed that just because you could pay a player a lot of money, it did not make him the best in the world. The image that Canadians had always had was that they were the best at hockey, that it was their game, but now... Now Canada struggled with identity, a problem it has always been faced with. Then the game turned to war.

The second game in Toronto saw Canada strike back. Vengeance was on Canada’s mind; the Soviets had humiliated them, and they wanted to return the favor. And they did, with a 4-1 win. The Canadian media soon took to derisively calling the Soviet players “robots” for their lack of emotion while playing the game, an insult that the Soviets took as complimentary for hard-working men. The third game was a tie, but tempers on both sides rose.

The fourth game is the one that Canadians like to forget, if only because of the rude and dishonorable way the Canadian team played. Players held down the Soviet goalie, among other acts that today would have a player expelled from the NHL. The nation was mad at the team and began booing them. This was how Canadians played? But worse, it hurt the team. Some on the team, like Ken Dryden, agreed with the fans, and knew they deserved the boos.

The next four games played in Moscow were not about a shared love of hockey but about the ideological war taking place in the world. The players on the ice mirrored the feelings of the opposing sides as blood was drawn and threats were screamed. To the players, particularly Phil Esposito and Paul Henderson, this was the battle between communism and capitalism.

3,500 Canadians made the trip to the very heart of the Soviet world to cheer on their team. To the Muscovites, the sight was confusing and abnormal. The Russian audience was silent and stoic, while beside them Canadians screamed and cheered.

Blood on the ice

The first game in Russia and fifth in the series saw another Soviet victory. And in the sixth, Canada won; followed by another win in the seventh game.

It was in the seventh game that the unforgivable happened: Soviet player Boris Mikhailov kicked out several times with the blade of his skate, and Canada’s Gary Bergman suffered the worst of it. Bergman’s shin pad was cut through, and his leg was left bleeding. Mikhailov has always regretted the act.

The final game was infamous for the way it played out. Both teams saw winning as crucial to their way of life. The Soviets changed the referees and ordered them to cheat for the USSR. The move infuriated the Canadians, who were more nervous about their position as more militia men were ordered in. Even the Soviet team didn’t like the calls that were handed out, but they could do nothing. An uncounted goal led to unrest as Canadian hockey agent Alan Eagleson tried to have the goal counted, but he was grabbed by militia men. As they were hauling him away, the Canadian players attacked the militia men and freed Eagleson. In the end, Canada scored the three goals needed to first tie, then win, the game.

The NHL adapted and began to use the Soviet methods of training and drilling after the games, methods still in use today. They also brought in rules and regulations that would lessen the physically violent side of hockey, rules that are still contested and disputed. The Series gave Canadians a boost too; hockey was still their game, and they were the best at it. But it was a more respectful Canada that came out of the Series, one that was less arrogant about their game but could still claim to the world that it was the best at it.        

The Summit Series healed a nation and gave respect to an enemy. Indeed, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Russians and other Eastern Europeans were welcomed into the NHL, having more than proven themselves in the Series. A common love for hockey also helped keep the détente period alive, as both sides could now look to a similarity that helped one seem less alien and less of an enemy. But like the détente period, it was not a kind, peaceful event. It was marked by trickery and cheating on both sides, and stood as the example that, though bridges were being built, mistrust and the need to win were a concern on everyone’s minds.

Now, after the hardships of the games have passed, many of the players on both sides look to the others as some of the greatest players ever to hit the ice.

You can find out more about détente by reading our introductory ebook about the middle years of the Cold War here.

Vive la Resistance! An amazing photo of the WWII French Resistance – Image of the Week

Our image of the week has an amazing photo of the French Resistance from 1944.

We’ve had a few articles on the Nazis this week on the site, so thought that we would continue that theme with a twist.

The French Resistance consisted of those men and women who fought against the Nazis and the Vichy French regime during World War II. They were a disparate group and came from different backgrounds and believed in divergent political ideologies. Their shared vision, though, was to remove the Nazis from French soil. They undertook guerilla operations, published anti-Nazi materials and sabotaged operations to try to undermine their occupiers following the 1940 German invasion of France.

Our image shows three members of the Resistance engaged in a battle against the Nazis in 1944. We see a man in makeshift army fatigues to the left and a young man on the right. Then, most strikingly, we see a woman in shorts, a patterned top, and a military hat in the center. Surely all were less equipped than the Nazis soldiers they were facing, but we can only speculate on that…

What else do we have for you? Well, here is an article from earlier this week on Nazi art thefts.

George Levrier-Jones

Why steal? The Nazis, Looted Art and The Monuments Men

The film The Monuments Men in which the likes of George Clooney go in search of Nazi looted art has recently been released. Here, Georgie Broad looks at the history and motives behind this massive Nazi-sponsored art theft.

George Bernard Shaw once said “without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.” Europe, lost in the fog of Nazi occupation in the latter part of World War II, already seemed a relatively crude and unbearable place, so the gradual disappearance of some of the world’s most beloved pieces of artwork did nothing to help the situation.

Mr George Clooney et al have endeavored to transfer R.M. Edsel’s The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History (2009) to the big screen to recount the history of the Allied Power’s MFAA, or the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives programmed. This had the aim of reclaiming the art stolen by the Kunstschutz (literally translating to art protection or conservation) units of the German Army. However, the reasons behind the heroic mission of the MFAA programmed can often be overlooked or misunderstood: What actually led to the infamous art-knappings of World War II?

The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich - Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, artist and collector… Of sorts

It is easy to forget that both the Allies and the Axis Powers had a deep respect for the art of Europe, and of art in general. Skipping back a way, to when Hitler was just a boy named Adolf, he was a painter and art enthusiast – a love that stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. Critically and technically speaking, Hitler was a rather mediocre artist, and as a result his application to the Fine Art Academy of Vienna was turned down not once but twice when he was a young, struggling artist. And although he never got over this rejection, it did nothing to dull his love of art itself.

It was in fact a subject on which Hitler had some very strong opinions. In Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiographical-meets-political literary legacy, he attacks modern art and movements like Cubism as “aberrations” and “morbid monstrosities.” These modern artworks were a target for the Nazis and the Kunstschutz, as they were ordered to remove them from museums and to destroy them – though many pieces were sold, or broken up, making their eventual reclamation much more difficult.

Hitler’s real love lay with the Old Masters, and especially ones of German origin. He and the Kunstschutz also went after these classical pieces, but for very different reasons. As R.M. Edsel details in his book, Hitler wanted to remake both the art world of Europe, primarily by creating a Führerrmuseum in Linz, Austria. Hitler wanted to make the biggest and most glorious art museum that he possibly could. Was it just because he loved art so much? Or was it to assert his self-proclaimed artistic prowess and show the Fine Arts Academy of Vienna what they missed out on… artistically speaking? It has been an issue of debate for a long time and it is almost impossible for us to know for sure, but to presume that it was a combination of both factors is a safe assumption.

Not all of the art that was looted was earmarked for Hitler’s museum collection. Hitler, considering himself quite the art collector, kept some of the art for his and his associates’ own personal collections, which explains why so much of it was, and still remains, lost. Greg Bradsher’s from the US Archives (Nov. 1997, “Documenting Nazi Plunder of European Art”) estimates that about 20% of Europe’s art was looted and that 100,000 pieces, at the very least, remain separated from their original owners, despite the valiant efforts of the MFAA program.

Transporting pieces of art in a war-torn town

After the MFAA

The MFAA was eventually disbanded in 1946, though the finding of the plundered art and its proper return is still very much an issue. In late 2013, the BBC reported the discovery of around 1,000 pieces of art at the home of Cornelius Gurlitt. The pieces turned out to be ones thought to be lost after the Nazi plunder and among them were works by artists such as Henri Matisse and Marc Chagall. As well as belonging to the “degenerate” type of art Hitler hated, these pieces were hugely valuable – especially the works of the Russian Jew Marc Chagall, who is often believed to be the most successful artist of the 20th century.

So, even today the effects of the Nazi art plunder can be felt throughout Europe. Whether all of the pieces will ever be found and returned is unknown, but it is important for us to remember the intentions with which some of the masterpieces of the continent were stolen while we are regaled with the epic tale of their reclamation. It wasn’t entirely through hate or destruction, but also a genuine love of a man obsessed that took a cultural wrong turn.

Want to find out more about the Nazis? Our podcast on the rise of the Nazis can be heard by clicking here.

Tropical Revolution! How JFK and the CIA tried to topple Fidel Castro. History is Now – Issue 4

The story of how a JFK-backed, CIA-led operation to topple Cuban Communist leader Fidel Castro unfolded. And how a decision by JFK changed everything.

The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now. And the cover story is a daring tale of intrigue in a country that had just been rocked by a revolution.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your free copy of our interactive digital magazine for the iPad and iPhone today!

Click here for more information!

And here is what our editor has to say about the new issue…

Issue four of History is Now magazine has arrived. Since we left you in January, we have continued to refine the layout of the magazine, as well as writing some great history articles!

This month we have two pieces on how Cuba and America dramatically fell out following the Cuban Revolution. Firstly, we look at the fascinating real story of the Bay of Pigs Invasion. This invasion took place in 1961 and sought to topple Cuban Communist dictator Fidel Castro from power. But with US President John F. Kennedy wavering in his support for the Cuban dissidents, this task became much harder. Our second article considers Castro’s rise to power and argues that Castro was not a committed Communist when he visited Eisenhower’s America in 1959. Even so, the US would go on to try and assassinate Castro a number of times. These articles are complemented by our podcast on the Cuban Missile Crisis, an event that very nearly destroyed our world.

Then there is the story of David Porter and the USS Essex during the War of 1812, a tale of adventure, some success against the British, and much more. An equally intriguing article looks at the life of Sidney Reilly. Reilly was a Russian-born British spy who successfully changed the course of oil exploration in the Middle East in the early 20th century, and more significantly, almost changed the course of Russian and world history. Following, we finish our story of the Imjin War and look at Yi Sun-shin’s epic victories when faced against a Japanese fleet of epic proportions. This is a true story of success and tragedy – like many of the most captivating events in history are. Our final article takes a light-hearted look at food in the 19th century. What food did the average person normally eat? How did the upper-class dine? And what constituted good manners for a lady? You’re about to find out!

Click here for more information and to take up your free trial

With all that and more, come and join us inside for a free trial of up to 2 months…

Just click here for more information! Alternatively search for History is Now on the app store.

George Levrier-Jones

Apocalypse? Just where is our image of the week from?

This week’s image of the week is from a major event that took place over 100 years ago.

It was early in the morning. Most people were sleeping. And then it happened.

In 1906, San Francisco was the center of the west coast of America. It was the largest city on the coast and a major port. But then the earthquake hit. The 1906 San Francisco earthquake happened on April 18, 1906. The city arose to a rumbling shortly after 5AM in the morning. And that rumbling produced terrible devastation. It is said that over three-quarters of the city was destroyed and the total number of dead is estimated at 3,000 or more. And the survivors had a hard time. Hundreds of thousands were left homeless.

Our image shows a scene of destruction after the earthquake. We can see that many parts of the city were flattened, while those buildings that remained were shells of their former selves. The most prominent building in the picture is a ruined church, while skyscrapers haunt the background.

Of course, happily the city later recovered.

What else do we have for you? Well, here are a few images you may not expect from the American move west.

George Levrier-Jones