The Modern Greek State: 1923–1940 – The Issues of Clientelism

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece.

This series of articles on the history of modern Greece started when the country was celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence. In 1922 Greece suffered probably the worst catastrophe of its modern history and the decades that followed brought political instability, economic crisis, and foreign intervention. But, as Thomas Papageorgiou explains, clientelism caused significant issues in the country.

You can read part 1 on ‘a bad start’ 1827-1862 here, part 2 on ‘bankruptcy and defeat’ 1863-1897 here, part 3 on ‘glory days’ 1898-1913 here, and part 4 on ‘Greeks divided’ 1914-22 here.

Eleftherios Venizelos in 1935. He was Prime Minister of Greece multiple times.

The previous article of this series on the history of modern Greece concluded the discussion of the first 100 years after the beginning of the War of Independence in 1821. According to G. B. Dertilis we find ourselves at the end of the third period of bankruptcies and wars (1912-1922) – the first being 1821-1880 and the second 1880-1912. Two more will follow (1923-1945 and 1946-2012). (Dertilis, 2020, pp. 11-17) The proposed cyclability indicates specific features present in modern Greece that significantly hinder the escape from the vicious cycles described by Dertilis. (Dertilis, 2020, p. 29) Here I will discuss these features and describe how they affected the developments in Greece during the interwar period. Clientelism is proposed as the main source of Greece’s problems. But let’s start with one of its consequences, that will better suit us to present the major events of this period: namely, division and civil war.

I Division & civil war

Division and civil war are present in modern Greek history already since the War of Independence. (Papageorgiou, History Is Now Magazine, 2021) The latest quarrel we examined that once more divided the Greeks was that between the prime minister Venizelos and king Constantine. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2022) The division to Venizelists and anti-Venizelists continued even after the king’s resignation, following the catastrophe of the Asia Minor Campaign in September 1922, and eventual death three months later in Palermo.

This period of modern Greek history starts with a gruesome event in November 1922, which is known as ‘the execution of the six’. These were leading figures of the anti-Venizelists including former prime minister Dimitrios Gounaris, that defeated Venizelos in the elections of 1920 preceding the disaster in Asia Minor. The execution took place under a military regime led by the Venizelist colonel Nikolaos Plastiras following a revolt of the defeated Army in September 1922. Despite international reactions calling for an annulment of the execution, Venizelos, at the time negotiating piece terms with Turkey in Lausanne as representative of the dictatorship in Greece (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 29), did very little to prevent it. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 25-35)

The Treaty of Lausanne (Wikipedia, 2022) marked the end of the Great Idea aspirations for Greece (Papageorgiou, History Is Now Magazine, 2021) bringing the country to its current borders, more or less, as the Dodecanese would be the last territorial gain of modern Greece after the end of World War II. The loss of the territories in Asia Minor and especially Eastern Thrace caused the nagging even of some officers within the military regime like major general Theodoros Pangalos, who criticized Venizelos’ handling. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 65) In fact, it was not unusual for members of the Venizelist or anti-Venizelist space to change sides because of a political disagreement or pure interest.

It was this mixture of political disagreement on an electoral law that favoured the Venizelist candidates in the elections prepared by the regime for December 1923 (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 33-34) and disappointment of officers feeling ignored by the Plastiras’ regime that led to a counter-revolt in October 1923. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 129) This was soon crushed by the Venizelists. The latter found the opportunity to purge the army from their rival officers (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 34) and as the palace identified itself with anti-Venizelism to rid themselves of the successor king George II. After the elections of December 1923, from which the anti-Venizelists abstained (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 35), the National Assembly declared the fall of the dynasty and the establishment of unreigned democracy on the 25 March 1924. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 38)

This decision was further supported by a referendum held in April (70% for the unreigned democracy) (Dafnis, 1997, p. 262) but the anti-Venizelist leader Tsaldaris expressed his reservations for the new status quo. Thus, under the pretext of the protection of democracy, prime minister Papanastasiou passed a law aiming at the silencing of the anti-Venizelist propaganda with severe punishments imposed by military courts. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 42) In his book, Mavrogordatos points out the similarity of the establishment of the unreigned democracy in Greece with that of the Weimar Republic in Germany as the result of the opportunistic partnership of the Liberals (Social – democrats in Germany) with the military. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 39)

Indeed, the grip of the military on the Greek political life during this period is marked by 43 different interventions between 1916 and 1936. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, pp. 291-299) Soon after the handover of the government to the politicians in December 1923, major general Pangalos came to power by force in June 1925 exploiting the reluctance of the government and of the leaders of the political parties to act decisively against him. In fact, he managed to obtain a vote of confidence from the parliament and to give this way a lawful mantle to his government. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 162) His turn towards the anti-Venizelists worried the democratic officers and following a series of blunders in domestic and foreign policy, including an invasion in Bulgaria on the occasion of a border incident involving the killing of three Greeks by the Bulgarians, he was finally removed from government and imprisoned in August 1926. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 45-47) He remained in prison till July 1928, when the Venizelists ordered his release. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 350)   

The year 1928 marks the return of Eleftherios Venizelos himself to the premiership. Before that, Greece was under ‘’ecumenical government’’ following a public demand for, at last, collaboration between the parties, after the fall of Pangalos’ dictatorship (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 48) This did not last long though and, apart from some success in laying the groundwork for a sound economic policy (Dafnis, 1997, p. 395), it did not do much to cure the schism between the rival factions. Eventually, the Venizelists won a striking victory during the elections of August 1928: 226 out of 250 seats in the parliament. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 54)

Venizelos’ new term was one of the longest in modern Greek history lasting for 52 months till November 1932. His government is credited with the approach to Italy, that, under Mussolini briefly occupied the island of Corfu in August 1923 (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 83-125), Yugoslavia and Turkey, the retainment of good relations with the Great Powers, and especially Great Britain, the settlement of the war reparations after World War I to the benefit of Greece, an extensive investment program in new infrastructure mostly in the new lands (that is territories added to Greece after 1912), a satisfactory financial situation with consecutive surpluses of the state budget, the strengthening of the rural credit with the creation of the Agricultural Bank, an educational reform focusing on the reinforcement of the productive occupations, the establishment of the Council of State to restrict government arbitrariness, and the continuation of the effort for the integration and assimilation of the refugees that flooded Greece after the Asia Minor catastrophe in 1922. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 463-514)

One of Venizelos’ statements though, after his stunning victory in 1928, is characteristic of his intentions towards the opposition at that time. ‘The People of Greece made me a parliamentary dictator’, he said to his wife. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 57) Thus, the most famous law of this time was that of summer 1929 ‘against the pursue of the implementation of ideas aiming at the overthrow of the social regime’. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 58) It was introduced against the declared views of the Communist Party, although there was never a real communist threat during the interwar period (Dafnis, 1997, p. 505) (the Communists never received more than 5-6 % of the votes at the elections that took place between 1926 and 1936). (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 29) Nevertheless, it served, indiscriminately, the purpose of suppressing public protest during Venizelos’ term and later as well. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 58)

The global economic crisis of 1929, that undermined Venizelos’ ambitious program, led to his call for the formation of an ecumenical government in March 1932, (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 59) but the failure, once more, of Venizelists and anti-Venizelists to reach a compromise rendered any such attempt short lived and a failure. Short lived was also Venizelos’ last government in January 1933 and he was finally defeated in the elections of March 1933. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 64)

The military branch of the Venizelists did not take this development well. The former colonel Plastiras, leader of the army revolt in 1922 (see above), now a Lieutenant General, attempted to militarily cancel the passing of power to the anti-Venizelists. He failed and had to flee abroad in April to avoid the consequences. It is suggested that Venizelos did not act decisively to cancel Plastiras’ plans or that he even ordered the action. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 620-622) Nevertheless, he was not prosecuted.

The fact that Venizelos was not prosecuted by the parliamentary and judicial authorities does not mean that he was spared from the vengeful fury of the anti-Venizelists. On the night of the 6th of June 1933, a cinematic attempt on his life took place, when he was returning to Athens from dinner at a friend’s house in Kifissia. Venizelos escaped, but during the manhunt involving the car carrying Venizelos and his wife, his bodyguards’ car, and the attackers’ car, one of his guards was killed, his driver was seriously wounded, and his wife suffered minor injuries. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 636-640)

The acute confrontation between the two factions continued for twenty months after the assassination attempt. The sources of tensions included a systematic government: i) cover-up of the assassination attempt, ii) manipulation of the command of the army to end its control by Venizelist-democratic elements, iii) effort to change the electoral law to its benefit, iv) disregard of parliamentary procedures. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 68) Eventually, in March 1935, Venizelos poured fuel on the flames backing an insurrection across northern Greece and the islands. It failed and Venizelos fled into exile in Paris. He died a year later. (Heneage, 2021, p. 178)

The failed coup gave the anti-Venizelist the opportunity to lead in front of a court martial 1,130 Venizelist members of the army, politicians, and civilians. Sixty of them were sentenced to death of which 55 had already escaped abroad. Of the remaining five, two were finally pardoned and three were executed including generals Papoulas and Koimisis, protagonists during the trial that led to the ‘execution of the six’, that had never been forgotten by the anti-Venizelists. Nevertheless, the latter avoided a wider purge to avoid a prolonged conflict. Furthermore, the executions met the opposition of France and Great Britain. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 772-779)

The same way that a successful Venizelist coup led to the fall of the dynasty in 1924, the unsuccessful coup of 1935 led to its restoration. In fact, it took yet another coup, within the anti-Venizelist ranks this time, led by lieutenant general Kondilis, for the recall of king George II. The restoration was confirmed with a Soviet-style highly questionable referendum, held in November 1935, that gave it 97.8 % of the votes. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 803) The king pardoned the participants in the March coup and elections were called for January 1936. (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 811-814)

Venizelists and anti-Venizelists emerged from the elections as equals. Although this was indicative of the public will for a coalition government (Dafnis, 1997, p. 816), the two factions once again failed to work together. Furthermore, the contacts of both with the Communist Party (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 81), holding 5.76 % of the votes and 15 sits in the parliament (Dafnis, 1997, p. 815), for the formation of a government backed by communist votes caused worries in the army. Thus, the king appointed in March major general Ioannis Metaxas, who we have met before as an emblematic figure of the pro-royalists and the anti-Venizelist ranks, minister of the military to restore discipline. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 818) He was promoted to the premiership the next month, when the prime minister Demertzis died suddenly of a heart attack. Public unrest and the need for seamless war preparation, as the clouds of war were gathering over Europe, provided Metaxa with the arguments that persuaded the king to allow for a dissolution of the parliament and the suspension of civil liberties in August. (Dafnis, 1997, p. 837) So began the 4th of August Regime.

The 4th of August Regime was Greece’s rather unconvincing experiment in fascism. There were, for example, organizations like the National Youth Organization, promoting self-discipline for the boys and preparing girls to be dutiful mothers, anti-communism propaganda and political arrests, but at the same time Metaxas was not racist and repealed some of the anti-Semitic legislation of previous regimes. (Heneage, 2021, pp. 179-180) Furthermore, the king remained strong and autonomous (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 85) and the country was not linked to the Axes Powers. On the contrary, Metaxas was a supporter of Great Britain. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 90) Thus, when, on the night of 28 October 1940, the Italian ambassador Grazzi demanded that Greece surrender key strategic sites or else face invasion, Metaxas answered in French, the language of Democracy, ‘Non’, No, in Greek, ‘Ochi’. (Heneage, 2021, p. 183) Greece was at war. Again.

II Clientelism

For division and civil war to flourish, one needs at least two factions, in the case presented here Venizelists and anti-Venizelists, each with members ready to do whatever is necessary to prevail. This, in return for specific benefits. The phenomenon is called clientelism – namely, the distribution of benefits by politicians and political parties to their supporters in return for their votes, campaign contributions and political loyalty. (Trantidis, 2016, p. xi)

The origin of clientelism in modern Greek history goes back to the Ottoman occupation. Indeed, Ottoman oppression strengthened the importance of the family as an institution that more securely guaranteed the protection of its members, relatives, and friends. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 287) The phenomenon expanded when the newly founded modern Greek state, as we have seen in the previous parts of this series, failed to create institutions that would earn the trust of its citizens. Everyday experience taught that a relationship with a powerful patron was better guarantee of service than trust in an indifferent state apparatus. Thus, the individual was connected to the institutions of power through some powerful patron-mediator in order to promote his interest rather than waiting for the state institutions to function properly. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, pp. 278-279)

Although individual clients are, more or less, powerless, they can form networks and become important and valued for their patrons. Clients may be members of formally autonomous social institutions such as labor unions. Through this membership, they undertake overlapping roles: they are both political clients claiming individual patronage benefits and members of an organization claiming ‘collective’ or ‘club’ goods. Rather than isolated individuals, clients organized in party bodies, trade unions or other professional organizations can find in them the infrastructure by which they could hold patrons accountable. (Trantidis, 2016, p. 12)

Thus, for the interwar period studied here, the phenomenon of clientelism was probably most profound in the army. Already before the Balkan Wars, the then crown prince Constantine had created a small entourage of officers, which he promoted based not so much on their military performance but mostly on their loyalty to the dynasty. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 21) The ten years war period from 1912 to 1922, though, created a plethora of officers forged at the battlefield, outside of the military academy in Athens and the king’s cycle. In fact, by 1922 these officers made three quarters of the officer’s corpse. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 102) Probably the most astonishing example of rise in the army ranks during this period was the mutineer Plastiras, whom we met in the previous section, and who had started his career as corporal back in 1903.

For the conscripts that made it to the officers ranks the army also became a means of livelihood, but when the wars were over, they had the fewest guarantees of permanence (or further promotion). Thus, patronage was particularly important for those officers that came from the ranks of the reservists. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 102) The officers that could not find a patron within the royalists’ ranks, naturally, turned to the Venizelist – democratic space for protection.

It is certainly a paradox that parties competing for parliamentary rule within a nominally democratic framework possess military client-branches and that that they use these branches dynamically to influence the election process or even to overturn its results, when considered unfavorable. In fact, from the 43 military interventions between 1916 and 1936 only two presented the army as a supporter of liberal reform, a defender of the country’s territorial integrity and a punisher of those responsible for a national catastrophe. These were the revolt of the National Defense Committee in Thessaloniki in 1916 (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2022) and the army’s revolt of 1922 discussed above. Both gained national significance and were supported by a large portion of the public. The rest were only intended to serve private interests or were an expression of discontent of some military faction. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, p. 280)

It should be noted though that the officers do not always work in coordination with their political patrons. Movements like that of 1922, when the military for the first time fully assumes the exercise of government, contribute to the emancipation of some military factions from political patronage towards an autonomous claim of the benefits of power. (Veremis, The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936, 2018, pp. 118-119)   

The effect of clientelism on the social, political, and economic life in Greece has been discussed in more detail recently, because of the most recent economic crisis that started in 2010. Thus, we will return to it when recounting later periods of modern Greek history. Before I close this short reference to the subject here though, I further note that clientelism should not be seen as a political choice that is alternative to campaign strategies that seek to attract voters with programmatic commitments and ideology. In addition, clientelism must not be seen simply as a strategy of vote buying. Instead, organized clientelism, as described above, strengthens the capacity of political parties to recruit groups as campaign resources in order to appeal to voters via the conventional means of programmatic and ideological messages. (Trantidis, 2016, p. 10)

Clientelism as a method of political mobilization creates a strong preference for a political party in government to preserve policies that cater to clientelist demands and avoid policies that could limit the allocation of benefits and resources to their clients. (Trantidis, 2016, p. 17) This, in turn, limits the capacity for reform, especially during political and economic crises, as politicians in a highly clientelist system will try to preserve clientelist supply as much as possible. (Trantidis, 2016, p. 19) This will help us understand the problems of the Greek economy presented in the next section.

III Economy in crisis

Although the ten-year war period, between 1912 and 1922, ended with a catastrophe, interwar Greece was different from Greece before the Balkan Wars. Its population and territory had doubled: before the war Greece was made up of 2,631,952 inhabitants and its territory amounted to 63,211 square kilometers. By 1920 the population reached 5,531,474 and its territory 149,150 square kilometers. Finally, the census of 1928 recorded 6,204,684 inhabitants and a territorial expanse, after the catastrophe of the Asia Minor Campaign and the settlements that followed, of 129,281 square kilometers. (Kostis, 2018, pp. 272-273) Of course, most of these gains had already been achieved by 1913 and the expansion of the war period, including internal turmoil, to 1922 simply postponed the integration of the new territories to the country and its economy. Not only that, but it made it more difficult as by the end of the war the country was left much poorer and in a much less favorable international position.

The situation was made worse by the arrival in Greece of more than 1.2 million refugees as the result of the uprooting of the Greek communities in the East, following the defeat of the Greek army there. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 157) The number represented 20 percent of the total national population and the country had to import significant quantities of goods in order to meet the emergency needs of these new populations. (Kostis, 2018, p. 279)

The arrival of the refugees was decisive for the ethnic homogeneity of Greece though. Following the treaty for the obligatory exchange of populations signed between Greece and Turkey in Lausanne in January 1923, and another one, this time for an exchange on a voluntary basis, between Greece and Bulgaria earlier, in 1919, 500,000 Muslims and 92,000 Bulgarians left Greece in the period that followed. (Kostis, 2018, p. 275) Thus, about 70% of the refugees that remained in Greece (about 200,000 left Greece to seek their fortunes elsewhere (Kostis, 2018, p. 275)) was settled in rural areas of Macedonia and Thrace taking up the fields and the houses of the Turks and Bulgarians that left. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 159-160)

The properties of the minorities that left Greece though could make for no more than 50% of what was necessary for the refugees in the rural areas. The other 50% came from a significant reform under the military regime of Plastiras in February 1923. That was the obligatory expropriation of the large country estates and real estate in general, without the requirement that the owners be fully compensated first. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 30, 369-373) This Bolshevik-like approach created many small owners in the countryside and actually kept the refugees away from the grasp of the Communist Party that additionally adopted the policies of the Communist International and promoted the autonomy of Macedonia and Thrace. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 383-391)

In fact, as the catastrophe of the Asia Minor campaign took place under anti-Venizelist rule and the rehabilitation and assimilation of the refugees is credited to the Venizelists, most of the refugees became clients of the Venizelist parties affecting the results of elections to a significant degree. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, pp. 134-140,152,154 ) Indeed, when a small percentage of the refugees abandoned the Venizelist camp in 1933, it reshaped the political balance and eventually led to an anti-Venizelist victory.

One more conclusion can be drawn at this point. The inability of a clientelist state for reform explains why, in several cases, this (the reform) comes from authoritarian regimes or dictatorships, like that of Plastiras that brought the agricultural reform. Consequently, these regimes remain practically unchallenged by the political establishment, like that of Metaxas after 1936 (Dafnis, 1997, pp. 880-881), that introduced a full social security plan and imposed compulsory arbitration in labor disputes to prevent social unrest. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, p. 85) In any case, for reform or private interest (see section II), the collaboration between the politicians and the military officers (often based on a patron – beneficiary, that is clientelism, relationship) explains also why many military interventions went practically unpunished or why amnesty was very often granted to the protagonists during the periods of modern Greek history we covered so far.

The agricultural reform alone was not enough to settle the refugee’s problems. The country was lacking raw materials, equipment, and the necessary infrastructure to integrate the new territories to the state. As usual, Greece resorted to external borrowing to cover these needs. A 12,000,000-franc loan was granted to Greece on humanitarian grounds by the Refugee Settlement Commission under supervision of the League of Nations to be spent on rehabilitating refugees (Kostis, 2018, p. 279). Venizelos’ investment program (see section I) between 1928 and 1932 also increased the external national dept from 27,8 billion drachmas to 32,7 billion drachmas. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, p. 77) This insured that a disproportionately large portion of the national budget would be used for debt payments: 25.6% of public revenue in 1927-28, 40.7% in the following year, while in the last of Venizelos’ four years the figure settled at 35%. These figures left little room for flexibility in the government’s budget. (Kostis, 2018, p. 286)

Flexibility was further reduced by the fact that more than 100 years after the establishment of the modern Greek state 70-80% of the country’s export profits was still coming from the cultivation of currant and tobacco. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, pp. 77-78) The industry’s share to the GDP increased from 10% in 1924 to 16% in 1939, nevertheless, this development was carried out under protectionism conditions and did not introduce qualitative improvements in the Greek industry that would prepare it for international competition. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, p. 87) Both remarks are indicative of the effect of clientelism on the lack of economy reforms and as an observer put it, positive developments in economic growth were more the result of the efforts of individual cultivators and industrialists rather than of a planned government policy. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, p. 84)

Eventually, one more of the vicious cycles of the Greek economy, proposed by Dertilis (Dertilis, 2020, p. 29), was repeated in the interwar period. Once again it started with war or preparation for war (military spending took 18% of the GDP between 1918 and 1822 (Dertilis, 2020, p. 99)) and culminated to the suspension of national dept servicing on 1 May 1932. The government also abandoned the gold standard, and the value of the drachma began to fluctuate freely. Strict measure for limitations on currency followed that would affect the Greek economy for many decades. (Kostis, 2018, p. 287)   

The Greek economy then turned inwards and seeked to develop by exploiting its domestic resources and more centralized forms of economic management made their appearance as the state took on a leading role. The economy recovered, but this recovery did not solve the country’s economic woes. (Kostis, 2018, p. 287) By 1937, the deficit in Greece’s trade balance reached 5,649 million drachmas. A year later, Greece imported three quarters of the raw materials used by its industry, one third of the cereals needed for domestic consumption and significant amounts of machinery and capital goods. By March 1940, the nominal public dept had reached 630 million dollars, equivalent to 9.25% of the national income for Greece (this reflected to a great extent the prevailing situation till 1932, as since then borrowing was significantly reduced) compared to 2,98% for Bulgaria, 2,32% for Rumania, and 1,68% for Yugoslavia. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, pp. 88-89) Military spending was reduced to 6.2% of the GDP between 1934 and 1939 (Dertilis, 2020, p. 99) but the imminent second world war did not allow for further reductions. In fact, at the end of 1939, when the war in Europe began, the Greek government spent an additional amount of 1,167 million drachmas for military purposes. This unexpected expense burdened the state budget by 10%. Between July 1939 and October 1940, when Italy attacked Greece, the circulation of banknotes increased from 7,000 million to 11,600 million drachmas and the wholesale price index increased by 20%. (Veremis & Mazower, The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941), 2009, p. 90)

Thus, the Italian attack in October 1940 found Greece’s economy in a fragile state and as is very often the case, an economy in crisis invites foreign intervention. (Dertilis, 2020, p. 29)

IV Foreign intervention

Foreign intervention refers basically to that of the Great Powers of the time (Great Britain, France, Russia, Austria – Hungary, the German Empire/Germany, Italy, and the United States of America). That is because the interaction of modern Greece with its Balkan neighbors was rather antagonistic, if not hostile, and more often than not determined by the dispositions of the Great Powers. (Divani, 2014, σσ. 82 - 119) Exception is the short period of the Balkan Wars, when skillfully chosen alliances with its Balkan neighbors resulted in the doubling of Greece’s territory at that time. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2022) A significant improvement in the relation with its neighbors, Albania, Yugoslavia, Italy and Turkey, was also achieved, again under the premiership of Venizelos, between 1928 – 1932, allowing     for a significant cut in military spending to the benefit of investments in infrastructure and the rehabilitation of the refugees. (Divani, 2014, pp. 207-208) (see also section I above). In fact, a treaty of friendship was signed between Greece and Turkey in October 1930.

It goes without saying that state characteristics like the ones presented previously (division, civil war, economy in crisis) facilitate, if not invite, foreign intervention. Furthermore, the term (‘foreign intervention’) is perceived, in most cases, with a negative sign. It is synonymous to the limitation (or even loss) of a state’s sovereignty at the interest of a foreign power. Nevertheless, let us remember, at this point, some cases of foreign intervention that we have come across in this series on the history of modern Greece: i) at a critical point of the War of Independence, when defeat seemed imminent, the combined fleets of Great Britain, Russia and France defeated the Ottoman-Egyptian forces at Navarino Bay and later signed the Protocol of London granting autonomy to Greece (Papageorgiou, History Is Now Magazine, 2021), ii) the first territorial expansion of Greece to the Ionian Islands came as a ‘dowry’ to the new king George I in 1864, (iii) the second territorial expansion of Greece to Thessaly in 1881 came after the Great Powers intervened to revise the Treaty of St Stefano and cancel the creation of the ‘Great Bulgaria’, and (iv) when Thessaly was retaken by the Ottomans after the Greek defeat in the 1897 Greco-Turkish war the Powers once again intervened to keep Greece’s territorial losses to a minimum. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021)

Are we then to conclude, following the previous remarks, that foreign intervention was out of pure concern for the well-being of Greece? By no means. Great Britain’s intervention at Navarino, together with France and Russia, intended to the limitation of the latter’s influence in the region. That is why immediately afterwards Great Britain worked to preserve the integrity of the Ottoman Empire by keeping Greece’s original territory very limited. The Ionian Islands were also given to Greece at a period when their value for Great Britain was deemed limited and under the condition that they would be rendered demilitarized. The limitation of Russia’s influence in the Balkans was also behind the revision of the Treaty of St Stefano. And there were also cases, as for example during the Asia Minor Campaign, that the Great Powers simply abandoned Greece to suffer a disastrous fate. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2022) Thus, the remark that foreign intervention is synonymous to the limitation (or even loss) of a state’s sovereignty at the interest of a foreign power remains valid. Indeed, with some exceptions, e.g. during the Balkan Wars, Greece failed to keep its fate in its own hands.  The previous discussion serves only to show that foreign intervention was also positive when, by mere chance, foreign interests coincided with those of Greece.

But is it generally easy for a small state to draw an independent policy? Certainly not. Things are even worse though, when clientelism governs its political, social, and economic life. In fact, during the interwar period, the small states had the chance to participate to an international forum where, for the first time, instead of being subjected to the decisions of the Great Powers, they could, even to a small extent, co-shape them. This was the League of Nations (LoN). (Divani, 2014, p. 134)

Greece’s initial experiences with the first global intergovernmental organization, founded in 1919, were not good though. When Italy invaded Corfu in August 1923 (see section I) the LoN did very little to contain Mussolini. This was the first indication of the flaws of the LoN that eventually failed to work effectively against the fascist aggression that culminated to the Second World War. On the contrary, when Greece, under Pangalos’ dictatorship invaded Bulgaria (see section I) the LoN moved swiftly to condemn and punish it. The feeling of injustice was strong, but Greece, once again at a weak spot, could not do much to expose the handlings of the LoN. It needed the latter for technical and financial support for the rehabilitation of the refugees following the disaster of the Asia Minor Campaign. (Divani, 2014, pp. 159-173)

Indeed, as the former prime minister A. Michalakopoulos’ put it in 1929, regarding the work of the LoN in Greece: ‘if the State attempted to do the work of the Refugee Settlement Commission the errors would be tenfold, and the work imperfect, and there would be multiple embezzlements and the costs would be greater’. (Mavrogordatos, 2019, p. 138) This was because the LoN took special interest in ensuring that the loan money would not be spent for reasons other than the productive and developmental settlement of the refugees. The Financial Committee of the LoN also demanded reforms aiming at the stabilization and modernization of the Greek economy. (Divani, 2014, p. 242) In fact, the financial control of the LoN coexisted with the International Financial Committee controlling the Greek finances already since 1897, after the military defeat by the Ottomans following the bankruptcy of 1893. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2021)

International financial controls mainly aim to serve the interests of Greece’s creditors. No doubt. Nevertheless, even to this end, they often introduce necessary economic, political (and consequently even social) reforms that have been repeatedly postponed and avoided by the local political establishment as they collide with the interests of the stakeholders of the clientelist state. Thus, foreign intervention represents an alternative to authoritarian regimes for the introduction of reform (see section III). Similarly though, it is used as scapegoat from the clientelist establishment, usually under the veil of an alleged insult to national sovereignty or democracy. As such it is hated by the Greeks that, in such a way, miss (or turn away from) the real origin of their troubles. Once again: a satisfactory solution of the refugee problem would have been impossible without the help of the LoN. (Divani, 2014, p. 293) As the Refugee Settlement Commission worked independently though, keeping the available resources (especially the refugee loans) away from the grasp of the local political establishment, its work was repeatedly discredited by the press and the Greek parliament in consecutive sessions discussed accusations against it. (Divani, 2014, p. 299)

V Conclusion

At the heart of all this trouble lies clientelism. The Greeks fought the War of Independence (1821 – 1830) to free themselves from the Ottomans only to become serfs to a clientelism system that significantly hinders their ability to develop and exploit the full capacity of themselves and the resources of their country. This is because the system demands unquestionable loyalty to the party or the ‘clan’. So unquestionable that one should be prepared to harm even its fellow Greek members of the opposite ‘clan’. Thus, civil war is a phenomenon often met in modern Greek history. This often takes the classical form of armed conflict, but, more often than not, is present in the form of ‘exchanges’ in critical administration positions. Members of one ‘clan’ are usually kicked out when the next ‘clan’ comes to power and needs to ‘accommodate’ its own clients. This non-meritocratic system of course guarantees that the country almost never has the needed capacity in these positions and if this, by coincidence, happens, it is never for a long time. Thus, Greece’s ability to keep up with the signs of each time is crippled. After all, with clientelism it is never about long-term planning and reform. Thus, the often bankruptcies. Then reform comes, usually violently, from inside or the outside. Because a divided nation invites foreign intervention.

It is not to be considered that all Greeks participate or are being favored by the clientelism system. Many have individually thrived inland or abroad when they found themselves in a healthier environment. And indeed the country has made progress since its establishment. Nevertheless, I dare to say that this was and remains slow, and it was and still is more coincidental. Sometimes because its interests coincided with those of the Great Powers of the time. Sometimes because it was lucky enough to have great individuals in power.

At this point, as the period we are discussing coincides with the death of Eleftherios Venizelos, some remarks about the Cretan politician are necessary. As we have seen he was not a role model for parliamentarism. He did not hesitate to resort to arms or even divide the country when necessary. So should he be condemned as, at least at times, anti-democratic? Maybe. I propose though that, at the same time, he was simply being realistic. Venizelos knew how the system works. He saw the opportunity for Greece’s expansion and he wanted to take it. He knew that clientelism would slow things down and the opportunity might have gone missing. So he played by the real rules of the game. That of clientelism. Not “parliamentarism” or “democracy”. And if, for example, Napoleon of France squandered French power and prestige leaving France smaller than he found her and is still called ‘The Great’, (Kissinger, 2022, pp. 61-62) Venizelos was proved to be ‘Great’.

So, should the country continue to rely on chance and a few good, or even ‘Great’, men or women for its progress? That would be a great risk. Because clientelism is like the cancer developed in a certain part of the body. If not treated properly, it will soon drag the healthy parts of the body to death as well.

What do you think of the period 1923-40 in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

References

Dafnis, G. (1997). Greece Between Two Wars 1923-1940. Athens: Cactus Editions (in Greek).

Dertilis, G. B. (2020). Seven Wars, Four Civil Wars, Seven Bankruptcies 1821-2016. Athens: Gutenberg (in Greek).

Divani, L. (2014). The Treacherous Caress, Greece and foreigners, 1821 - 1940. Athens : Kastaniotis Rublications (in Greek).

Heneage, J. (2021). The shortest history of Greece. Exeter: Old Street Publishing ltd.

Kissinger, H. (2022). Leadership. London: Allen Lane.

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

Mavrogordatos, G. (2019). After 1922, The continuation of the schism. Athens: Patakis (in Greek).

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, September 5). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/9/5/the-modern-greek-state-18631897-bankruptcy-amp-defeat#.YVH7FX1RVPY

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, May 16). History Is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/5/16/the-modern-greek-state-1827-1862-a-bad-start#.YLe-yqFRVPY

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2022, May 20). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2022/5/20/the-modern-greek-state-19141922-greeks-divided?rq=Papageorgiou#.Yw-AoxxBy3A

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2022, January 20). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2022/1/20/the-modern-greek-state-18981913-glory-days#.YhPK6JaxW3A

Trantidis, A. (2016). Clientelism and Economic Policy, Greece and the crisis. New York: Routledge.

Veremis, T. (2018). The Interventions of the Army in Greek Politics 1916-1936. Athens: Alexandria (in Greek).

Veremis, T., & Mazower, M. (2009). The Greek Economy (1922 - 1941). In T. V. (Editor), Metaxas and His Era (pp. 73-90). Athens: Eurasia Publications (in Greek).

Wikipedia. (2022). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne

What was the Role of Brazil During World War 2?

While South America did not play the largest of roles during World War 2, the countries of the region were still important. Here, we look at the role Brazil played in World War II, in particular how it helped the Allied Powers.

A Brazilian Air Force fighter plane that was damaged by Nazi Germany’s forces during World War II.

South American Country Not In Active Combat At War’s Onset

Brazil did not have its troops engaged in active combat against the Germans, Japanese and Italians (the Axis Powers) during World War II until well after the infamous attack of Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. However, this should not be interpreted to mean the South American country did not help in the Allied effort nor converse with the United States until its troops hit the ground.

For example, Natal, located in the northeastern part of South America, was approximately 1,600 miles from Dakar, Africa. This location made it a strategic place for aircraft from the United States military to use Natal as a stopover when sending war supplies to its troops in Africa during World War II. (By comparison, Rio de Janeiro, about 1,600 miles south of Natal, is approximately 3,100 miles from Dakar.)

In addition, on October 1, 1941, Brazilian leaders signed a lend-lease agreement with the United States. This allowed the North American country to send about $100 million to the South American country in military equipment and military personnel with the assurance that the funds would be used to help defend the United States if asked. Even so, Brazil tried its best to keep its army and navy out of active combat.

However, after Germany’s navy damaged at least one Brazilian ship and sunk four others, Brazil ended diplomatic relations with the country, Japan and Italy on January 22, 1942. On March 3, 1942, the United States and Brazil agreed to several mutual aid principles regarding the war. Ultimately, Brazil declared war on the Axis Powers on August 22, 1942.

From then onwards, the Brazilian troops (often referred to as the Brazilian Expeditionary Force or BEF) “was not a colonial force, as were the British Indian units, or a Commonwealth military, such as Canada, New Zealand, or South Africa, nor a Free ‘this or that,’ such as the Polish or French contingents … [The BEF] was drawn from the army of an independent, sovereign state that voluntarily placed its men under United States command,” an author wrote in Military History.

Extent of Brazil’s Active Involvement

Nearly 2 years passed from Brazil’s declaration of war until the country’s troops saw military engagement overseas. About 25,000 members of a woefully underprepared-for-battle BEF arrived in several droves in Italy during the latter half of 1944.

Their acclimatization to their new surroundings could have been smoother. For example, their encampment was not complete upon their arrival. In addition, contrary to what the BEF was told before leaving for Italy, the BEF was not allowed to make any military decisions. These factors were among those that significantly reduced the BEF’s morale.

Regardless, the BEF (sometimes called the Smoking Cobras or Smoking Snakes as a homage to a patch on their uniforms) helped other Allied troops engage with the German Army in multiple unsuccessful attempts to capture Bologna, Italy, before Christmas 1944. At this point, the BEF took a break from active combat.

Down but not out, a series of battles during the first five months of 1945 elsewhere in Italy improved the BEF’s fortunes and morale. It helped take the municipalities of Monte Castello, Castelnuovo, Montese, Parma, Collecchio, and Fornovo, with the last battle forcing the German commander in charge to surrender on April 30, 1945. By then, the BEF had forced two generals, 800 officers and 14,700 Axis Powers troops to surrender. Two days later, the last German soldiers in Italy surrendered, and the BEF’s work was done. The entire war would be declared over later that. year.

While in Italy, the BEF lost 1,889 soldiers, 31 merchant ships, 22 fighter planes, and three warships. In addition, an estimated $21 million cruzeiros (the Brazilian currency of the time) of Brazil’s own money was spent on the war.

In Context

Perhaps some comparisons of Brazil’s efforts during World War II can be made to the financial and supply support the U.S. has provided Ukraine in its war against Russia over the past 12 months. Although the U.S. has not yet sent members of their respective military to fight on the frontlines, Ukraine’s president has called the U.S. an ally in their military effort. Moreover, other comments made by Ukraine’s president suggest that the U.S. funds, just as the monies the U.S. provided Brazil due to the 1941 lend-lease agreement, have greatly assisted Ukraine.

Other parts of Brazil’s effort during World War II may draw comparisons to those France made during the American Revolutionary War. If not for the involvement of the French, an author wrote in Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, "it was entirely possible that the [colonies'] struggle begun in 1775 should have ended in disaster, the history and development of the United States would have been different.” Similarly, had the BEF not gone to Italy, it is entirely plausible that some of the battles in that country – and perhaps all of World War II – would have had a much different outcome.   

What do you think of the role of Brazil during World War 2? Let us know below.

Now read Janel’s article on the World War 2 Doolittle Raids here.

References

“Brazil Moves To Forestall Any Axis Surprise Attack.” Wilkes-Barre Record, August 24, 1942, Page 1. https://www.newspapers.com/image/106029421. Accessed February 26, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Pearl Harbor.” Https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/pearl-harbor. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Brittanica.com Editors. Brittanica.com. “Natal Brazil.” https://www.britannica.com/place/Natal-Brazil. Accessed March 4, 2023.

“Brazil Moves To Forestall Any Axis Surprise Attack.” Wilkes-Barre Record, August 24, 1942, Page 1. https://www.newspapers.com/image/106029421. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Google. “How Far Is Natal Brazil From Rio De Janeiro Brazil? https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=how+far+is+natal+brazil+from+rio+de+janiero+brazil. Google Search Conducted March 4, 2023.

Google. “How Far Is Rio De Janiero Brazil From Dakar Africa?” https://www.google.com/search?q=how+far+is+rio+de+janeiro+brazil+from+dakar+africa&client=firefox-b-1-d&sxsrf=AJOqlzW-1RAf4h1OWXYPVFrSbB34K8Bwfg%3A1677960423354&ei=56QDZLObFbih5NoP5_i_yAc&oq=how+far+is+rio+de+janiero+brazil+from+dakar+af&gs_lcp=Cgxnd3Mtd2l6LXNlcnAQAxgAMgcIIRCgARAKMgcIIRCrAhAKMgcIIRCrAhAKOggIABCGAxCwAzoFCAAQogQ6BAghEAo6CgghEBYQHhAdEAo6BggAEBYQHjoFCAAQhgNKBAhBGAFQowRYjD1g60hoAXAAeACAAaIBiAGIGJIBBTE5LjEymAEAoAEByAEDwAEB&sclient=gws-wiz-serp. Google Search Conducted March 4, 2023.

United States Department of State. “Lend-Lease Agreement Between the United States and Brazil, Signed at Washington, October 1, 1941. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1941v06/d548. Accessed March 2, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

"Brazil Strikes Back at Axis: Makes Seizures." The Plain Speaker, March 12, 1942, Page 1. https://www.newspapers.com/image/268742370. Accessed March 2, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

US Department of State. “Agreement Between the United States and Brazil Regarding Principles Applying to Mutual Aid in the Prosecution of the War, Signed at Washington, March 3, 1942.” https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1942v05/d793. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

McCann F. “The ‘Forca Expedicionaria Brasileira’ in the Italian Campaign, 1944-45.” Army History, Spring 1993, Number 26, Pages 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304143. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Baber, Richard. “The Battle at Collecchio. The Brazilians in Italy April 26 - 27, 1945.” The Journal. Published April 26, 2022, Pages 1-3. https://sotcw.co.uk/articles/Collecchio_-_Italy_1945.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Serviços e Informações do Brasil. “The Brazilian Expeditionary Force in the Battle of Monte

Castello.” Published February 21, 2022. https://www.gov.br/en/government-of-brazil/latest-news/2022/the-brazilian-expeditionary-force-in-the-battle-of-monte-castello. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

McCann F. “The ‘Forca Expedicionaria Brasileira’ in the Italian Campaign, 1944-45.” Army History, Spring 1993, Number 26, Pages 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304143. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

McCann F. “The ‘Forca Expedicionaria Brasileira’ in the Italian Campaign, 1944-45.” Army History, Spring 1993, Number 26, Pages 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304143. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Asumpção Penteado, C. “The Brazilian Participation in World War II.” Published 2006. https://edisciplinas.usp.br/pluginfile.php/4306787/mod_resource/content/1/IAP%20PenteadonBrazilandWorld%20War%20II.pdf. Accessed February 26, 2023.

Klein, C. History.com. “How Did World War II End?” Published August 11, 2020. https://www.history.com/news/world-war-ii-end-events. Accessed March 4, 2023.

Moreira Bento, Claudio. “Brazil's Involvement in World War II: The Fiftieth Anniversary.”

Army History, Spring 1993, Number 26, Pages 29-30.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304151. Accessed February 26, 2023.

McCann F. “The ‘Forca Expedicionaria Brasileira’ in the Italian Campaign, 1944-45.” Army History, Spring 1993, No. 26. pages 1-11. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26304143. Accessed February 26, 2023.

CNN. “Read: Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s remarks to Congress. Published December 22, 2022. https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/politics/zelensky-congress-address-transcript/index.html. Accessed March 4, 2023

United States Department of State. “Lend-Lease Agreement Between the United States and Brazil, Signed at Washington, October 1, 1941. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1941v06/d548. Accessed March 2, 2023.

Breck Perkins, J. “France and the American Revolution.”  Proceedings of the New York State Historical Association, Volume 4 (1904), Pages 74-88.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/42889840. Accessed March 4, 2023.

The First American Female President? First Lady Edith Galt Wilson

US President Woodrow Wilson was less than well towards the end of his presidency (1913-21). This led to a powerful role for his wife, First Lady Edith Galt Wilson. Here, Richard Bluttal explains her role of ‘stewardship’ that could arguably make her the first female US president.

First Lady Edith Wilson’s official White House portrait.

It was a grueling period for both. First Paris among diplomats worldwide, then a cross country trip, 8-10,000 miles.  They passed through scorching temperatures of the West, without any air conditioning.  He complained of splitting headaches, at one stop experiencing blurred vision.  She called for his doctor and said that her husband’s face was twitching and he was gasping for breath, similar to an asthma attack.  Dr. Grayson, his doctor, drew up a series of mandates, stating “Complete rest, total isolation from his job, and no one should interfere with his health.” They returned home. On October 2, 1919, his wife went to check to see how her husband was doing. He said to her, “I have no feeling in my hand,” motioning to his left hand. Minutes later, after calling his doctor from downstairs, she heard a thump like a body falling from his bed.  Running back upstairs, she found her husband unconscious and bleeding on the bathroom floor. Edith Galt Wilson had to make a quick decision - the country, or the life of her husband, President Woodrow Wilson. And why did he decide to arrange this tour, in support of the League of Nations?

From the standpoint of his October 2nd attack, what would the world know of this, let alone his administration and members of Congress. Very simple, nothing was to be said about the severity of his condition. The cover up had begun, and would continue until the end of his administration, close to two years later.  One of his doctors told Edith that the President must not be disturbed so that nature can repair the damage. Edith’s response was, “How can I protect him from problems when the country looks to him as the leader? What do we tell the world?” On October 3rd, Dr. Grayson issued a bulletin, “The President is a very sick man. Diagnosis is a nervous exhaustion”. In the remaining days and weeks, additional bulletins said that the President was recovering nicely.

Wilson’s condition

How bad was the President’s condition? In Woodrow Wilson: A Medical and Psychological Biography Edith Weinstein writes, “The symptoms indicate that Wilson suffered from an occlusion of the right middle cerebral artery, which resulted in a complete paralysis of the left side of the body, a loss of vision in the left half vision of both eyes, weakness of the muscles of the left side of his face, tongue and jaw and pharynx accounted for his inability to speak.” All additional physicians that were allowed to see him remarked, “He looked as if he was dead.”

I think it’s important to understand what might have been the issue causing the anxiety and strain that led to this medical condition. Let us review the first World War, the United States entry and the League of Nations.

In the summer of 1914, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir to the Austro-Hungarian Empire, ignited a continental war between the Central Powers of Germany, Austria-Hungary, and the Ottoman Empire and the Allies of France, Great Britain, Russia, and Italy. By the war’s end in 1918, the war would span the globe, claim more than 16 million lives, and change the world forever.

Germany planned to quickly defeat the British and French to the west before turning its full force east to Russia, but its initial thrusts into Belgium and northern France were checked. By the end of 1914, 400 miles of trench lines – the Western Front – stretched from Switzerland to the North Sea.

The United States initially remained neutral. But reports of German atrocities and submarine attacks on shipping bound for Britain and France – most infamously the 1915 sinking of the Lusitania, which killed 128 Americans – began to change American opinion.

In 1916 President Woodrow Wilson won re-election on the slogan “He kept us out of war.” But in April 1917, Germany’s resumption of unrestricted submarine warfare, along with its offer to help Mexico recover territories lost to the United States in 1848, led Wilson to ask Congress to declare war on Germany. American entry came none too soon. The British were running out of men, almost half of the French army had mutinied, and the Russian Revolution in 1917 would lead to Russia’s withdrawal from the war, allowing Germany to shift troops to the Western Front.

American troops conducted their first major action on May 28, 1918, when the 1st Division rolled back a German salient at Cantigny. Soon after, American forces were deployed along the Western Front, fighting in battles that have become part of American military lore. In early June, the 2ndDivision, including a brigade of U.S. Marines, drove German forces out of Belleau Wood after weeks of savage fighting. At Chateau Thierry the 3rd Division won the name “Rock of the Marne” for its stand on the Marne River. More Americans joined Allied counterattacks in summer and fall 1918, fighting with British, Canadian and Australian allies in Flanders and the Somme, and with the French at Soissons and across the Marne, Aisne, and Oise rivers.

On September 26 American forces launched the Meuse-Argonne Offensive, the largest battle in American history. Over 47 days, 1.2 million American troops drove the Germans back 40 miles to the vital railway hub of Sedan. More than 26,000 American soldiers died.

As American troops moved through the Meuse-Argonne, it became apparent that Germany had lost the war. An armistice was signed on November 11, 1918, effective at 11 a.m. – the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month.

After the war

In January 1919 the allies met in Paris to negotiate peace. Leaders of the victorious Allied powers—France, Great Britain, the United States and Italy—would make most of the crucial decisions in Paris over the next six months. For most of the conference, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson struggled to support his idea of a “peace without victory” and make sure that Germany, the leader of the Central Powers and the major loser of the war, was not treated too harshly. On the other hand, Prime Ministers Georges Clemenceau of France and David Lloyd George of Britain argued that punishing Germany adequately and ensuring its weakness was the only way to justify the immense costs of the war. In the end, Wilson compromised on the treatment of Germany in order to push through the creation of his pet project, an international peacekeeping organization called the League of Nations. President Wilson sought a piece based on his “Fourteen Points,” meant to foster international peace and cooperation. While some of the terms were included in the final treaty, including creation of a League of Nations, the pre-war colonial system remained in place. The Allies also compelled Germany to accept responsibility for starting the war, giving up territory and colonies, and pay crippling war reparations. His prime objective was to include his 14 points in the League of Nations.

It helps to examine the medical history of Woodrow Wilson. Historian Edwin A. Weinstein notes that Wilson had a history of cerebrovascular disorders dating back to 1896, sixteen years before he was elected president. Weinstein writes in his biography of Wilson, that the young Woodrow was a slow learner, and this could be a sign that he was dyslexic. He was always a high-strung person and subject to illnesses that were probably psychosomatic in nature. His letters often contain references to poor health, and his rhetoric frequently used metaphors regarding the body. Wilson was serving as an instructor at Princeton in 1896 when he suffered his first stroke. As Weinstein puts it, “Wilson’s first known stroke, in 1896, manifested itself in a weakness and loss of dexterity of his right hand, a numbness in the tips of several fingers, and some pain in the right arm. Aside from the pain, which was transitory, the symptoms and manner of onset indicate he had suffered an occlusion of a central branch of the left middle cerebral artery. This vessel supplies the regions of the left cerebral hemisphere that control movement and sensation for the contralateral extremities. The subsequent course of the disease suggests that the branch was blocked by an embolus from the left internal carotid artery.” In 1913, Wilson suffered another stroke, only this time, it was his left arm that was affected. Weinstein writes: The episode which affected Wilson’s left arm was particularly ominous from a clinical standpoint. The most likely diagnosis is that he had developed an ulcerated plaque in his right carotid artery from which an embolus had broken off. This meant that the cerebral circulation has been impaired on the right, previously unaffected, side of the brain. This evidence of bilaterality of involvement not only increased the risk of future strokes, but also created the possibility that enduring changes of behavior, based on insufficient blood supply and impaired oxygenation of the brain, might eventually occur.” Wilson seemed ill in 1915 and De Schweinitz was called. The doctor found evidence of hypertension and a hardening of the arteries, warning signs that his state of health was precarious. He informed Grayson, but Wilson continued his state of denial. Dr. Weinstein in his book also notes the following additional ailments: Wilson had multiple other neurological events that were presumably vascular in origin, November 1907 -- Developed weakness and numbness of fingers or right upper limb that lasted several months, July 1908 -- Two attacks of "neuritis" affecting the right upper limb, December 1910 -- Transitory weakness of the right hand. April 1913 -- Attack of "neuritis" involving right upper limb, May 1914 -- Abnormal retinal arteries observed, May-Sept. 1915 -- Episodes of transient weakness in his right hand.

Stewardship

What few people knew was that the President had kept his wife in the loop about all matters of state, including her sitting in on the League of Nations meetings. As noted above, the cover-up was Edith assuming complete reins of power. How was she to govern? In her memoirs she states very clearly, “The only decision that was mine was what was important and what was not, and the very important decision of when to present matters to the President.  I asked the doctors to be frank with me, that I must know what the outcome would probably be, so as to be honest with the people. The recovery would not be hoped for, they said, unless the President was released from every disturbing problem, during these days of Nature’s effort to repair the damage done.  ‘How can that be?’ I asked the doctors when everything comes to the executive is a problem. One doctor, Dr. Dercum leaned into me and said, “Have everything come to you, weigh the importance of each matter, and see if it is possible by consultations with respective heads of the Departments to solve them without the guidance of your husband.”

In the mornings, Edith Wilson would get up and begin her “stewardship,” the word she used to refer to her relative takeover of the West Wing. She would attend meetings in place of her husband, and when information needed to be passed to him, she would insist that she be the one to do it. In the evenings, she would take all necessary paperwork back to the residence, where Woodrow was presumably waiting, and inform him of what he needed to know. The next morning, she would return the paperwork to its original owner, complete with new notes and suggestions. She would also vet the carefully crafted medical bulletins that were publicly released.  Continually she would say that the President needed bed rest and would be working from his bedroom suite. If it seemed like an odd arrangement, the people closest to the matter didn’t comment on it. They lined up at Edith’s door day in and day out, waiting for the notes that she passed back and forth between them and their leader. They went no further than the first lady, if they had policy papers or pending decisions for him to review, edit or approve, she would first look over the material herself. If she deemed the matter pressing enough, she took the paperwork into her husband’s room where she would read all the necessary documents to him.

While Edith maintained that she was simply a vessel for information and that all notes passed back to presidential staff were Woodrow Wilson’s own words, White House officials soon began to doubt the authenticity of the notes. For one, they had never seen the president himself write the words, and for another, they didn’t entirely trust the First Lady. William Hazelgrove in his book Madam President goes further,” the issue of a presidential signature is a vexing one. Presidents must sign many documents and the operation of government can be held up for want of signature. But here was a man paralyzed on his left side going in and out of consciousness. Edith “helped” the president by “steadying his right hand in guiding his pen.”  Now his signature has changed, senators took this as evidence that the first lady was either signing documents or that she was guiding the president’s hand.  Hazelgrove continues, “Edith did sign documents, probably many of them. The President was a paralyzed man who could barely talk, had lost control of his bodily functions, and lived in a post-stroke-twilight.  There is no doubt Edith signed when necessary.”

Decision-making

The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda.

She became the sole contact between the President and the cabinet. In fact, when Senator Albert Fall was sent by the Republicans to investigate the President’s true condition, Edith helped arrange Woodrow in bed so that he appeared presentable and alert. The President passed the test. The New York Times reported that “the meeting silenced for good the many wild and often unfriendly rumors of the President’s disability. “The essence of Mrs. Wilson's usurpation lay in the absence of decision-making. She permitted only a handful of officials to see the president, and that only in the latter phase of his illness; and these audiences were often weirdly stage-managed in his darkened White House bedroom, usually in her inhibiting presence and that of Admiral Grayson. Many issues (e.g., the infamous "Red scare" raids of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer) were not brought to the president's attention, and it is uncertain whether he had the capacity to act even if he could have focused on them. When it became absolutely necessary to indicate what Wilson thought about a pending question, Mrs. Wilson would occasionally issue in her own handwriting a kind of bulletin from the sickroom reading "the president says" thus and so -- an unacceptable substitute for real decision memoranda. It was a bewildering way to run a government, but the officials waited in the West Sitting Room hallway.  When she came back to them after conferring with the President, Mrs. Wilson turned over their paperwork, now riddled with indecipherable margin notes that she said were the president’s transcribed verbatim responses. To some the shaky handwriting looked less like that written by an invalid and more like that of his nervous caretaker.

25th Amendment

The question of the 25th Amendment now comes into play. Why didn’t the Vice President immediately assume control? Amid delicate political negotiations over the League of Nations, as well as the multitude of items faced by every administration, hiding the health crisis of the president was something that could not be easily done.  But it seems that this is exactly what the small circle around Wilson did, especially the first lady. Secretary of State Robert Lansing, a man who was with Wilson in Europe and an important part of the negotiations over the League of Nations, was the first to raise the alarm that the president was in an incapacitated state.  Lansing pressed Dr. Grayson about the reports that the president had fallen ill.  Dr. Grayson lied to Lansing, telling the secretary of state that Wilson was only suffering from “a depleted nervous system” and that the president’s mind was “not only clear but very active.” However, Joseph Tumulty was more candid and suggested to Lansing that the president had suffered another stroke.  Lansing immediately declared that Wilson should transfer presidential power to Vice President Thomas R. Marshall.  Loyal to Wilson, both Tumulty and Dr. Grayson objected.

Robert Lansing called a cabinet meeting on October 6, 1919, something he was not supposed to do without President Wilson’s knowledge.  It was an important meeting because no administration had had to address a situation when a president was alive but incapacitated.  The United States Constitution’s only words for such a situation before the passage of the 25th Amendment in 1967 are found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 6.  It states as follows:

In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.

Wilson was not dead, had not resigned, and was disputing, at least through a proxy, that he could not discharge the powers of the presidency.  Vice President Marshall did not want to appear too eager to become president, so he declared he would not act unless Congress declared Wilson incapacitated. Also, the first lady never wanted Marshall to be President. The problem with the constitution, as it was written then, was that there was a plan for succession of the vice president in case of death, but not of disability, as said by Dr. Markel.

The cabinet meeting on October 6th did little to define or answer any Constitutional questions.  Nothing was decided except to see how Wilson’s health progressed.  Robert Lansing resigned the following year on February 20 for an “assumption of presidential authority” by calling the cabinet meeting without Wilson’s approval.

Groundbreaking

William Hazelgrove, author of Madam President: The Secret Presidency of Edith Wilson notes the following, “Edith Wilson’s presidency was short – less than two years – but it was groundbreaking. Woodrow Wilson after his stroke could not perform the duties of the presidency and Edith stepped in to fill the role. Edith's guiding principle as president was to keep her husband alive by taking over his job and restricting access to him. Edith’s presidency fits the constitutional definitions of the duties of president. The Constitution defines the president’s first role as commander-in-chief of our military. World War I had just ended but the peace had not been settled. Edith was in the middle of the negotiations to get the Treaty of Versailles ratified and to implement the League of Nations with the United States as a member. Edith exercised five out of the six duties of the presidency. But history is not just facts. It is an accumulation of events and circumstances that interact with individuals upon the grand stage of life. Verisimilitude is by definition that which appears most true, but it is only through the exigencies of shared experience that we see truth. It is the journey after all and not the destination that matters most. It is hard for people to believe the United States had a woman president in 1919. Back then, women didn't take over struggling jewelry businesses or buy and drive cars, certainly not women who had only two years of formal education. But Edith Wilson did all of these things. We cannot know exactly what transpired in the Wilson White House, but since communications were by letters, there is a paper trail that gives us an indication. It is in those letters that we see Edith Wilson's involvement in running the United States from October 1919 to March 1921. “

Yet by deferring to her cabinet officers, and tackling a handful of high priority issues, Mrs. Wilson managed to keep the ship of state afloat. What rendered this possible was the institutional momentum of the executive branch. In the absence of direct guidance from the White House, officials filled the void with their own best judgment, and muddled through.     

A few Republican critics of the president, such as Sen. Albert Fall (R-N.M.), railed against “petticoat government,” but the President’s Democratic allies largely circled the wagons, ignoring his obvious impairment, while adversaries in his own party, including Vice President Thomas Marshall, remained conspicuously silent.

Legacy

Unfortunately, in the absence of authoritative White House leadership, institutional forces could only keep the government machine well-oiled for so long. Eventually, Mrs. Wilson’s method of temporizing and triage proved inadequate. Wilson’s illness exacerbated his more negative qualities of stubbornness and his need to be right.  He absolutely refused to compromise on the Versailles treaty to get it through Congress. Wilson was so far out of the loop due to his illness that he didn’t comprehend the extent of the opposition in the Senate and that the only way to get the treaty passed was with Henry Cabot Lodge’s reservations. Edith tried to convince him to change his mind. Because of his unwillingness, the Democrats didn’t have enough votes to ratify the treaty, and the United States ended up not joining the League of Nations. Had Wilson resigned at the outset of his illness when he had suggested it, and Vice President Marshall succeeded as President, or at least assumed the role until Wilson was better, a compromise would have been reached with Lodge and the treaty passed. The United States would have joined the League of Nations and played an active role in the international peace organization in the years leading up to World War II. If Edith had put the nation’s needs ahead of her husband, Wilson’s dream of America playing a significant role on the international stage would have come to fruition.  As it was, his successor Warren Harding took America back to its isolationist stance.

What do you think of First Lady Edith Galt Wilson’s ‘stewardship’ of the American presidency? Let us know below.

Britain’s Imperial Decline Before 1945

The British Empire did not suddenly start its decline in the post World War Two period; instead it was an event that began much earlier. The British Empire had been expanding and stretching out across the globe since the 1600s. After the American War of Independence Britain began to build a new empire with a new urgency. The British Empire grew to some thirteen million square miles and to govern over five hundred million subjects. This article focuses on Britain’s decline after World War 1 by looking at Egypt, Iraq, Ireland, and India.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq. He was King from 1921 to 1933.

The Decline of the British Empire

The contraction of the British Empire had already begun in the nineteenth century starting with Canada. Up until to 1921 Britain’s presence in the world was occupying a quarter of the planet’s land surface. Certain countries at distinct stages within that empire enjoyed a more independent status than others. Australia and New Zealand achieved their independence peacefully but others like Ireland would be forced to take a more violent approach in fighting Imperialist domination.

Independence was driven by motives such as the general desire of those nations to run their own affairs and the need to detach themselves from colonial repression and bloodshed (such as in Ireland and India). There was also the inequalities of trade in India, Iraq was piqued that they had found themselves rid of Ottoman only to have lost that freedom to British rule and subsequently lose control of their natural resources, and then just as important colonial rule often involved being dragged into the conflicts of far off European nations.

The Dominions

Canada, Australia, South Africa, and New Zealand independence came in the form of Dominion status which was achieved by a more diplomatic avenue. Dominion status was defined as ”autonomous communities within the British Empire, equal in status, in no way subordinate one to another in any aspect of their domestic or external affairs, though united by a common allegiance to the Crown and freely associated as members of the British Commonwealth of Nations.”

Britain granted a Dominion Status in the 1907 Imperial Conference to a select number of nations. Australia and New Zealand were enjoying this privileged status since 1900 and 1901 respectively. South Africa would follow in 1910 after a series of unifications within its borders. Canada had already enjoyed this status since 1867. The Irish Free State would follow in 1922.

In 1926 the Imperial Conference revisited Dominion status with the Balfour Declaration which would be formalised and recognised in law with the Statute of Westminster in 1931. The British Empire now was now known as the Commonwealth of Nations. The Imperial hold had loosened but Britain initiated the change to allow complete sovereignty for the Dominions. The First World War left Britain with enormous debts, and reduced her ability and in turn her effectiveness to provide for the defence of its empire. The larger Dominions were reluctant to leave the protection of Britain as many Canadians felt that being part of the British Empire was the only thing that had prevented them from the control of the United States, while the Australians would later look to Britain for defence in the face of Japanese militarism. Except for the Irish Free State this change did not stop these dominions from supporting Britain in her declaration of war against Germany in 1939.

But between the interwar years there were further challenges to Britain’s Empire from various parts of the world. By the time the Great War was over India, Egypt, Ireland, and Iraq were all taking a less than passive approach in their demand for independence.

Egypt

Britain had partially governed Egypt since the 1880s under a veiled protectorate primarily to look after her interests and investments. It was never officially part of the British Empire in the same way for example as Rhodesia, Malaysia, India, or Cyprus. As soon as the Great War ended Egypt was demanding her own independence. By 1919 a series of protests had morphed into uprisings against British rule known as the 1919 Revolution. In that same year at the Paris Peace Conference, Egypt had sent representatives to seek independence from Britain. The sheer volume of international issues following the war distracted the allies and put Britain’s particular attentions elsewhere and Egypt left empty handed.

In 1920 an Egyptian mission led by Adli Pasha was invited by Britain to address the issues in Egypt. This mission arrived in the summer of that year and presented a set of proposals on independence for both Britain and Egypt to agree but after a return visit in June 1921 to ratify the agreement the mission left in “disgust”. No agreement could be reached on these proposals by Parliament or the Dominions at the Imperial Conference, notably over the control of the Suez Canal. More unrest in Egypt would follow resulting in martial law and by December 1921 the British realized that the situation was clearly unsustainable, and so they declared the Unilateral Independence of Egypt in February 1922. This independence would be in a limited form as the British still had control of the railways, police, courts, army, and the Suez Canal. By 1936 British rule had unwound further as King Farouk agreed an Anglo- Egyptian Treaty leaving just a garrison of troops to guard Britain’s commercial interests in the Suez Canal. This unwelcome presence was enough to involve Egyptian territory in the Second World War to the chagrin of the Egyptians.

Iraq

In 1932 Britain granted Iraq independence after a brief post war mandate that presided over the newly formed nation after the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. From as early as 1920 Iraq had revolted against British occupation. Iraq now broke free of Ottoman rule only to find it had been substituted by their new British masters. The British military quickly quashed the revolts but like Ireland and other areas of the empire military repression was not the lasting solution, and the British continued in vain in Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra.

Part of the answer was giving the throne to a British friendly monarch King Fayṣal, with British control in the background. A plebiscite in August 1921 augmented his position. A treaty of Alliance replaced the formal mandate obligating Britain to provide advice on foreign and domestic affairs, such as military, judicial, and financial matters - but the matter was not yet over.

King Faisal would still depend on British support to maintain his rule. The Anglo-Iraqi Treaty of 1930 provided for a close alliance which essentially meant Iraq had limited control on matters of foreign policy and would have to provide for an ongoing British military presence on her territory. The conditions granted the British the use of air bases near Basra and at Habbaniyah and the right to move troops across the country for a twenty-five-year duration. Despite being a sovereign state by 1932 this treaty would find Iraq being involved in World War Two as the British fought against Nazi infiltration.

Ireland

Ireland, like India and Iraq, was another violent struggle for independence, and this was closer to home shores. The conflict would inflict wounds that both sides would not easily forget and forgive at least well into the twenty-first century.

The desire for home rule was long anticipated and had been on the negotiating table since the nineteen century premiership of William Gladstone. All efforts to push the Home Rule Bill of 1886 had been thwarted by the political opposition because it was feared an Independent Ireland would pose a security threat providing an opportunity for Britain’s foes. Also, for the diehard Imperialists this might prompt other demands for independence across the Empire.

The patience of the Irish nation would grow thin. A third Home Rule Bill was almost formalised in 1914 but the outbreak of war suspended its implementation. The ever long wait and the lack of clarity over the fate of Northern Ireland’s Six Counties caused an escalation in violence. The most notable event was the Easter Rising in 1916 but more violence and further escalations occurred in the post war years as the British tried to reassert control with military means. It was by then too late for such measures.

Ireland would make unsuccessful attempts to gain support at the 1919 Peace Conference in Paris and in particular President Wilson. In 1920 the Government of Ireland Act (fourth Home Rule Bill) was introduced by the British Government. It was far from satisfactory as far as Ireland was concerned as they wanted to completely break away from its relationship with Westminster and its unpopular allegiance to the Crown. It also divided off the Northern Ireland from the rest of the country which remained part of the United Kingdom.

In 1922 dominion status was granted but it was not enough for the independence movement. The newly Irish Free State wanted total severance from the crown and the removal of the oath of allegiance. Dominion status was not satisfactory in the immediate post war years, and the Irish made strenuous representations to the League of Nations that they had the capability to become a fully independent nation, which they would achieve by 1937.

A number of laws that were passed, including the Constitution (Amendment No. 27) Act 1936 and the Executive Powers (Consequential Provisions) Act 1937, removed the Imperial Role of Governor General. Then, using religious grounds following the outrage from King Edward’s abdication, Ireland finally severed all remaining ties with Britain to become a fully independent nation. The Irish experience and the way they achieved their independence constitutionally would be noticed and emulated by other colonies much later.

India

India was also challenging British rule in this interwar period. The Montagu-Chelmsford Reforms of 1917 that became the 1919 Government of India Act was an early attempt to establish a self-governing model for India. Indian nationalists felt that it fell short of expectations after their commitment to Britain in the First World War. The post war period had been hard on India, the flu epidemic and Imperialist free trade had affected society in all kinds of ways. The Rowlatt Act also fuelled the nationalist anger and allowed for the detention of any protesters and suppression of unrest. Protests encountered a typical coercive and violent reaction by Britain. This use of force was particularly heavy handed in Amritsar in April 1919 when Brigadier General Dyer had his troops open fire on a crowd killing almost four hundred local protestors. It was sufficiently bloodthirsty to cause even the bellicose Churchill to deem it “utterly monstrous,” but a subsequent enquiry failed to deliver justice to the perpetrators and exacerbated the situation. The British response was all in vain and in fact it fuelled Gandhi’s Non-Co-operation campaign. The issue would not go away but it would take another twenty-seven years to achieve independence.

Conclusion

The decline of the Britain’s Empire only accelerated in the post war period. The “Wind of Change” that Harold Macmillan spoke of on his visit to Africa in the 1950s was the just a continuation of the Empire’s sunset from many decades earlier. By the 1970s little of the Empire remained save for a few scattered islands around the world.

What do you think of the decline of Britain’s Empire after World War One? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s 1920s Communist Scare here.

References

Britain Alone – David Kynaston – Faber 2021

AJP Taylor – English History 1914-1945 – Oxford University Press 1975

The Decline and Fall of The British Empire – Piers Brendon – Vintage Digital 2010

Nicholas White – The British Experience Since 1945 – Routledge 2014

Losing Ireland, losing the Empire: Dominion status and the Irish Constitutions of 1922 and 1937 - Luke McDonagh

International Journal of Constitutional Law, Volume 17, Issue 4, October 2019, Pages 1192–1212

The U.S. Response After Pearl Harbor: The Doolittle Raid

The surprise World War 2 Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, caused many Americans to shift their focus from wondering and worrying about the well-being of other countries’ residents to fear that another attack on the United States might be forthcoming.

To quell those fears, the United States government allowed Japanese-Americans and Japanese aliens living in the United States to be sent to internment camps. The U.S. also assisted European allies in their battles against Germany and planned and carried out the Doolittle Raid against mainland Japan.

Janel Miller explains.

One of the U.S. planes after landing in Vladivostok, USSR following the Doolittle Raid in April 1942.

Multiple Raid Scenarios Considered

The idea of the Doolittle Raid – the first-ever raid on Japan – was hatched within weeks of Pearl Harbor. High-ranking members of the United States military spent several months fine-tuning an aerial attack on the Asian country’s industrial centers of Tokyo, Tokyo Bay, Yokohama, the Yokosuka Navy Yard, Nagoya, Ōsaka and Kōbe.

Air Force member James Harold Doolittle, who had previously set several aviation records and also had become one of the first men in the United States to earn a Doctor of Science degree in aeronautics, volunteered to lead the attack and was chosen to do so.

The hope was that the Doolittle Raid on Japan would cause anxiety among the country’s residents, damage many of its resources, slow its production and military advances abroad, enhance the United States’ relationships with its allies, and receive the support of the American public.

Several types of planes were considered for use in the raid. However, various characteristics of some of the aircraft were deemed unsuitable for the mission. Specifically, the Martin B-26 Marauder had “unsuitable handling characteristics” and the Douglas B-23 Dragon’s wingspan was “too great … to be comfortably operated from a carrier deck” that would carry the planes to a location off the Japanese coast). Ultimately, the North American B-25 Mitchell (hereafter referred to as B-25s) was chosen for the raid.

Different times of conducting the raid were also considered. One proposal called for the B-25s taking off from a carrier (ultimately, the Hornet was chosen for the mission) several hours before daybreak. This offered the pros of hitting the Japanese targets as daylight approached, providing the maximum amount of surprise and good visibility but the cons and dangers of the B-25s taking off at night and illuminating the Hornet while out at sea. Another proposal involved the raid occurring while there was a significant amount of daylight while flying over Japan. However, to do so would have eliminated the surprise element of the raid.

Doolittle recalled in a 1983 interview that several different ways of escaping should the Japanese catch up to the B-25s in the air before the raid could begin were also considered.

“The plan was that if we were within range of Japan, we would go ahead and bomb our targets, fly out to sea and hope, rather futilely, to be picked up by one of the two submarines that were in the area,” he said. “If we were within range of the Hawaiian Islands — say, Midway — we would immediately clear their decks and proceed to Midway so they could utilize the [fleet of ships supporting the raid] properly.”

“If, on the other hand, we weren't within range of anyplace we could go, we would push our aircraft overboard so that the Hornet's deck would be cleared, and they could protect themselves,” Doolittle added.

Details Of Raid Described

The final Doolittle Raid plan called for the Hornet to take the B-25s approximately 600 miles east of Tokyo. Then, on April 18, 1942, the B-25s would disperse and their crews drop bombs on their respective Japanese target, flying at treetop level on the approach to the target, climbing to 1,500 feet while dropping the bombs, returning to treetop level and flying to the Chinese city of Chuchow.

Those who would be in the B-25s were all volunteers who were thoroughly trained in cross-country flying, night flying and navigation, as well as “low altitude approaches to bombing targets, rapid bombing and evasive action,” according to the U.S. Navy. Doolittle told a 1983 interviewer that the bond between those flying the planes and those controlling the carrier was not immediate.

“We felt a little out of place on a carrier, and they felt a little out of place having us there,” he said. “But when we went under the San Francisco Bridge, over the radio said, ‘Hear ye, hear ye.’ Everybody aboard was told not exactly where we were going, not exactly what we were going to do, but that this was a mission against Japan. From then on, there was complete rapport,” Doolittle added.

Richard Cole, who occupied one of the B-25s on April 18, recalled in 1957 that “everyone prayed but did so in an inward way. If anyone was scared, it didn’t show.”

Each B-25 carried four 500-pound bombs, two .50-caliber machine guns, a .30-caliber machine gun, spare fuel tanks and two dummy wooden machine gun barrels. Although the B-25 planes from the United States took off from the U.S.S. Hornet earlier than planned, they still managed to drop about 14 tons of explosives on their Japanese targets.

Japan had been monitoring the United States Navy’s radio in the days leading up to the Doolittle Raid. Although it did not have the specific date of the raid ahead of time, it felt an attack was imminent. The Asian country received word from a fishing boat on the day of the attack of the U.S. raid that was coming. Despite these warnings, Japan’s success in fighting back was limited. The country also sent bombers and carrier fighters in a fruitless attempt to search for the fleet of U.S. ships supporting the raid. A member of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s administration stated roughly six months after the raid that the U.S. participants in the raid was carried out on military targets "with remarkable accuracy."

A lack of fuel kept the B-25s from landing at Chuchow. Fifteen of the B-25s crash-landed in Japanese-occupied territory or abandoned their aircraft in the waters near Japan and China. Another B-25 landed in the Soviet Union. Not all of those in the B-25s returned to American soil alive. Three were killed in the crash landings or while parachuting, three were executed after being captured by the Japanese and another died of disease and starvation while in captivity.

Mission Largely Accomplished

The Doolittle Raid “was important to morale both here and in Japan,” its namesake said at a 1983 event.

About one month after the attack, United States Senator and member of the Senate Naval Affairs Committee Millard E. Tydings (D-Md.), reported that the raid was causing Japan to develop a new plan for winning the war.

"This lesson will not be lost on the Japanese, and their present apparently altered strategy is an indication that there is no greater fear in Japan right now than the fear of repeated bombings such as was inaugurated by General Doolittle," he continued. Thus, another Japanese attack on United States’ soil seemed highly unlikely, and the raid also saved the Soviet Union from a Japanese attack, Tydings said.

In Context

The concept of retaliating, rather than sitting passively by and doing nothing, is all too common, especially in wartime.

For example, in 1773, colonists protested British taxes by famously dumping tea – one of the most popular beverages of the time – into Boston Harbor prior to the American Revolution. During the Civil War more than 90 years later, General William T. Sherman and his troops blazed a deadly path across Georgia in response to the South seceding from the Union several years earlier. Much more recently, in 2003, the United States declared that the major battles the U.S. had engaged in while in Iraq in response to the tragedies of September 11, 2001, were over.

In the years since the Doolittle Raids, the United States’ relationship with Japan has improved beyond recognition. Perhaps, just perhaps, one legacy of the Doolittle Raids may be that with time, bitter arch-rivals can become friendly non-competitors.

What do you think of impact of the Doolittle Raids? Let us know below.

References

Loproto, Mark. “How America Changed After Pearl Harbor.” https://pearlharbor.org/america-changed-pearl-harbor/. Published February 1, 2017. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Pippert, Wesley G. “The National Was Gripped by Hysteria and Fear When …” https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/14/The-nation-was-gripped-by-hysteria-and-fear-when/2681363931200/. United Press International. Published July 14, 1981. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Loproto, Mark. “America’s Response to Pearl Harbor – An Unexpected First Target.” https://pearlharbor.org/americas-response-pearl-harbor-unexpected-first-target/. Published January 8, 2018. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james.  Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Encyclopedia Britannica Editors. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.britannica.com/event/Doolittle-Raid. . Accessed January 11, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html. . Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Interview with United States Air Force General James Harold (Jimmy) Doolittle (Ret.). https://www.usni.org/press/oral-histories/doolittle-james. Recorded February 1983. Accessed January 17, 2023.

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times.  https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html. . Published April 19, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Fish, B. Additional Historic Information [on] The Doolittle Raid (Hornet). https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=0CAQQw7AJahcKEwiQ-tvOvcr8AhUAAAAAHQAAAAAQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fuss-hornet.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2017%2F11%2FWebsite-Extended-Info-Doolittle-Raid.pdf&psig=AOvVaw2s2f85P-1fNrjzIr2XnAmm&ust=1673902936487101. . Accessed January 15, 2023.

Naval History and Heritage Command. “Doolittle Raid.” https://www.history.navy.mil/browse-by-topic/wars-conflicts-and-operations/world-war-ii/1942/halsey-doolittle-raid.html.  Published May 10, 2019. Accessed January 11, 2023.

"Losses During April Are Admitted Today." Spokane Daily Chronicle, page 1. Published October 22, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023. https://www.newspapers.com/image/564334859. .

Goldstein, Richard. “Richard Cole, 103, Last Survivor of Doolittle Raid on Japan, Dies.” The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/09/obituaries/richard-cole-dead.html.  Published April 19, 2019. The New York Times.

Krebs A. The New York Times. “James Doolittle, 96, Pioneer Aviator Who Led First Raid on Japan, Dies.”https://www.nytimes.com/1993/09/29/us/james-doolittle-96-pioneer-aviator-who-led-first-raid-on-japan-dies.html. Published September 29, 1993. Accessed January 11, 2023.

Reynolds, HK. "Nippon Is Out To Capture Chinese Bases." The El Paso Times, page 3. https://www.newspapers.com/image/429555500.. Published May 25, 1942. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Boston Tea Party.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-revolution/boston-tea-party. Published October 27, 2009. Accessed January 15, 2023.

History.com Editors. History.com. “Sherman’s March to the Sea.” https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march. . Published February 22, 2010. Accessed January 15, 2023.

White House Archives. “President Bush Announces Major Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended.” https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-15.html. Published May 1, 2003. Accessed January 15, 2023.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan. “Japan-United States of America Relations.” https://www.mofa.go.jp/na/na1/us/page23e_000329.html. . Published September 14, 2022. Accessed January 15, 2023.

The History of the Bikini - And How it was Inspired by a Nuclear Test

It was the summer of 1946, the place: the vast wastes of the Pacific. A mighty armada of military personnel and scientists gathered around a cluster of tiny islands and coral reefs. They were about to unleash something terrifying: the first planned atomic test, named Operation Crossroads. The location chosen, as far away from human beings as possible, was a small island group called the Bikini Atoll, a part of the Marshall Islands. These pin-prick islands thrusting their head just above the western Pacific could have been on the far side of the moon as far as most people were concerned. But they would soon become a household word. One reason was the atomic test, the other, although notably less violent, would send even greater tremors throughout the world than the 23-kiloton bomb exploded on July 1, 1946. In one of the more enjoyable examples of the Law of Unexpected Consequences, the result of this test was the increased popularity of a very skimpy type of clothing called the Bikini. How did a cutting-edge weapon of mass destruction become linked with popular beach wear? The story begins in that first post-war summer.

Victor Gamma explains.

Micheline Bernardini wearing a bikini in 1946. Source: Hulton Archive, here.

Ever since Hiroshima, atomic energy had intrigued the general public and produced far-reaching cultural effects as well. In the United States, the Atomic Cafe opened in Los Angeles that year. Not long afterward, Lyle Griffin would found “Atomic Records” as a label.  France would have its own unique reaction: a daring new line of swimwear. With this design the redoubtable French recaptured the lead in the post-war fashion industry while barely missing a beat. The product they unleashed on the world would have a more far-reaching impact than a cafe in California.

The bikini was the latest result of the ultimate product of historical processes reaching back generations. The twentieth century could be called the Age of the Plummeting hem line. From the turn-of-the century, when bathing gowns and bathing machines dominated the scene without a leg showing, to the 1940’s two-piece, Inch by inch the women’s beachwear shrunk until by the 1940s two piece outfits that exposed the midriff were well established. The hips, back and breast were still well-covered and it was still unacceptable for women to expose their belly button in public. World War II sped up the trend towards greater skimpiness. War-time shortages of fabrics led to rationing. On March 8, 1942 the United States War Production Board issued Regulation L-85 which ordered the swimwear industry to reduce by 10% the amount of fabric for women. The swimwear industry responded with a number of changes. Basically they became less frilly, more functional and in the process, exposed more skin, including two-piece suits with bare midriffs. In the United States, geographically the war was a distant event Americans only read or heard about. Thus, unlike in war-torn Europe, Americans were free to indulge their favorite habits, such as enjoying a day at the beach. American fashion designers had done their patriotic best to meet war-time shortages by removing some superfluous material.  But those worn in the US were quite modest compared to the bombshell French designers were about to drop.  

In 1946, after years of shortages and air raid sirens, Europeans looked forward to the first peace-time summer in 6 years. That and the reality of conditions in France led many to seek distractions. The economy was in shambles, citizens felt the bite of food shortages and much of decaying buildings in Paris showed the results of years of neglect. More than anything, the war-weary French yearned to enjoy sunny days at the traditional vacation spots. For many this meant packing up the family and heading to the beach. These had been closed for much of the war. In the spirit of healthy patriotic capitalism, some saw a way to help out and make money at the same time. Said one fashion designer, “In 1946 France had just come out of the war and people needed to live again - I felt I had to design something that would make people understand that life can start over and be beautiful.” Men like this were busy at their design desks focusing on ideas that would match the liberated mood of the season.  Among these were a former auto engineer named Louis Réard and clothing designer Jacques Heim.

An Unlikely Connection 

The fashion industry thrives on novelty and the changing of seasons. Knowing this, Réard and Heim both raced to create a new swimwear for the fast approaching summer. Partly influenced by on-going shortages of material caused by the recent World War, both were intent on pushing the limits on size. Both also shared the current obsession with atomic energy. Heim, who owned a beach-supply shop on the French Riviera, introduced a two-piece swimwear in May, 1946. This was actually a re-launching of an earlier design influenced by Tahitian dancers. He called his creation “The Atom” after the smallest known particle of matter. It featured a bottom that covered the navel, even if barely. Heim hired skywriters to fly over the most popular beaches declaring the “Atom:the world’s smallest bathing suit.”

Unfortunately for Heim, his ambition and talent was shared by Réard. He followed Heim’s progress with the attention of a shark and decided to use his product and marketing as a launch pad for his own creation. Despite his engineering background, he found himself running his mother’s lingerie shop by the 1940s. A natural competitor, Heim’s creation pushed him to do something even more attention-getting. The observant engineer noticed women at the beach at St. Tropez rolling up the edges of their swimwear to get more tan. In what would be a fortuitous turn of events, his mother’s shop also served as the shoe shop for the famous cabaret Les Folies bergère. Here he most likely saw costumes very similar to his own creation. Some dancers wore outfits using as little as 30 inches of fabric consisting of a bra and two inverted triangles. All of this inspired the intrepid engineer to surpass Heim. Why couldn’t he take what was basically a cabaret outfit and merchandise it for use in a mainstream setting? He rushed to his design desk and trimmed material off the bottom design. The result was a daring combination of halter top connected by a neck and back strap. The lower piece was simply two inverted triangles connected by a gstring. It was indeed smaller than Heim’s, using a mere 30 inches of fabric. The main difference between Réard and Heim’s design was that Réard challenged convention by exposing the navel and much of the buttocks. He promoted his creation as a direct challenge to Heim “smaller than the smallest bathing suit in the world.”  Réard chose a newspaper pattern for his new swimwear confident that it would be newsworthy. It was also a shameless ploy to win the favor of the journalist community. 

Next came the task of choosing an appropriate name. What would resonate with the public? The news-savvy engineer knew that the attention of all France was riveted on the atomic tests taking place that summer. Réard could thank Operation Crossroads for choosing the location they did. They could have easily selected a nearby island such as Allinglaplap. As it was, the site chosen contained just the perfect combination of syllables. As the engineer-turned-fashion icon later explained “At that time everybody spoke of the island of Bikini in the pacific, enchanted, tiny, fine sand, a paradise. The idea came to me to make a swimsuit tiny like that island.” More likely, Réard simply wanted to beat Heim in the competition. Réard’s creative genius made the connection between two seemingly unrelated things: his daring swimwear and the current atomic tests. With the natural instincts of a Madison Avenue advertising talent, he put the two together: The new atomic age and a revolutionary new line of swimwear. Next, he chose a very attention-getting slogan - 'The Bikini will be explosive.’ Two weeks after the Able atomic bomb test, Réard registered the name Bikini for his latest swimwear creations. What the wily Frenchman was in effect saying was that his design was as momentous an occasion as the Atomic Bomb. In his words, “Like the bomb, the bikini is small but devastating.” 

Search for a Model    

Of course, the full effect could not be appreciated without someone to wear it for the public. He especially needed models who specialized in swimwear. Since the design would be considered scandalous, this took some doing. His string two-piece left very little to the imagination. Essentially, the model would be appearing semi-naked in public. None of the usual models were willing to wear his ‘bikini’ let alone waltz around in public in a skimpy two-piece. Réard, in fact, was forced to find a strip-tease dancer. Fortunately for Réard there were dancers of the other type: someone not shy about exposure in public. In a fortuitous circumstance, Réard’s shop was located not too distant from the Casino de Paris. This was a well-established music hall that attracted patrons from all over the world for generations. Famed for the lavish costumes, the Casino dancers wore a wild diversity of costumes including some resembling Réard’s later bikini. The Casino de Paris also sometimes featured topless and nude dancing. Among the dancers in 1946 was an 18-year old strip-dancer named Micheline Bernardini.  When Réard offered to hire her to model his new two-piece, she readily agreed. She donned the string two-piece bathing attire and stepped into history. 

Public Exposure

Next Réard arranged a press conference to take place as an outdoor fashion show at the Piscine Molitor, a popular public swimming pool in Paris. The date was July 5, 1946, five days after the Atomic detonation at Bikini Atoll. At the event she posed for a number of photographs. Reard arranged a press conference. Bernardini posed and held a matchbox, indicating that the entire outfit could fit in the tiny container. Never one to miss a beat, Réard kept repeating his advertising slogan; "Bikini--smaller than the smallest bathing suit in the world." 

That summer’s fashion wars waxed hot the following weeks as Heim and Réard vied with each other to capture the market. Réard hired his own skywriters to specifically counter Heim’s claim, beachgoers looked up to see "smaller than the smallest swimming suit in the world.” The merciless engineer continued his campaign to overshadow Heim by proclaiming that he had “split the atom.” Sadly for Heim, his competitor was a natural showman and, although he was first and initially sold more, it was Réard’s name bikini that stuck.

Reaction

The reaction was indeed explosive. Like it or hate it - it could not be ignored. “Four triangles of nothing,” asserted one newspaper. Heim and Réard’s instincts proved correct. France, buoyed by recent liberation and excited to enjoy life again (a French specialty), fixed its attention on the latest fashion breakthrough. Some in the press remarked that the bikini design must have been inspired by the atomic tests because the wearer looked like a survivor from a nuclear blast, whose clothes were reduced to tatters. Others speculated that the primitive islanders living near the blast influenced the simplicity of the design. Whatever the press commentary, much of the public loved the daring new outfit. The delighted Réard was deluged by fan mail to the tune of 50,000 within a short-time of the event at Piscine Molitor. The obscure Miss Bernardini also became something of a celebrity, receiving at least 500,000 fan letters. Réard would continue hammering his message with an advertising campaign that included the slogan “It’s not a genuine bikini unless it could be pulled through a wedding ring.” The witty engineer followed up with such descriptions of this design that it "reveals everything about a girl except for her mother's maiden name." Another gem from the quotable designer was that the bikini had "just enough to protect the property without spoiling the view." 

Despite the sensationalism generated by the press, as well the pronouncements of cultural spokespersons such as Diana Vreeland: “The bikini is the most important thing since the atom bomb,” mainstream life at the beach continued to reflect more conservative dress until the 1960s. Except for the jet-set that adopted the latest Paris fashions and took them to their favorite hot place, international sales were disappointing. Other than a core of enthusiastic supporters and women of the more daring type, the insubstantial design was too revealing for most people. Although by the 1930s women’s swimwear displayed the entire leg, midriff and had a plunging neckline, Réard’s design pushed well beyond those limits. "I can't think of any situation in the thousand years before the 1960s when it was acceptable to show the navel, " said Kevin Jones, a curator and fashion historian at the Fashion Institute of Design & Merchandising in Los Angeles. “It was avant-garde; it was ahead of its time,” said Miss Rayer, co-author of a book on the bikini’s history. “In that epoch, we were still puritan.”

Legacy

When the bikini began to appear on the beaches, it was banned almost everywhere. Citations were given in Italy for wearing a bikini as late as 1957. In more progressive nations, the bikini began to gain traction, so promoters attempted to endorse it. But time was on the side of the bikini. They, of course, dominate most beaches today. By the 2000s the bikini industry generated over $800 million yearly. By the time Réard died in 1984, bikinis would amount to as much as 20% of the swimwear market. But more than introducing a popular product, Réard’s creation reflected changing standards. What Réard essentially did was to mainstream a mode of dress that had up to that point been relegated to places of ill-repute. In 2007 Le Figaro trumpeted “For women, wearing a bikini signaled a kind of second liberation…It was … a celebration of freedom and a return to the joys of life.” Since Réard’s time the bikini and swimwear have continued to evolve, as have cultural attitudes about issues related to femininity and modesty. In the future, innovation, creativity and the continuous quest to push the boundaries of acceptability are sure to provide new expressions. 

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

Now read Victor’s series on how the US misjudged Fidel Castro here.

Bibliography

Rubin, Alissa J. “From Bikinis to Burkinis, Regulating What women Wear.” The New York Times, August 27, 2016.

From Bikinis to Burkinis, Regulating What Women Wear - The New York Times 

Hendrix, Steve. “You have this French man to thank - or chastise - for creating the modern bikini.” The Lily News, July 10, 2018.

You have this French man to thank — or chastise — for creating the modern bikini

“Man Who Invented the Bikini Bares his Thoughts.” The Dispatch, Nov. 5, 1974. 

The Dispatch - Google News Archive Search 

Stanton, Audrey. “The Scandalous History Of The Bikini.” The Good Trade, August 2, 2019.

 The Scandalous History Of The Bikini — The Good Trade

Image fair use rationale: Educational. This photograph plays a fundamental part in the history of the bikini. It is essential to explain the history of the bikini in the post-war period.

Nazi Involvement in the Spanish Civil War: The Nazis Longest Lasting Political and Military Victory

Nazi Germany was actively involved in the Spanish Civil War on the side of General Franco’s Nationalists. The Nazis helped the Nationalists in various ways. Here, Daniel Boustead looks at how the Nazis supported them militarily.

The aftermath of the bombing of Guernica, Spain. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-H25224 / Unknown author / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Nazi Germany’s involvement in the Spanish Civil War has been well documented by historians. The origins of Nazis support for the Spanish Nationalists was between 1931 and 1936. Nazi military support for Francisco Franco’s Nationalist forces was entirely motivated by political and financial reasons. The Nazi support helped the Nationalists achieve important military and strategic victories during the conflict. In the Spanish Civil War the Nazis got to test out new military weapons and tactics which would be later used effectively in World War II. In fact the Nazis were probably the decisive factor in bringing Francisco Franco to power in Spain.

In 1931 the monarchy fell in Spain, and it became a republic (1). Spain was thrown into further disarray and chaos after the results of the February 16, 1936, elections. These elections resulted in the left-wing “People’s Front” achieving a majority 473 seats to the other parties 256 seats in the Spanish Parliament. Fearing Spain would drift into a left-wing Communist government, on July 17, 1936, General Mola led, directed and organized a successful uprising in Melilla, Spanish Morocco(2). General Francisco Franco y Bahamonde, was in exile on the Canary Islands and upon hearing the news of the Nationalist uprising in Melilla, he was thrilled.

The government had placed General Francisco Franco as military commander of the Canary Islands as a form of banishment because of his opposition to the government. Franco had previously served as Chief of the General Staff of the Spanish Army of the Second Republic in 1935(4). He had long hated the Spanish government. In short order Franco and General Orgaz assumed the military command of the Canary Islands group. On July 18, 1936, Franco departed for Tetuan, Spanish Morocco aboard a British aircraft, where he arrived on July 19, after an en route stop at Casablanca (3). On that day, having already been informed of the objectives of the revolt by officers allied to Franco, the entire garrison of the city of Tetuan declared itself for the Nationalist side.

The Republican government  had no concern about Franco’s forces in Spanish Morocco. The Republican Naval fleets were carefully watching the Straits of Gibraltar, making transport of any Nationalist units by sea all but impossible. Later, on October 1, 1936, General Franco’s investiture as the New Chief of State of the Spanish State was proclaimed to the Nationalist forces and a ceremony took place (11).

A request to the Nazis

On July 23, 1936, a dispatch arrived at the German Foreign Affairs Office from Tetuan via the German Military Attache in Paris(5). In the dispatch, General Franco and Oberstleutnant Beigbeder, (former Spanish Military Attaché in Berlin), requested the delivery of ten military transport aircraft to Spanish Morocco. The recommendation of the Foreign Affairs Office to the Reich War Ministry, was absolutely neutral and tended to be rather negatively inclined towards Franco’s request. On July 24, 1936, a further telegram reached the German Foreign Affairs Office. It contained an announcement from the Tetuan Consulate that the requestioned and later charted DLH Ju 52 was to fly to Berlin. This flight would bring the Germans Johannes Bernhardt and Adolf Langenheim and a Spanish Air Force Officer Captain Arranz to present a handwritten note from General Franco to the Nazis. Adolf Langenheim was a member of the Nazi Party’s foreign branch in Tetuan and had numerous business dealings with General Franco and was thus well connected with him. Langenheim’s primary motives for supporting and seeking aid to General Franco were more business than idealistic aims. On July 24, 1936, Adolf Langenheim, Johannes Bernhardt, and Spanish Air Force Captain Arrantz arrived at Berlin-Gatow and were sent to see Adolf Hitler who was enjoying the Richard Wagner Festival at Bayreuth. On July 25, 1936, Johannes Bernhardt, Adolf Langenheim, and Captain Arranz, met with Adolf Hitler, Generalfeldmarchall Goring, War Minister Von Blomberg, and a representative of Vizadmiral Raeder, Kapitan zur See Coupette of the German Navy. The meetings between these two parties from July 25-26, 1936, succeeded in giving Nazi support to General Franco’s forces.

Reasons for support

The primary reasons the Nazis wanted to support General Franco was to make Spain a bulwark against Communism, to seek improvement in Germany’s foreign exchange situation, the future of Germany’s trade agreement with Spain, and to improve the interests of the 10,000 ethnic Germans living in Spain. The Initial discussions on the organization and extent of the aid for Spain then moved to the RLM. On July 26, 1936, the Reich RLM’s General der Fleiger Milch gave Generalleutnant Helmut Wilberg the job of creating Sondertab W, a central office for supplying the material and personnel needs of the German volunteers in Spain(6).

On July 26, the mixed delegation’s request for 10 Ju 52 transport aircrafts was increased to 20 Ju 52 transport aircrafts, which were to be delivered to Sevilla and Tetuan by DLH pilots via the shortest possible route that was approved by both sides. Also, in July the organization of HISMA Ltda was formed to act as a cover organization for the agreed upon transport of troops from Spanish Morocco to the mainland, as well as the delivery of German aircraft and materiel. The registered owners of HISMA Ltda was the Spanish Admiral Ramon Carrazanna and Johannes Bernhardt. Until the start of the Legion Condor, HISMA was responsible for supplying, accommodating and paying the German volunteers; in addition, it was the administrative office for all German aid deliveries and the liaison center between the Spanish headquarters and “Sonderstab Wilberg”. On August 6, 1936, the first German equipment, troops and personnel arrived at Cadiz (7). On October 2, 1936, the purely German partner company of HISMA was created in Berlin and was known as ROWAK GmbH, an indication of the Third Reich’s increasing economic interest in events in Spain.

The initial German troops and equipment that landed on Cadiz on August 6, 1936, were quickly transported by rail cars to Sevilla on August 7. In the meantime, ten Ju 52 transports had been ferried to Tablada airfield near Sevilla by Lufthansa captains, so that Bubb Moreau and his forty-two man group were able to begin transport flights from Tetuan to Sevilla at once. The Germans had originally been forbidden to fly operational sorties, except to provide escort to the transport aircraft in these operations(8). The sole task of the volunteer pilots was to train Spanish crews to fly and use the Ju 52 and He 51.

The Nazi supply chain was a success. Indeed, by the time German aerial supply flights ended in mid- October 1936, a total of 13,500 Nationalist men and 269 tons of war material had been flown to Spain(9).

On November 7, the Legion Condor was created under the command of Hugo Sperrle (10). The Legion Condor arrived at the Port of Cadiz and Sevilla on November 29, 1936, helping expand the Nazi’s military role. This unit consisted of an air force unit, anti-aircraft unit, a ground forces unit, and other miscellaneous units (12). On April 26, 1937, the Nazi Condor Legion in conjunction with the Italian Air Force bombed the Basque town of Guernica (13). The bombing of Guernica resulted in blocking the avenue of retreat for the Spanish Republican forces. The bombed out and collapsed structures in Guernica hindered this retreat. According to recent studies, the bombing of Guernica resulted in some 126 tragic deaths (14).

By the end of Spanish Civil War, the Condor Legion had shot down 277 Republican aircraft in air-to-air combat, and 58 by anti-aircraft fire (guns supplied and manned by Germans). This is a grand total of 335 Republican aircraft destroyed by the Legion Condor(18).

The BF 109 Fighter got its combat debut in Spain the from 1937 to 1939 (15). On May 11, 1937, Spanish Gun batteries equipped with 88 mm guns opened fire on two Soviet T-26 B tanks in the grounds of “La Buena Vista”, south of Toledo (16). The German 88 millimeter gun would later become a much-feared anti-tank weapon during World War II.  It was also in the Spanish Civil War where Luftwaffe began to operate as teams as opposed to operating alone in World War I like the Red Baron did  (17). On March 12, 1938, the Legion Condor’s F/88s 88/56 mm anti-aircraft guns were used in conjunction with tanks and ground planes to help the 5th Navarra Division’s advance of 36 kilometers between Belchite and Escatron (19). The unit F/88’s coordination in this attack with tanks and ground attack planes, and the need to change the positions of the anti-aircraft guns three times was a success. This would later be used during the “Blitzkrieg” tactics of World War II .

The Nazi support for Franco helped him get into power and provided the Nazis with their longest lasting military and political victory. Francisco Franco remained in power from 1939 to 1975.

Now, read our book on the Spanish Civil War here.

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

References

1 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans.  The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War-1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 9.

2 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War-1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania.  Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 10.

3 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War-1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania.  Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 10 to 11.

4 Preston, Paul. FRANCO: A Biography. New York: New York. Basic Books. 1994. 109.

5 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania.  Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992 12.

6 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.1992. 12 to 13.

7 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania.  Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 14.

8 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 15.

9 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor; A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939.  Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 17.

10 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 37 to 38.

11 Preston, Paul. FRANCO: A Biography. New York: New York. Basic Books. 1994. 184 to 185.

12 Arias, Raul, Molina, Lucas, and Permuy, Rafel. LEGION CONDOR: HISTORY. ORGANIZATION.UNIFORMS.AWARDS. MEMROBILA 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2013. 40 to 41.

13 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992 62 to 64.

14 Arias, Raul, Molina, Lucas, and Permuy, Rafael. LEGION CONDOR: HISTORY. ORGANIZATION. UNIFORMS. AWARDS. MEMROBILA. 1936-1939.  Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2013. 62 to 63.

15 Ries, Karl and Ring, Hans. The Legion Condor: A History of the Luftwaffe in the Spanish Civil War 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 1992. 261 to 262.

16 Garcia, Jose Ma Manrique and Molina, Lucas. Flak Artillery of the LEGION CONDOR: FLAK Abteilung(mot.) F/88 in the Spanish Civil War . 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing. Ltd. 2009. 46.

17 Pavelec, S. Mike. World War II DATA BOOK: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945: The Essential Facts and Figures for Goring’s Air Force. London: United Kingdom. Amber Books Ltd. 2010. 14.

18 Pavelec, S. Mike. World War II DATA BOOK: The Luftwaffe 1933-1945: The Essential Facts and Figures for Goring’s Air Force. London: United Kingdom. Amber Books Ltd. 2010. 15.

19 Garcia, Jose Ma Manrique and Molina. Lucas. Flak Artillery of the LEGION CONDOR: FLAK Abteilung (mot.) F/88 in the Spanish Civil War. 1936-1939. Atglen: Pennsylvania.  Schiffer Publishing Ltd. 2009. 61.

The Evolution of War-time Counter-Intelligence From World War II to Today

During World War II, psychological warfare was an incredibly important, yet under-appreciated aspect of strategic combat that played an essential role in the Allied Powers’ victory. Whether it was used to misinform enemies with propaganda, or incite fear with inflatable vehicles and dummies, psychological warfare was used by both the Allied Powers and the Axis Alliance during World War II. In the modern day, psychological warfare is still used to intimidate; however overtime, methods and applications have evolved.

Christopher Cho explains.

An inflatable dummy tank based on the M4 Sherman tank.

One of the smartest tactics used by the allied forces were inflatable tanks and paradummies. Developed by a special task force known as, “The Ghost Army,” made up of the most intelligent soldiers and best artists, the Allied Powers utilized a variety of mediums to trick the Nazis, including, “inflatable tanks and vehicles, fake radio traffic, sound effects, even phony generals.” (Ghost Army) Because they were inflatable, these tanks were light enough to be carried by four men across a battlefield and gave the illusion of a much larger military presence. Paradummies, also known as Operation Titanic, were dolls used in place of real paratroopers in order to distract enemies and would often combust upon landing.

Planned by Ralph Ingersoll and Billy Harris and led by Colonel Harry L. Leeder, the Ghost Army and their devices gave the Allied Powers huge advantages during the war and would play a pivotal role in sowing key information for the D-Day invasion. To deceive Germany about the whereabouts of the invasion that would ultimately happen at Normandy, the Ghost Army placed inflatable tanks and military jeeps, where the battles were supposed to take place. Paradummies were dropped along with rifle simulators and SAS (Special Air Service) men to further deceive German soldiers.

The Allied forces had a lot of smart ways of using psychological warfare against their enemy. However, the Nazis and the Axis Powers also had their own forms of psychological warfare. The Axis Alliance were also quite successful when it came to their strategy in psychological warfare, but unlike the allies, they used propaganda as psychological warfare to further their ideological objectives, instead of trying to trick the enemy with fake soldiers and vehicles in order to win military battles. While the Allies tried weakening the Axis, the Axis convinced their soldiers to believe that the systematic extermination of many groups would restore order, using propaganda. Using the radio and other media outlets, Hitler had made the German population believe the Allies (mostly Great Britain and the United States of America) were under the control of Jewish people, creating nationwide antisemitism and justifying the murder of millions solely based on their identity.

Modern day

Though many psychological warfare strategies used during World War II were very successful, most of these strategies have become obsolete in modern day because of advancements in technology. For example, if a country tried to use inflatable tanks or paradummies, modern surveillance technology would easily detect a ruse. Modern day examples can be seen in the Russo-Ukraine war, during Russian protests. Whereas the radio allowed Nazi Germany to disseminate its propaganda in ways never imagined, social media allows the dissemination of propaganda and brings psychological warfare individualized directly to particular tastes. Social media propaganda could be used to make people believe whatever its creator wanted them to believe. Competing interests have simultaneously made citizens of Russia go against Putin and his need for war, but also have been used to further Russian objectives. Many citizens of Russia have started protests, which “... have emerged as the core of Russia’s antiwar movement. This effort includes hundreds of online communities and projects that have sprung up overnight to resist specific war-related government initiatives,” (Olimpieva) Consequently, there are reports of many Russian soldiers who didn't want to fight but were drafted and forced to. This is only one of many examples of psychological warfare being used in modern day, as Russian propaganda has had to work overtime to explain unexpected military losses and to stifle dissent at home.

D-Day was necessary for victory in World War II and the psychological tricks used were essential to the success of the mission. In contrast, the Nazis used their psychological warfare to further their ideological objectives and were also successful in doing this. As Russia continues to employ its psychological warfare to bolster propaganda for their war, the cost of that choice just might be paid in retreat, casualties and more propaganda to explain the failures of the Ukraine invasion to an increasingly sceptical Russian public.

What do you think of wartime counter-intelligence and psychological warfare? Let us know below.

Works Cited

https://www.history.com/news/ghost-army-world-war-ii

https://www.forces-war-records.co.uk/blog/2013/10/04/old-wwii-d-day-paradummy-found-residing-in-garden-shed#:~:text=Paradummies%20were%20used%20as%20a,movie%20'The%20Longest%20Day'

Collapse of the Qing Dynasty: Was the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 an Immediate Reason?

From being a minority to building one of the biggest empires in the world, the Qings have left behind an impressive mark on not only the history of China but of the world. Although not all of it is glorious, the tale of how the Manchus came to be the Qings, the consolidation of power, and their humiliating final years after the Sino-Japanese War of 1894 - surely is a spectacle.

If you missed it, you can read Disha’s article on the First Sino-Japanese War here.

A portrayal of the last Qing Emperor, Puyi. He became emperor at 2 years’ old.

China under Qing Rule

The Manchus were skilled warriors and had already been a formidable force during the Ming dynasty. After uprooting the rule of the Mings, they laid the foundation of an empire that boasted of being the fourth largest in the world at the time. The clan was born in 1636 but it was in the year 1644 that they came to be the ruling dynasty of China.

The seventeenth century was the golden age of Qing imperial rule. Under the Kangxi, Yongzheng, and Qianlong emperors, China prospered and the period is referred to as the High Qing or shengshi. The empire expanded to an unparalleled size. The rule of the Qianlong Emperor was praised in Europe (1). Art and literature proliferated with special attention towards poetry. The Peking Opera also developed during this era.

After the Qianlong Emperor, the dynasty began its descent into infamy.

The population had increased dramatically towards the end of the eighteenth century. This led to the drainage of revenues (2). Migrations occurred in huge numbers as the landless population shifted towards less crowded areas. These added to the government's predicament in effectively administering the people (3).

Groups like Hans, Manchus, Tibetans, Mongols, and Uyghurs formed a multi-ethnic population. But they did not exist in harmony. At times, the non-Hans suffered intolerance from both the people and the administration leading to conflicts (4). This diverted the focus on repressing the conflicts rather than working towards integrating their cultural differences. The rulers, who were Manchus, were still viewed as "outsiders". Throughout their reign, the Qings faced numerous rebellions and uprisings that sought to overthrow them.

The administration during the later Qing era was riddled with corruption. The government did little to encourage trade and modernization. Whatever efforts were done in that field were done by private investors who did not have much power (5). The ritual practices of the period also acted as an impediment to the process of modernization. The ceremonies were ostentatious and the state was reluctant to stop them for changes made in matters of tradition could prove to be disastrous (6).

The bureaucratic system granted excessive power to non-Han officials. Higher-up positions were reserved for Manchus so that they could keep their Han subordinates in check.

Moreover, there had been no attempts to centralize the military out of the fear of giving too much power in the hands of the Han officials (7) and repeating history. The Manchus had seized power from the then-reigning Mings (if the short-lived Shun dynasty is to be excluded). The Ming dynasty was the last dynasty of China to be ruled by Hans. This paranoia could have been a factor in the difficulties in effective management.

Some of the societal facets which existed before the coming of the Qings continued during their reign, somewhat emboldened even. For example, the tradition of the civil service examination that had commenced back in the sixth century by the hands of the Sui dynasty was used to fill positions in the administration. Voltaire applauded this system stating no government could be better than the one in China (8). While it served the noble purpose of hiring qualified people in the government, it also widened the gap between the elite and the commoners. The society was marked with strict demarcations dividing the "respectable" and the lower classes. Those considered inferior were not allowed to give the civil service exam. Many endeavors were made to assimilate the different sections of society but one thing still withstood these changes. The disparity between the high society and the common man prevailed.

At the advent of the 1860s, the world had begun witnessing important events like the American Civil War, the unification of Germany and Italy, etc. This period overlapped with China's failed attempt at restoring the dynasty's declining domination, known as the Tongzhi Restoration, engineered by the Empress Dowager Cixi (9).

The Unequal Treaties

Treaties have been a crucial part of international law. Whether they are signed to end wars or form an alliance, the important fact that's solidified with a treaty is that the states have entered into an agreement. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, several western powers made Asian and African states sign treaties that were unjust as they were advantageous for only one of the parties involved. It, however, has been argued that only the first three treaties were "unequal" and the later ones were more considerate toward China (10).

The Treaty of Nanjing, the first of the unequal treaties, gave extraterritorial rights to Britain by granting them Hong Kong. The Qing officials were ignorant of the meaning of these treaties. Apparently, they had no problem with the unfair clauses of the treaty and giving up their territories to a foreign country but were outraged that the name of their emperor was listed along with the monarch of the ‘barbarians' (11).

A major blow to the dynasty came with the Taiping Rebellion in 1850. Already undermined by their defeat in the First Opium War, the state of the Qing empire kept on deteriorating. During this period of political unrest, several rebellions ensued that weakened the integrity of the Qing rule even further. The emperor had to ask for help from regional leaders. These leaders had their own armies (12) and depended on the emperor for nothing, which questioned the superiority of the monarch.

For many years, imperial China had remained isolated. The people were not knowledgeable about the ways of other states, say of the West, that were busy colonizing. Russian officials saw an advantage in the tumultuous state China was in and used this vulnerability to acquire no small area of land along the Russo-Chinese border. The land they amassed was more than the size of Japan (13). Given all these circumstances, it was clear that the age of the High Qing was nearing its end.

After the First Sino-Japanese War

Anti-Manchu sentiments had started brewing since the end of the First Opium War but the defeat in the war of 1894 fanned it to an alarming extent (14). The dynasty had lost its glory earned during the High Qing era. The loss incurred by the empire by the Treaty of Shimonoseki was immense. Having to let go of the Liaodong peninsula in southern Manchuria, the homeland of the Qings, added insult to injury (15).

The political crises occurring in China distressed a scholar named Kang Youwei. Having lived in Hong Kong in his youth, he was impressed by the Westernization there. Taking the example of the modernization in Japan and Hong Kong he, along with Liang Qichao and some similar-minded people, advised the emperor to carry out similar reforms. In 1898, they started the Hundred Days' Reform but their suggestions were not to the liking of Empress Dowager Cixi. She declared herself regent and put the emperor under house arrest (16), thus putting a stop to the development of the movement.

A famine struck China in 1908 that took the lives of about 25 million people and was recorded as one of the worst in human history. This increased the people's dissatisfaction with the imperial rule. What followed was a series of revolts that would be called the Xinhai Revolution of 1911. Eventually, the Qing dynasty saw its last emperor abdicate in 1912 - putting an end to a reign that extended for about three centuries. While the war with Japan might have spurred the process of decline of the Qings but the fall of the dynasty was the culmination of years of resentment towards their rule.

What do you think of the impact of the War of 1894? Let us know below.

Now read Disha’s article on the Hitler Youth here.

Bibliography

Detter, Ingrid. “The Problem of Unequal Treaties.” The International and Comparative Law Quarterly 15, no. 4 (1966): 1069–89. http://www.jstor.org/stable/757143.

Fairbank, John K. “Introduction: the Old Order.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank, 10:1–34. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978.

Hsu, Immanuel C. Y. “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905.” Chapter. In The Cambridge History of China, edited by John K. Fairbank and Kwang-Ching Liu, 11:70–141. The Cambridge History of China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980.

Paine, S.C.M. The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Rowe, William T. China's Last Empire: The Great Qing. Cambridge, MA; London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2009.

Smith, Richard J. The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2015.

Wang, Dong. “The Discourse of Unequal Treaties in Modern China.” Pacific Affairs 76, no. 3 (2003): 399–425. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40023820.

References

1 S.C.M. Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 23-24

2 Ibid.

3 John Fairbank, “Introduction: the Old Order.”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 10, 16

4 Richard J. Smith, The Qing Dynasty and Traditional Chinese Culture, 'The Qing Political Order', 89

5 Ibid., 'The Late Qing and Beyond, 1860-2014', 390

6 Ibid., 391

7 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 32

8 Ibid., 'The Reversal in the Far Eastern Balance of Power', 13-14

9 Immanuel C. Y. Hsu, “Late Ch'ing Foreign Relations, 1866–1905”, The Cambridge History of China Vol. 11, 85

10 Ingrid Detter, “The Problem of Unequal Treaties”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/757143

11 Dong Wang, “The Discourse of Unequal Treaties in Modern China”, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40023820

12 Paine, The Sino-Japanese War of 1894-1895: Perceptions, Power, and Primacy, 'The Decline of the Old Order in China and Korea', 26

13 Ibid., 32

14 William T. Rowe, China's Last Empire: The Great Qing, 'Chinese Responses to Imperialism, 1895-1900', 236

15 Ibid., 'Imperialism in Fin de Siècle China', 234

16 Ibid., 'Chinese Responses to Imperialism, 1895-1900', 242

The 1919-20 Palmer Raids in the US - And Who they Targeted

The Bolsheviks’ toppling of the Russian government during the Russian Revolution of 1917 led to 30,000 Russians coming to the United States. Then, in the late 1910s, a series of bombings that some called the ‘Red Scare’ ensued. The U.S. Attorney General retaliated with several actions, including what has come to be known as the Palmer Raids.

Janel Miller explains.

Men arrested in during the Palmer Raids are shown here on Ellis Island, New York awaiting deportation hearings in January 1920.

Bombs Sent to Politicians

To start with, in the days leading up to May Day (May 1), 1919, bombs were sent to at least 23 United States addresses. Some of the recipients were politicians. One of these attacks injured the housekeeper of a Georgia lawmaker.

Another round of bomb attacks on United States judges, politicians and law enforcement officials occurred about a month later. One of the attacks occurred on June 2 in front of the home of 1920 presidential hopeful and the U.S. Attorney General during part of Woodrow Wilson’s administration, A. Mitchell Palmer. The nation’s top lawyer immediately called for an investigation to determine who was responsible.

This investigation suggested that individuals often called radicals in the press were responsible. Subsequently, Palmer used that information, along with the 1918 Sedition Act (which limited free speech), to seek and persecute these individuals.

1919 Raids Targeted Radicals

The Kansas City Times reported that on November 7, with the intent of abating a nationwide plan "to defy governmental authority”, the federal government conducted raids and searches in roughly two dozen municipalities.

One of the raids that day took place in New York, where 200 people that federal authorities called radicals were arrested and another 50 alleged radicals were scheduled for deportation. Other raids, most of them with fewer arrests, took place around the same time in Chicago, St. Louis, Detroit, and Philadelphia. At least some of these searches yielded printed materials discussing the nationwide plan, making bombs and/or producing counterfeit documents. In Johnstown, Pennsylvania, no arrests were made, but a group of business leaders banished two people said to be labor organizers from the city. These actions coincided with the second anniversary of the birth of the Bolshevik government that so many Russian immigrants had tried to flee.

Not convinced the threat posed by those he called radicals was over, Palmer called for a law that, among other things, would allow radicals to be arrested even if they acted alone (at the time of Palmer’s request, only radicals working in groups of two or more could be arrested). He also claimed some of the 222 United States newspapers published in foreign languages encouraged violent overthrows of the U.S. government.

Palmer also asked for enhanced Justice Department facilities and the creation of a parole board that would relieve some of the Justice Department’s work burden and he also oversaw the deportation of 249 radicals via the U.S.S. Buford on December 21.

Raids Also Occurred in 1920

On January 2, 1920, another round of raids occurred in large United States municipalities such as Philadelphia and Chicago, as well as smaller ones such as Cortland, New York; Nashua, New Hampshire; Olneyville, Rhode Island; and Lynn and Brockton, Massachusetts. These January raids resulted in 10,000 individuals arrested who federal authorities said were members of the Communist and Communist Labor parties.

The following month, in an essay Palmer authored titled “The Case Against the Reds,” he stated his actions would prevent the “horror and terrorism of bolshevik tyranny” that was underway in Russia from occurring in the United States. Soon after the essay’s publication, Palmer claimed that radical-led attacks would occur on May Day, 1920, just as they had the year before.

Palmer Had His Detractors

Support for Palmer’s actions was not universal. For example, Francis Fisher Kane, the U.S. Attorney for Eastern Pennsylvania, resigned rather than follow Palmer’s directives. Also, an essay published by future United States Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter and Harvard Law School Dean Roscoe Pound discussed what the authors felt were the many legal problems with Palmer’s raids and other actions.

In addition, there were a few immigration inspectors who refused to follow instructions that Palmer authorized or approved. The Lewiston Daily Sun openly sought lawmakers willing to "expose the hollowness of the Palmer holler." The newly formed American Civil Liberties Union claimed Palmer’s actions were based on opinions, not laws.

The Des Moines News stated that the Attorney General was "intimating that the labor department was letting off the reds and failing to deport them.” The newspaper reported that in contrast, members of the Labor Department accused Palmer of "deliberately framing up cases upon perfectly innocent foreigners and endeavoring to make a record by wholesale arrests on the flimsiest kind of evidence and in many cases without proper warrants.”

The attacks of May Day, 1920 that Palmer predicted failed to come to fruition, further damaging his credibility. The one-time 1920 presidential hopeful received 267 nominating votes for president that year, but Republican Warren G. Harding was ultimately elected president and Palmer left office rather than serve with his administration. Although Palmer would remain active in Democratic causes for the rest of his life, his hopes of becoming United States president were never realized.

In Context

Parallels can be drawn between this chapter in United States history and several events that preceded and followed it. For example, four-year-old Dorothy Good faced accusations of being a witch during the hysteria known as the Salem Witch Trials of the 1690s because her mother was accused of witchcraft. In 2015, after the killing of a Californian woman by a man in the United States illegally, then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump said that Mexico was sending the U.S. people with “lots of problems,” according to the Los Angeles Times.

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

References

“Russian Beginnings.” https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/immigration/polish-russian/russian-beginnings. Library of Congress. Accessed October 22, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Blumberg, Jess. “A Brief History of the Salem Witch Trials.” https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/a-brief-history-of-the-salem-witch-trials-175162489/. Published Oct. 23, 2007. Accessed October 24, 2022.

Hennessey, Kathleen. “Trump Takes On Mexican Government In Comments On Immigrants.” https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-trump-mexican-immigrants-20150706-story.html. Published July 6, 2015. Accessed Oct. 23, 2022.

“Nation Wide Hunt for May Day Bombs.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/837246919. Holyoke Daily Transcript, page 1. Published May 1, 1919. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Attorney General: Alexander Mitchell Palmer. https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/palmer-alexander-mitchell. U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Palmer Raids. https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/palmer-raids. FBI. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Boyd, Christina L. “Sedition Act of 1918.” https://mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1239/sedition-act-of-1918. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Accessed October 11, 2022.

“’Reds’ In Raid Net.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/654292552. The Kansas City Times,  page 1. Published November. 8, 1919, Accessed October 22, 2022.

“Raid Radicals In 18 Cities.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/614412771. The York Dispatch, page 1. Published November 8, 1919. Accessed October 22, 2022.

“Must Have Laws to Curb Radicals Palmer Declares.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/825798158. The Macon Daily Telegraph, page 1. Published November. 16, 1919. Accessed September 28, 2022.

“Palmer’s Report on the Reds and Their Work.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/552827864. The Gazette and Daily, page 8. Published Dec. 9, 1919. Accessed September 28, 2022.

“Second Ark to Leave.” https://newspaperarchive.com/ogden-standard-dec-22-1919p-1/. The Ogden Standard, page 1. Published December 22, 1919. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Williams, David. “The Bureau of Investigation and Its Critics, 1919-1921: The Origins of Federal Political Surveillance.” The Journal of American History. (68): 560-579. Accessed October 15, 2022.

“100 More ‘Reds’ Taken In New England Raids.”. New York Tribune, page 2. Published January 4, 1920. Accessed Oct. 23, 2022.

“130 Raid Prisoners in Philadelphia District to Be Held For Hearing.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/78218686. New York Tribune, page 2. Published January 4, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“’Perfect Cases’ Against 2,616 Taken In Raids Is Claim of Federal Agents.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/542621138. The Muscatine Journal and News-Tribune, page 1.  Published January 3, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

Palmer, Mitchell A. “The Case Against the ‘Reds.’” Forum 63 (1920): 173–185. http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/4993/. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“Department of Justice Agents Chosen for Assassination.” https://newspaperarchive.com/biloxi-daily-herald-apr-30-1920-p-1/. The Daily Herald, page 1. Published April 30, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“Kane Quit Because of Palmer’s Raids to Catch Radicals.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/162305073. Evening Public Ledger, page 1. Published January 23, 1920. Accessed September 28, 2022.

NCC Staff. “On This Day, Massive Raids During the Red Scare.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-massive-raids-during-the-red-scare. The Constitution Center. Published January 2, 2022. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

Williams, D. “The Bureau of Investigation and Its Critics, 1919-1921: The Origins of Federal Political Surveillance.” The Journal of American History. (68): 560-579. Accessed October 15, 2022.

“Editorial.” https://www.newspapers.com/image/828299251. The Lewiston Daily Sun, page 4. Published January. 24, 1920. Accessed September 28, 2022.

ACLU History. https://www.aclu.org/about/aclu-history. American Civil Liberties Union. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

“Impeachment.”. https://newspaperarchive.com/des-moines-news-apr-23-1920-p-6/. The Des Moines News, page 6. Published April 23, 1920. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“On This Day, Massive Raids During the Red Scare.” https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/on-this-day-massive-raids-during-the-. The Constitution Center. Published January 2, 2022. Accessed October. 11, 2022.

Attorney General: Alexander Mitchell Palmer. https://www.justice.gov/ag/bio/palmer-alexander-mitchell. U.S. Department of Justice. Accessed October 11, 2022.

Warren G. Harding. https://www.whitehouse.gov/about-the-white-house/presidents/warren-g. whitehouse.gov. Accessed October 23, 2022.

“A. Mitchell Palmer.” https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1273/a-mitchell-palmer. The First Amendment Encyclopedia. Accessed October 26, 2022.