Can Neville Chamberlain’s Career be Defined his Failed Appeasement Policy?

Neville Chamberlain will without a doubt continue to be a controversial figure in British history. His tenure as a British Prime Minister will be always overshadowed by his last seven months in that position as German forces swept across France and Belgium forcing the British and French evacuation from Dunkirk. His appeasement policy has been portrayed as a weak and ineffective Prime Minister who sold out to Hitler. This perspective has been allowed to stand as the defining feature of his career but there was more to Chamberlain than his appeasement policy and the disaster that ensued.

Steve Prout looks at Neville Chamberlain’s career.

Neville Chamberlain holding the signed Munich Agreement in 1938 after meeting Hitler. The agreement committed to peaceful methods.

Lloyd George and the First World War

Chamberlain first started out in life as a successful businessperson before serving as the Lord Mayor of Birmingham between 1914-16. Afterwards he took the post as Director-General of National Service during the First World War under David Lloyd George. It would not be a successful start in his political career because he was often at odds with Lloyd George who was particularly critical of Chamberlains’ techniques. Chamberlains and his supporters would argue that he frequently lacked the support and clarity needed from Lloyd George to be successful in that role.

Both would harbour mutual dislike of each other that would continue up to Chamberlains death. Lloyd George would state that Chamberlain was “not one of my most successful selections” and in later added, ‘When I saw that pinhead, I said to myself, he won’t be of any use.’ Chamberlain in return referred to Lloyd George as "that dirty little Welsh Attorney.” Suffice to say it was a relationship that would never repair and resurface much later at when Chamberlain was at his most vulnerable.

Not all of Chamberlain’s peers agreed with Lloyd George’s comments. John Dillon, an Irish Nationalist MP, stated in a rather flowery fashion that "if Mr. Chamberlain were an archangel, or if he were Hindenburg and Bismarck and all the great men of the world rolled into one, his task would be wholly beyond his powers".  Bonar Law in a more succinct manner called Chamberlain’s role an "absolutely impossible task" and would later rescue Chamberlain’s career. Meanwhile Chamberlain's successor Auckland Geddes received more favor and support than Chamberlain ever received.

In 1918 when Chamberlain became a Member of Parliament he refused to serve under Lloyd George and in 1920 he refused a junior appointment offered by Andrew Bonar Law in the Ministry of Health. In October 1922, the situation changed when Lloyd George’s Coalition Government collapsed and presented Chamberlain new opportunities and a succession of top-level posts would follow.

Despite Lloyd George’s disparaging comments Bonar-Law was impressed with Chamberlain’s administerial abilities and appointed him as Postmaster-General. A promotion to Minister of Health in March 1923 soon followed and his advancement would continue. In August 1923 Bonar Law was forced to resign due to his ill health and Stanley Baldwin who took over as Prime Minister appointed Chamberlain as Chancellor of the Exchequer.

His ascent to the top levels of government was as fast as it was brief. Within five months Baldwins Conservative government was defeated in the December 1923 general election and the first Labour government took power in January 1924. Chamberlain’s contribution almost went unnoticed, but renowned historian AJP Taylor said of Chamberlain “nearly all of the domestic achievements of Conservative governments between the wars stand to his credit.”  The work he did in the interwar years was considerable.

Domestic affairs – politics in the interwar period

Neville Chamberlain was highly active in all the offices he held. He possessed a drive to reform and promote efficiency. By 1929 he had presented twenty-five bills to Parliament of which twenty-one of this number had become enacted into law and practice. Despite this Opinion remains divided concerning Chamberlains effectiveness as politician and Prime Minister. His achievements were numerous.

The introduction of the Local Government Act of 1929 abolished and reformed the obsolete poor laws in Britain that were not fit for purpose. The administration of poverty relief was placed in the hands of local authorities. One aspect of this act made medical treatment of the infirmaries free to those who could not afford it. In a pre-1945 Welfare State Britain this was a forward-thinking piece of legislation.

The Housing Act in 1922 addressed another set of issues. The necessity for this piece of legislation arose due to the shortfall in housing created by the previous Liberal Government, who under Christopher Addison had promised “homes fit for heroes” for the returning soldiers but the reality was that this promise had not delivered upon. Chamberlain was tasked to address this shortfall. He was of the belief that Government high subsides were the reason building costs were remaining too high and so stunted progress. Being a former businessperson and quintessential conservative, he believed the private building sector would perform the task more efficiently and so reduced these subsides. He was not entirely wrong because by 1929 438,000 houses were built. This was in the words chosen by AJP Taylor’s “the one solid work of this (Baldwins) dull government.” But critics viewed the Housing Act as only helping the lower middle classes and not the industrial workers giving the impression that he was the “enemy of the poor”. This perception would contribute to losing the Conservatives a substantial number of votes.

The introduction of the Widows', Orphans' and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act 1925 lowered the age for entitlement to receive the old age state pension from 70 to 65 (there has been little change since until the twenty first century), and it allowed provisions for dependents of deceased workers. Although it was met with criticism for not extending far enough it was still nevertheless a progressive step forward for pre-welfare state Britain. Chamberlain’s justification to his critics was that the act was not intended to replace private thrift and that the sum was the” maximum financially feasible” within budgetary means.

The Factory Act of 1937 was another successful and progressive piece of legislation for the time. Whether the motive out of altruistic reasons or due to a growing, effective opposition from the Labour Party and the unions it still was particularly far reaching. This Act set various standards factory working condition which addressed working hours, sanitation, lighting, and ventilation. This had significantly improved working conditions set by an earlier Act in 1901. The official wording by the Home Office, signed by Samuel Hoare was that the act presented an “important milestone on the road to safety, health and welfare in Industry.” The Holiday Pay Act of 1938 would follow which allowed workers one full week’s holiday pay. By modern times this seems paltry, but in the context of the time it was a significant move forward for the working population.

Chamberlain had his supporters although much of this support came posthumously. AJP Taylor said that “Chamberlain did more to improve local government while serving as Health Minister than did anyone else in the 20th century” and from an American perspective, according to Bentley Gilbert, Chamberlain was "the most successful social reformer in the seventeen years between 1922 and 1939… after 1922 no one else is really of any significance."

Dutton considers, later in 2001, that Chamberlain's accomplishments at the Ministry of Health were "considerable achievements by any standards" and of Chamberlain himself “a man who was throughout his life on the progressive left of the Conservative Party, a committed believer in social progress and in the power of government at both the national and local level, to do good” - but the war clouds that were gathering above Europe and his domestic achievements would be forgotten.

Munich, Churchill, and the road to war

In his last few months as Prime Minister Chamberlain and his appeasement policy was attacked from his own party and opposition parties with accusations of being blinkered, narrow and supporters of appeasement were now labelled cowards whereas before they were saviours for averting war. This is not entirely fair as for Chamberlain’s government these were not normal times and the problems placed before his government left his few alternatives that sat comfortable or palatable with little or no alternative but to acquiesce to Hitler’s demands.

Chamberlain’s bellicose opponents were either suffering from a delusion that Britain could face the many growing threats abroad alone. There were no suitable allies to form effective alliances with, the USSR was as untrustworthy as Germany, and therefore any containment from the east for the time being was unlikely. There were other threats outside of Europe such as Japan which threatened Britain in the Asia. The USA, a power in the Pacific, was following an isolationist policy. Adding to this were Italian aspirations for empire building in North Africa, and there Britain needed a cautious approach.

Churchill would ignore all of this, re-write history, and instead portray Chamberlain in a poor light whilst at the same flattering his own place in history. On the one hand he said “I have received a great deal of help from Chamberlain. His kindness and courtesy to me in our new relations have touched me. I have joined hands with him and must act with perfect loyalty.”  Then on the other hand he said "Poor Neville will come badly out of history. I know, I will write that history" and he ensured that this happened in his memoirs, The Gathering Storm, in 1948 by referring to Chamberlain as “an upright, competent, well-meaning man fatally handicapped by a deluded self-confidence which compounded an already debilitating lack of both vision and diplomatic experience”.

For many years, his version of events remained unchallenged, but we wonder how much of this can be taken as a gospel of those times. We forget that whereas Chamberlain sought to work with Hitler and was later reviled for doing so, Churchill had no qualms with working with other dictators as we would see for example with Stalin in 1941 and in the 1930s his praise of Mussolini. Stalin’s relationship with the democracies would prove equally toxic. After the war Eastern Europe would be subjected to further totalitarian rule which would last longer than Hitler’s domination of Europe.

Chamberlain was not fooled by the outcome of Munich affair, and he knew by that point in time that Hitler could not be contained nor trusted. He immediately started in earnest an ambitious rearmament programme. This programme was on no small scale and challenges the accusations of complacency that history critics accuse him of. In May 1938 after four months elapsing since Munich agreement, Chamberlain told the annual Conservative Women’s Conference that “we have to make ourselves so strong that it will not be worthwhile for anyone to attempt to attack us”.

Rearmament

Chamberlain began a vast expansion in Britain’s armed services. Whilst doing so he was attacked by the Labour Party for ‘scaremongering, disgraceful in a responsible politician’ because of his support of expansion of Britain’s military capacity. By April 1939, rearmament was swallowing 21.4 per cent of Britain’s Gross National Product, a figure that reached 51.7 per cent by 1940. War was delayed but it was to no avail to “a man of no luck.” The failure of the Norwegian campaign and the subsequent invasion of the Ardennes quickly changed the political landscape for Chamberlain, eroded the support of his own party and of the majority of as in May 1940 British troops were being evacuated off Dunkirk.

The results of Chamberlain’s rearmament programme were not immediately appreciated but the advances made in Air Power and Sonar were vital for the Battle of Britain. The British Spitfire for instance was one of the most up to date fighter planes of the time. The British expeditionary force at the time of its mobilisation was one of the most modern and mechanised armies in the world. Within the disaster of the Norway there was one redeeming feature - that naval battles crippled the German Navy so much it could not be relied upon by Hitler in his plans to invade Britain. All these subtle factors brought Britain a chance, albeit a hairs breadth, of resisting an invasion if nothing more. The realists also knew there was little chance of an offensive and Britain could only consider her meagre defensive options.

Although Chamberlain was assigned the blame for the failure to hold Norway he was not the architect of the plan. This plan was in fact devised and supported by Churchill as First Lord of the Admiralty who made many unpunished errors in the matter. He had the diminished confidence of his Conservative peers owing to his costly actions in The First World War and India. Some feared that Norway would be a repeat of Gallipoli. In the debate in The House of Commons in May 1940 when questioned about the campaign Churchill said “I take complete responsibility for everything that has been done by the Admiralty, and I take my full share of the burden” only to be rebuffed by Lloyd George who vented his criticism out on Chamberlain whose fate was already sealed.

Chamberlain was not alone in his naivety that Germany was economically stretched and that a simple naval blockade would deprive her of her natural resources. Churchill even displayed lack of foresight over Germany’s strategic position when the Soviet Union invaded Poland when he immediately proclaimed, “Hitler’s Gateway the East was closed.” Under the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact, the Soviet Union was providing vast quantities of war materials to Germany. It was a spoken folly equal to “Hitler has missed the bus.”

The war materials the Soviet Union provided to Germany throughout the early years of the war were enough to render any Allied blockade ineffective. Whether Churchill knew the quantities and the extent is not known but it is likely that this would have been available via the British intelligence services. The true extent of the aid the Soviets gave was over 820,000 metric tons (900,000 short tons; 810,000 long tons) of oil, 1,500,000 metric tons (1,700,000 short tons; 1,500,000 long tons) of grain and 130,000 metric tons (140,000 short tons; 130,000 long tons) of manganese ore. This considerable amount of material excludes rubber and other industrial outputs that enabled Germany’s war machine. If Chamberlains political judgements were flawed then equally so were Churchills, but he was not in the Premier’s seat and so escaped much of the fallout.

Critics

Old adversaries and new would be particularly visceral in the debates that followed in parliament. It is interesting how some of Chamberlain’s most vocal and loudest critics were also the most hypocritical. Leo Amery famously quoted “You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!". Leo Amery was a supporter in the 1930s of Italian aggression in Abyssinia and Japanese ambitions in Manchuria. Lloyd George, who held a deep dislike of Chamberlain, also could not resist but he also conveniently forgot his courting of Hitler in September 1936 and his praising of a “pro-English Hitler”. Chamberlain’s premiership ended but he continued to serve in the higher levels of government until his death.

Chamberlain’s political career continued long after Munich and it was not yet over. He still served cordially under Churchill in the war cabinet. Despite the war controversy Chamberlain, in Churchill’s absence due to Prime Ministerial duties, still deputised and chaired the war cabinet meetings until cancer finally forced him to resign in 1940.

Chamberlain spoke of Churchill, “Winston has behaved with the most unimpeachable loyalty. Our relations are excellent, and I know he finds my help of terrific value to him.” Churchill reciprocated: “I have received a great deal of help from Chamberlain. His kindness and courtesy to me in our new relations have touched me. I have joined hands with him and must act with perfect loyalty.” And upon Chamberlains death he said. “What shall I do without poor Neville?,” as Churchill admitted that he “was relying on him (Chamberlain) to look after the Home Front.” Chamberlain had remarkable administrative skills Churchill recognised and still was of value to Britain’s war effort. Churchill himself admitted that the two men could work respectfully and professionally with each other.

In a eulogy in the House of Commons Churchill spoke highly in praise “He had a precision of mind and an aptitude for business which raised him far above the ordinary levels of our generation. He had a firmness of spirit which was not often elated by success, seldom downcast by failure and never swayed by panic…He met the approach of death with a steady eye. If he grieved at all, it was that he could not be a spectator to our victory, but he died with the comfort of knowing that his country had, at least, turned the corner.”

Churchill would conveniently forget this in the post war period and be one of many to blight Chamberlain's career and reputation. Dr Adam Timmins, reviewing the book Appeasing Hitler by Tim Bouverie sees that too much emphasis was put on one event and one person and no other factors that guided that decision which at the time appeared the only sensible option only hindsight offers other alternatives. Without the benefit of hindsight, the phenomena of Hitler were something that had never been witness or confronted before, and with that it is of no surprise that the states people of the 1930s failed to accurately judge him.

Conclusion

Neville Chamberlain’s presence in British history will always be overshadowed by Munich and the road to war. This will always continue to be enforced by surviving accounts such as Michael Foot’s Guilty Men or Churchill’s post war memoirs, which places the failure to contain Hitler together with the early misfortunes unfairly on his shoulders.

When we remove all of this from the emotional equation Neville Chamberlain has been unjustly criticised and maligned by political opportunists of the time who failed to understand the limitations Britain faced. Chamberlain was proof of the adage that “history is written by victors”, a phrase invented by Churchill who did just that when writing about Chamberlain. He conveniently chose to omit his own failures and ill judgement in the early days of the war. It is that context that the Director of Military Operations, Major-General J.N. Kennedy, remarked on later during the campaign in North Africa. "He (Churchill) has a very keen eye to the records of this war”, Kennedy wrote in his diary, “and perhaps unconsciously he puts himself and his actions in the most favourable light.” Churchill’s contradictions and self-aggrandization are unhelpful and misleading.

Chamberlain was the unfortunate victim of circumstances. AJP Taylor terms him a man of no luck whom the cards always ran against. He had a shaky start against Lloyd George and his humiliation at Hitler’s hands bookended his political career. The tide of the war would turn against Hitler and deliver Churchill two titanic allies with immense resources, the USA and T=the USSR, to form a formidable alliance. It was a matter of fortunate timing that Chamberlain would be denied and that Churchill would enjoy.

Chamberlain’s other work, which brought about significant and successful social reform, went unnoticed. At the outbreak of war, he said in Parliament "Everything I have worked for, everything that I have hoped for, everything that I have believed in during my public life, has crashed into ruins." Chamberlain’s legacy would be marred by his unwavering desire to avoid war that was further tainted and twisted by the hypocrisy of his critics. Neville Chamberlain will always be a subject of polemical debate and his reputation will continue to be blighted.

When do you think of Neville Chamberlain’s career? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s relationship with the European dictators during the inter-war years here.

References

Stuart Ball - Professor of Modern British History at the University of Leicester. Portrait of a Party: The Conservative Party in Britain, 1918–1945 (Oxford, 2013).

Leo McKinstry - In Defence of Neville Chamberlain – Article the Spectator Nov 2020

David Dutton – Reputations – Neville Chamberlain – May 2001 – Bloomsbury Academic

AJP Taylor English History 1914-45 and Origins of The Second World War

Graham Hughes, history graduate (BA) from St David’s University, Anglo-Nazi Alliance Debate

Paraguay’s 1936 February Revolution and its Lessons for the Paraguayan Left

Like most of Latin America, Paraguay is a nation whose history has been sadly tarnished by social inequities, reactionary politics and civil war, but also one where exceptional circumstances have resulted in the emergence of leaders with bold programmes of reform and the drive to carry them through to the bitter end. One such event was the February Revolution of 1936, which led to the coming to power of a reformer by the name of Rafael Franco.

Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Rafael Franco

This 1936 February Revolution, which saw the old establishment being overthrown and replaced by a military leader, was the culmination of a series of unfortunate events. From the time of its independence from Spain in 1811 Paraguay had been led by a mixture of dictators and civilian leaders who presided over a nation often racked by injustice and instability. In 1883, a law was passed under which land that had previously been universally accessible was enclosed and transformed into large private estates, with peasants, as noted by historian Peter Calvert, “either forced to leave or to work for a pittance.” A bloody war involving Brazil, Uruguay and Argentina lasting from 1864 to 1870 proved a traumatic one, with Paraguay losing an estimated 50% of its people not just through fighting, but also as a consequence of famine and disease. Nor would this usher in a brighter age. In the five decades following the war’s end 32 presidents assumed and were deposed from office in a series of revolts and coups, while the two parties that came to dominate politics for most of that period, the Colorados and Liberals, had little to distinguish themselves in their management of the country.

In 1932 a conflict between Paraguay and Bolivia erupted owing to a dispute over territory that ended in 1935 after much suffering. Criticism was levelled against the government for its handling of the war, with José Félix Estigarribia, a noted hero of that conflict, claiming that at the war’s first major battle his men fought without adequate arms, food, medical supplies or ammo. The authorities had aroused the ire of the army by refusing to provide pensions to disabled war veterans, with the country’s legislature (dominated by the Liberals, one of the main parties that had led Paraguay since independence) rejecting this proposed measure in a 1935 vote, “pleading an exhausted treasury,” as noted by one study. Economic difficulties led to thousands of troops being demobilized; a decision that resulted in many unemployed and disaffected former soldiers wandering aimlessly around the capital. The seeds of revolution were therefore sown long before Franco’s ascension.

The end

The end of the old establishment came in February 1936 when a coup (an event that became known as the February Revolution) brought to power a nationalist coalition. Rafael Franco, the man who headed this alliance, was a war hero and officer of the Chaco War whose fair treatment of soldiers had earned him their support. The social measures rolled out by the new administration seemed to indicate a clear break from the past. A public health ministry was inaugurated, along with the first labor code in Paraguayan history. A National Labor Department was set up to handle matters such as the regulation of women’s employment, and new labor rights were rolled out including a day off on Sundays, an 8-hour workday, bonuses and paid holidays.

Other spheres of life fell under the umbrella of the government’s radical agenda. Public works were introduced, together with a National Patronage of Indigenous People to improve conditions for the nation’s aborigines. To widen land tenure in a nation where only 5% of the people owned land, a law was passed under which the government was given authority to expropriate up to five million acres of uncultivated land and divide it into plots of 25 to 250 acres to sell on favourable terms to farmers without land. By December 1936, over 200,000 acres of land had been expropriated; benefitting thousands of families. Perhaps affirming the faith Franco’s men had in him during his time as a soldier, the revolutionary government devoted much of its time to helping former combatants. Pensions were awarded to Chaco War veterans unable to work due to service-related illness and injury, while those who were crippled were entitled to necessary orthopaedic parts. For a population long accustomed to war and injustice, Franco’s presidency appeared to mark a turning point for the better.

The Franco administration’s tenure was not an isolated incident. Instead, it was part of a trend in Latin America at that time that saw the coming to power of radical reformers committed to policies geared towards the masses instead of the elites. In Colombia, an election in 1930 saw a conservative party being voted out after 70 years in power and the election of a liberal administration that over the course of a decade would roll out a social and economic reform programme akin to the American New Deal. In neighbouring Chile, a similar agenda was pursued by a reform-minded Popular Front following elections in that country in 1938. Further north in Mexico, a populist socialist came to power in 1934 by the name of Lázaro Cárdenas, whose tenure would become legendary amongst the Mexican Left with his radical reforms in areas like land distribution that won the hearts and minds of many.

Short-lived

The administration Franco led, however, did not last as long as the aforementioned governments, with certain actions contributing to its downfall. The administration lacked, for instance, a commitment to democratic values, as demonstrated by decisions made to abolish all political parties and implement press censorship. Also, while the revolutionary period brought tangible gains to workers, the functioning of labor organizations was prohibited at the same time. Nor was the government an ideologically homogeneous one, with socialists, fascists, and individuals harbouring Nazi sympathies amongst its ranks; an attempt on Franco’s part to bring together the different factions within the revolution under one umbrella. This turbulent situation allowed a successful coup to take place in August 1937, one that enabled the Liberals to return to office once more.

Although the return of Paraguay’s traditional hegemonic party seemed to spell the end of a dream for a fairer Paraguay, Franco’s revolution had, in the words of historian Paul H. Lewis, “unleashed expectations of change that couldn’t be ignored.” Traditional Liberals were put to one side and in 1939 a former hero of the Chaco War, José Félix Estigarribia, assumed office. Reflecting the reform impulses of a generation of “New Liberals,” positive measures reminiscent of the Franco era such as agrarian reform were pursued. At the same time however, Esitgarribia responded to unrest (such as conspiracies among some military cliques) following his restoration of political freedoms by suppressing opposition after he declared himself a temporary dictator. Following his death and that of his wife in an airplane crash, his successor Higinio Morínigo clamped down on civil liberties while relying on the army to rule. Pressure from the United States to democratise Paraguay’s political system, however, resulted in Morínigo putting together a new cabinet including the Febreristas (followers of Franco), who during the Forties succeeded in accumulating a support base amongst labor unionists and students. It seemed that the Febreristas had an opportunity to replicate the social justice ethos of the Franco years, but this wasn’t to be. Protests against the president, combined with conflict between backers of the 3 main parties in the cabinet (the Colorados, Liberals and Febreristas), led to Morínigo removing the Febreristas from their posts and allying himself alone with the Colorados. Partly due to violence conducted by a Colorado group who sought to use force to return their party to power, numerous opposition groups rallied to support Franco, who instigated a revolt backed by the overwhelming majority of Paraguay’s army officers and enlisted men. The Colorados, however, mobilised a force strong enough to beat Franco, whose revolt ended in August 1947. In an ironic case of political intrigue, Morínigo would still end up being forced from office. Despite joining the Colorados and endorsing its victorious candidate in elections held the following year, Colorado-leaning officers uncertain of promises made by Morínigo giving up the presidency forced him to leave Paraguay. For the next 6 decades, Paraguay would know the rule of no party other than that of the Colorados.

Lugo

Paraguay would not again see a Franco-esque reformer come to power until 2008 when that year a priest by the name of Fernando Lugo, who headed a broad-based left-right alliance that included the Febreristas won the presidency; marking the end of Colorado hegemony. Despite divisions in his alliance (with echoes of Franco’s), Lugo was able to initiate bold reforms like free dental care, pensions for elderly persons on low incomes, and school snacks. His alliance however, lacked a majority in the legislature, plaguing Lugo’s ability to advance much in the way of meaningful reform. He was also plagued by scandals over paternity claims from his time as a bishop, and was eventually impeached in 2012 on numerous grounds, such as failure to tackle increased insecurity. Much controversy surrounded Lugo’s impeachment, but this failed to generate enough support for a leftist alternative to win the next election, which instead saw the return of the Colorados, who have remained in power to this day.

The Franco interlude provides two worthwhile lessons. The first is that when elites fail to meet the needs and aspirations of its citizenry certain individuals will take drastic measures such as attaining power by force. The second is that acquiring power in this way is doomed to failure, as authoritarian administrations are prone to corruption and, in the case of Franco’s government, badly divided. Achieving a peaceful revolution through the ballot box, with a leadership united with clear goals and progressive values, is the best chance Paraguay has of a brighter future.

What do you think of Paraguay’s 1936 February Revolution? Let us know below.

War Photography Through the Ages

War photography and Photojournalism are an essential part of war reporting and have been in every conflict since the art of photo-taking was invented. As Susan Sontag notes in her seminal work Regarding The Pain of Others, ‘war-making and picture-making are congruent activities.’ But why do we have such a fascination with photos and footage of war? What is Photojournalism? And how has Photojournalism changed over the years? Let us first put photojournalism into context.

Chris Fray explains.

Raising the Flag on Iwo Jima by Joe Rosenthal.

A photojournalist is a reporter who uses photos or film to tell a news story. Every war since the first photographed conflict - the Mexican-American War (1846-48) - has been photographed and recorded by images.(1) Images can have a decisive effect on public opinion and perceptions of war. A photograph is a snapshot of a memory, frozen in time, allowing those un-connected to the situation to view the conflict up close and personal.

I would like to take you on a journey spanning over a century, detailing the way in which Photojournalism has progressed and what this means for war photography and for us, the public. I will touch on photography in the major conflicts of the 20th and 21st Centuries, beginning with the First World War (1914-18). We will then explore the Spanish Civil War (1936-39), the Second World War (1939-45), Vietnam (1959-75), the Gulf War (1990-91) and finally the use of photojournalism is our own time using the devastating examples of the ongoing Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts.

First World War

At the start of the 20th Century, cameras were large and cumbersome. Immobility was an issue and the heavy camera required tripods. The fragile glass negative plates were easily broken and darkroom chemicals were required by the photographer to be immediately on hand in order to develop the negative quickly after exposure.(2) Obviously, this did not lend itself to conflict photography.

By the start of the First World War, however, handheld cameras such as the Vest Pocket Kodak were being produced, a favourite of soldiers in the First World War.(3) The quality of the images produced was poor and the camera was prone to blurring, but the negatives had much quicker exposure times than before and most importantly it was small enough to carry in an army pack. War photography was progressing at a fast pace yet the command structures of both sides of the conflict were suspicious of the technological progress.

Almost as soon as war was announced, both the Allies and Germany set hardline policies in place to limit photographer’s abilities to publish images related to conflict and access conflict zones. Each side were deeply concerned with the effect that photography could have on spy-work and espionage as well as domestic morale. Professional photographers were restricted from war zones and could only gain access with written and signed agreements of the war council although censorship was lightened later into the war. The images which were taken have had a lasting impact on the memory of the war and shows the value of photography as a means of mass communication- elements of which have been replicated in every conflict since.(4)

Servicemen were banned from owning or using cameras. But as we know, as soon as rules are made, there are those who are willing to break them. The pictures taken by servicemen on the front lines, in the trenches make up some of the most haunting and evocative photos of the First World War. Many photos show the horror of war in the trenches, soldiers staring up at the camera amongst the mud and barbed wire. Some pictures on the other hand depict daily life- soldiers making tea and playing cards showing that life went on as well, even under the rattle of machine gun and crack of artillery shells.

Spanish Civil War

It was only in the 1920s following the invention of small portable 35mm cameras such as the Leica and Ermanox that war photography fully developed (no pun intended). These cameras were faster and more compact, permitting exposure without a flash which allowed for night time and indoor photos to be taken.(5) With the technological developments of photographic equipment, quick, fast-paced snapshots of battle became possible, revolutionising photography. As a result, audiences were able to experience the heat of battle in their own living rooms.(6) Wireless transmissions of photos and the introduction of affordable, high quality printing paper also allowed photojournalists to have their work published in a matter of days. This quick turnaround was essential to the public relations effort for both sides.(7)

The Spanish Civil war, therefore took place at a turning point for modern photography. The impact of ‘in conflict’ photos on the audiences in Britain, France and the United States should not be understated. Action shots of war had rarely been seen and certainly not on a scale such as this. ‘Photographs of Spain became images not just of conflict but in conflict.’ This was a shocking statement and certainly caught the attention of the world.(8) The war also came at the height of the picture magazines of the 1930s, such as Vu, Life, Picture Post, Regards and Match. These magazines focused mainly on images and adverts. These magazines had an exceptionally far-reaching readership and all of them featured the civil war to some extent, making the Spanish Civil War the first war to be covered and photographed for a mass audience.(9)

Left leaning photojournalists such as Robert Capa, David Seymour and Augusti Centelles began to use their platforms as photographers in the picture magazines to influence readers in the UK, France and the USA to contribute to the Republican war effort. Photographs were becoming weapons of influence. A number of photographs taken during the Civil War have taken on iconic roles in representations of the fight against fascism. Possibly the most famous is Robert Capa’s ‘Fallen Soldier.’ It depicts a Republican soldier at the instant of death, as a bullet hits him in the head, knocking him backwards. It is a tragic depiction of the brutality of war, so close you can almost hear the fatal shot. By the end of the Civil War, war photography was firmly established and exceptionally popular. Due to the way in which Nationalism was progressing in Europe, however, many Europeans were to themselves face conflict, not only through the pages of a magazine but at their own front doors.

Second World War

Many of the Civil War photographers who had cut their teeth in the 1930s were seasoned photojournalists by the start of the Second World War in 1939, with strong links to well-read magazines. However now the scene of conflict was not just a single country, but now spanned across the whole world as photographers from Europe to Africa, Russia to Asia were capturing unbelievable pictures of worldwide conflict. With more people shifting between countries than ever before, war was now a global affair, and therefore so to was photography.

The Spanish Civil War photographers were taking photos and sharing with audiences as a call to action. Now war was first and foremost in the public mind. Western photographers were using their skills in support of the Allied mission against the evil Nazi threat. This was a war in which both sides would employ photography effectively as a propaganda tool; as General Dwight Eisenhower wrote, ‘Correspondents have a job in war as essential as the military personnel.’ Media and reporting had an enormous effect of public opinion, and ‘public opinion win wars.’

Censorship of photography was considered highly important and only certain photos were published in the press. Photos such as dead or dying Allied soldiers were considered bad for moral and suppressed for the majority of the war. It was only towards the end of the conflict that President Roosevelt, faced with strikes and opposition to Americans fighting and dying in Europe, decided to allow a clearer and more violent image of the war to be published. Real images of dead and wounded soldiers were shown to the public which roused US citizens to overwhelming support of the war.

In the 1940s, along with the advancement of weapon technology came the improvement of photographic technology. Long-range cargo planes could transport thousands of rolls of films and negatives between Europe and America, allowing the pictures to be shown in papers and magazines within days. Cameras in the 1930s which took 4 X 5 inch negatives were superseded by smaller and faster 35mm, 2 ¼ X 2 ¼ Rolleiflex, Contax rangefinder and Leica cameras. Not only this, but they could be fitted with telescopic lenses, allowing for close-up and zoom shots. More photographers than ever before were braving the battlefield to capture battlefield heroics. As Robert Capa famously remarked, “if your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”

Perhaps some of the most moving photos from the Second World war are those of Robert Capa’s landing on Omaha Beach in the first wave of troops. As the only photographer to land on the beach, we have direct and close-up documentation of the landings. The pictures are blurry, as Capa himself admits, because his hands were trembling so much with fear on the mortared beach.

Vietnam

At the end of the Second World War in 1946, around 8,000 American households owned a television set. By 1960, just under 45 million households had a television.(10) The war which raged in Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos captured the public and was beamed to millions of households all over the world, giving the Vietnam war the epithet, ‘the living room war.’ The prominence of television had started to push the press photographers from their prime reporting position. Viewers were now able to see much more than a snapshot of conflict. They were able to see the true horror of the uncompromising cruelty of war, frame by frame in video.

As images of US soldiers fighting for freedom in the previous war had mustered public support, their portrayal in Vietnam had an entirely opposing effect. An American public, expecting images of democratic US Marines fighting Communists were faced with a continuous tirade of film and images showing the mud, squalor and death their sons and fathers encountered, every day on the news. Photographers and journalists were given such freedom in Vietnam never seen before, or since. There was little to no censorship. Instead, the US army command intended to recruit the press into sharing their own perspective of the war. However, as the war developed into the 1960s, more US servicemen were losing their lives in a decade long conflict which many at home found hard to relate to. A cultural and moral revolution in the USA swung much of the public towards peace and as the US high command rapidly lost control of the situation in Vietnam, conditions in the army worsened, professionalism laxed and this was all captured on camera.

Many have claimed that the media were responsible in some part for the defeat of the Vietnam war. One of the key photos in this debate is the Saigon street execution, taken by Eddie Adams in 1968. It shows a prisoner seconds away from a shot to the head, at point blank range. It sums up the lawless and brutal nature of the conflict, even away from the battlefield.

It was in the Vietnam conflict that the idea that war photography could have a harmful impact on the perceptions of war at home. The more advanced technology became and the more skilled the photographers became in depicting horror- the more the public came to view war as a sickness. In essence, war reporting moved too far for the public. It presented the tragic truth of conflict.

Falklands & The Gulf War

If Vietnam was over-reported, sickening the public with gore and grit and eventually ending in defeat, conflicts in the subsequent decades were decidedly, and intentionally, under-reported. As a leading member of Britain’s Ministry of Defence asked rhetorically on the announcement of the Falklands War, “are we going to let the television cameras loose on the battlefield?”(11) The Falklands war took place in the 10 weeks between April and June, 1982 in response to the invasion and occupation of the British islands in the South Atlantic by Argentinian forces.

The British Ministry of Defence exercised extreme control over coverage from the conflict. In polar opposition to Vietnam, the images and footage of the conflict hardly featured in British newspapers and only two of the 29 accredited media professionals were photographers. Governments were clearly learning lessons from Vietnam. By the time the conflict was over, only three batches of film had been returned to London.(12) Although by the 1980s, technology had dramatically improved, the press were unable to use it. In a 10-week conflict in which 255 Britons were killed, 777 wounded and an estimated 2,000 Argentine casualties, no images were released. This only fuelled the public’s suspicion of the Ministry of Defence.(13)

In a very similar vein and probably still scarred by the public reaction to the media surrounding Vietnam, when the Gulf War began in 1990, the utmost care was taken in photographic and film representations of the conflict. Subsequently to the invasion of Kuwait by Saddam Hussein, the US led a 42 Nation coalition intervention against Iraq. In the 1990s, photographic technology was incredibly advanced. The coverage of the war however was heavily sedated. Press focus was made on the mechanised technology of war, the enormous guns and steel cannisters, firing bullets and shells from slick fighter jets. Yet there was no indication of what damage these bullets and shells were doing upon impact. It was presented to the public as a ‘painless war of precision.’(14) For the first time a conflict was being told from the perspective not of soldiers, but of weapons.(15)

Reports and briefings from the war council were kept secret from reporters and although there were around 1,600 Western photographers and reporters in the area, they were all isolated from the conflict and supervised by public-affairs managers who made sure they saw only a sanitised view of the conflict. The pictures presented a white-washed version of war which distracted from the real brutalism involved in conflict. Removing the people from the pictures also removed the empathy for the casualties.

There is a belief that over saturating the public with images of death and destruction will ultimately dull society into accepting these images as the norm, gradually shocking less and less until they are ignored altogether. However as Torie Rose DeGhett says, never showing these images at all absolutely guarantees that understanding of the images will never develop. (16)

Syria & Ukraine

So where does this leave us now? Are we able to trust the photographs we see of conflict? With the invention in the past 20 years of social media and camera phones in every pocket, it could easily be argued that each person recording and sharing material could be considered a photojournalist. The process of free un-filtered, un-sanitised and un-censored material being captured by millions per day in various perspectives, angles and mediums provides an overwhelming change to what was previously considered photojournalism. Of course, photojournalists still exist and provide the world with moving images of conflict and pain all around the world. However, the range of material is so large now, that photojournalists are a tiny proportion of those on the ground, experiencing war.

When the Syrian conflict began in March 2011 and turned into a full blown Civil War in 2012 to 2013, foreign photographers and journalists were banned from entering the country. The danger was exceedingly high following the deaths of several foreign reporters including Marie Colvin of The Sunday Times and so the images and footage which was released was shot by local people. Amateur photographers and the average person- anyone with a camera-phone, expressing themselves through photography and film and appealing to the wider world for help. This produced a revolution in photojournalism, with minute by minute live-reporting of conflict via Facebook and Twitter. This is something which was never before possible.

Is this a positive outcome for war journalism? We might be tempted to say, yes. The wider the audience, the more likely the world is to see and connect with the pain of those living through war. However as Swiss photographer, Mattias Bruggmann has said, lack of journalists and increased use of public media opened the floodgates to propagandism from every side in Syria. “Every opposition group and every rebel battalion set up its own unit to produce photographs and videos.”(17)

The most recent and equally harrowing world conflict, the invasion of Ukraine by Russian forces in February 2022 has also produced a tidal wave of images and videos. Again, as technology improves, so does the capacity for ordinary people and individual soldiers on the ground to document their own personal perspective of the conflict. Courageous acts of covert filming of Russian soldiers and troop movements by occupied Ukrainians are being used by the Ukrainian military in some cases and shared on social media, giving the conflict the epitaph, ‘the first tik-tok war.’

The nature of this is certainly not as fun as it sounds. Given the brutalness of this current invasion and the overwhelming number of alleged war crimes committed, organisations such as the United Nations are already compiling photographs by renowned photographers, military footage, local amateur photographers and footage from social media to be used as evidence for prosecuting these crimes in the future.

Throughout its history, war photography has contributed to a truly humanitarian mission. Photographs stand as a testament to conflict. A snapshot of History which says, “this happened,” and “this cannot be forgotten.” It holds those in the wrong, accountable and has always provided a voice to those who are unable to provide their testament. It is the hope of many organisations that these photos will result one day in the prosecution of the perpetrators of war crimes, providing justice for those who were at the receiving end and for the families of those who died. Photos are therefore an essential element, not just to war reporting but to justice and humanity.

What do you think of war photography in different periods? Let us know below.

References

1 Payne, Carol and Brandon, Laura. Guest Editors’ Introduction: Photography at War. P.1.

2 Griffin, Michael. ‘The Great War Photographers: Constructing Myths of History and Photojournalism.’ P.135.

3 https://blog.scienceandmediamuseum.org.uk/the-vest-pocket-kodak-was-the-soldiers-camera/#:~:text=One%20of%20the%20first%20and,years%20ago%2C%20in%20April%201912.&text=The%20Vest%20Pocket%20Kodak%20camera,model%20was%20discontinued%20in%201926.

4 https://encyclopedia.1914-1918-online.net/article/photography

5 Brothers, Caroline. War Photography: A Cultural History. P.6

6 Payne, Carol and Brandon, Laura. P.3.

7 Faber, Sebastiaan. Memory Battles of the Spanish Civil War: History, Fiction, and Photography. (2018). p.16-17.

8 Brothers. p.2.

9 Brothers, Caroline. p.2.

10 https://www.elon.edu/u/imagining/time-capsule/150-years/back-1920-1960/#:~:text=Approximately%208%2C000%20U.S.%20households%20had,million%20had%20them%20by%201960.

11 Brothers, p.205

12 Brothers, p.206

13 Brothers, p.209

14 Brothers. p.211

15 Bruce. H. Franklin, ‘From Realism to Virtual Reality.’ P.110

16 https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/the-war-photo-no-one-would-publish/375762/

17 https://newlinesmag.com/photo-essays/shooting-the-war-in-syria/

The Modern Greek State: 1941–1949 – War & A New Divide

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. Now, when fascist Italy invaded Greece in October 1940, the Greeks put aside the issues of clientelism and united delivered a formidable fight and resistance against the Axis. This did not last long though. The rise of the Communist party as a significant political factor supported by a strong military branch reshuffled the balance of power and led to yet another civil war and yet another socio-political schism. Thomas Papageorgiou explains

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, and part 5 on the issues of clientelism here.

Greek troops during the Italian Spring Offensive, March 1941.

I United against the Axis

The Italian Invasion of Greece was proven another significant failure for Mussolini. It was repulsed by the Greeks who immediately counterattacked. The Greek army demonstrated extraordinary skills in mountainous warfare and by the end of 1940 thanks to its heroic efforts the Italians were forced to retreat 50 km behind the Albanian borders along the entire length of the front. For several months 16 Greek divisions managed to nail in Albania 27 Italian ones. (Churchill, The Second World War (Vol. I), 2010, pp. 510, 513)

When the Germans came to the rescue at the beginning of April 1941, they offered overwhelming support to the Italians, whereas the British, estimating that the loss of Greece and the Balkans would not constitute a big loss, if Turkey remained neutral, were more reserved. (Churchill, The Second World War (Vol. I), 2010, pp. 544 - 545) Thus, on the 27th of April the axis forces were in Athens. The last stand took place on Crete which was invaded on the 20th of May 1941 by German paratroopers, who, after paying a very heavy death toll, took it by the end of the month. The king and the Greek government together with the British Expeditionary Force and the remnants of the Greek Army fled to Egypt.

II Occupation, resistance and first signs of division

Although their performance at the battlefield was questionable, the Italians were left with the control of most of the Greek territory. A chunk was also reserved for Bulgaria, that finally found exit to the Aegean through Eastern Macedonia and Thrace. The Germans retained Thessaloniki under their control though, together with the most strategically important areas in Central Macedonia, the Greco – Turkish border, several Aegean islands including most of Crete, the port of Piraeus and the capital Athens.

As we have seen, the Italian attack in October 1940 found Greece’s economy in a fragile state with the country relying heavily on imports to cover the needs of its people. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Now the invasion destroyed a significant amount of Greece’s infrastructure and the triple occupation put the external trade to a stop. Soon, especially the urban population, faced food shortages and by the end of 1941 starvation. During the tragic winter of 1941-42 approximately 300,000 people lost their lives. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 89 - 90) Overall, Greece paid one of the heaviest tolls among the allied forces losing 7 – 11 % of its 1939 population during the Second World War. (Wikipedia, 2023)

This situation pushed the Greeks towards struggle rather than passivity. They needed to resist in order to survive. The first resistance group under the name National Liberation Front (in Greek Ethniko Apeleftherotiko Metopo - EAM) was created by the Communist Party in September 1941. Its military branch was the Greek People’s Liberation Army (in Greek Ellinikos Laikos Apeleftherotikos Stratos - ELAS). This was not only the first, but also the biggest resistance group. Indeed, by 1944 ELAS numbered 50,000 fighters in the Athens – Piraeus area only, whereas estimations for EAM members reach up to 2,000,000 (total population 7,000,000). (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 91, 99) (Heneage, 2021, p. 188) The most important resistance groups with non-communist leadership were the National Republican Greek League (in Greek Ethnikos Dimokratikos Ellinikos Sindesmos – EDES) and the National and Social Liberation (in Greek Ethniki Ke Kinoniki Apeleftherosi – EKKA). These did not have the size of EAM-ELAS though as the latter dominated most of the country whereas EDES’ bastion was restricted to Epirus and EKKA’s in the mountainous area of Parnassus in Boeotia. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 92 - 93)

For some time , the different resistance groups worked together and with the help of the Allies they managed to carry out formidable operations, like Operation Harling, which destroyed the heavily guarded Gorgopotamos viaduct in Central Greece in November 1942, stemming the flow of supplies through the Balkans to the German Afrika Korps. (Wikipedia, 2023) As a result, 9 divisions of the Axis powers were stuck in Greece to maintain some order, with questionable results, especially away from the main cities and transportation arteries, and that only after intense fighting. As a German report with the title ‘The political situation in Greece. July 1943’ put it:

‘90% of the Greeks today are unanimously aligned against the Axis powers and ready to go into open rebellion’. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 95 - 96)

The pressure the resistance groups exercised on the Axis forces and before that the army’s performance during the Italian invasion in October 1940 showed once again what the Greeks could do when standing united. In the following though, we will describe several open issues tackled by the Greek political establishment of the time in such a way that once again tore the Greeks apart.

As we have seen, before the war Greece was ruled by Metaxas’ dictatorship. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Metaxas died in January 1941, but the government that fled to Egypt together with the king, after Greece’s occupation by the Axis forces, appeared officially as a continuation of this dictatorship. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 97) Back home in Greece though, contrary to the anti-Communism sentiments of the government, EAM seemed to have the upper hand and ELAS could field thousands of guerrilla fighters. As the German report of 1943 mentioned above continues:

EAM and its militant organizations have borne the brunt of the resistance against the Axis. Most resistance groups belong to EAM. Politically, it is the leading force and because it is highly active and has a coordinated leadership, it represents the greatest danger to the occupation forces. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 96)

But how did the communists gain such an advantage in building the resistance? First, they were already experienced in building illegal networks of operation as they were outlawed by Metaxas’ dictatorship already before the war. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 91) Second, the remnants of the Greek Army, whose officers could have been the core of the resistance movement, escaped to Egypt with the king and the government. And it is further suggested that the latter (king and government) did not want to encourage resistance in occupied Greece! (Gerasis, 2013, pp. 90 - 91) We should not forget that Venizelos’ failed coup of 1935 gave the royalists the opportunity to purge the army from elements supporting unreigned democracy and restored the dynasty that was exited in 1924. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Now, the king and the government did not want to risk the return of the democrats under arms within the ranks of a resistance movement that could eventually hinter their return to Greece at the end of the war.

Although the King succumbed to the British pressure and abolished the dictatorship in February 1942 (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 97), the perceived threat for him and his entourage became more imminent when, in March 1944, EAM formed the Temporary Committee of National Liberation. The latter called for the formation of a government of national unity challenging the legitimacy of the exiled government in Egypt. The call was positively received by a significant amount of the Greek army serving under allied command in Africa. Their demand that the request be accepted by the government in Cairo was vigorously met with the help of the British and 20,000 service men were sent to concentration camps in Libya and Eritrea. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 105 - 110) It is difficult to assume that 50% of the Greek army in the Middle East had suddenly turned communist. It is more likely that these were the democratic elements of the army.        

At the same time, back home, in occupied Greece, the situation was also becoming more and more difficult and complicated. Italy had surrendered to the Allies already in September 1943. As the Italians were occupying most of Greece, this created a control gap. To fill this gap, Hitler replaced the Italians with troops transferred from the collapsing eastern front. These men, brutalized by their experiences fighting the Russians, brought with them a different kind of warfare. Fifty Greeks were to die for every German soldier killed, ten for every wounded German, with no distinction made between guilty and innocent. The massacres at Kommeno (Wikipedia, 2022), Kalavryta (Wikipedia, 2023) and Distomo (Wikipedia, 2023) are characteristic of this self-defeating approach, as the Greeks left their burning villages and joined the resistance in the mountains. This together with the weaponry of the 90,000 Italian soldiers that surrendered in Greece in 1943 made ELAS even stronger. (Heneage, 2021, pp. 190 - 191)

To make up for this loss Hitler’s reinforcements from the eastern front were not enough. Thus, the Germans turned for help to the … Greeks! The Security Battalions were set up to act against the resistance and maintain order in 1943 by the quisling government in Athens. Denounced at the time as ‘fascists’ and ‘collaborators’ these people, nevertheless, also included moderates who feared the communists’ post-war intentions and can surely have been no more ideologically attracted to the doctrines of Hitler than most of the ELAS fighters to the doctrines of communism. (Heneage, 2021, p. 194) (Beaton, 2021, p. 437) Indeed, considering that the Communist Party was getting no more than 5-6% of the votes in the national elections before the war (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023), it is natural to assume that most of the rank-and-file EAM-ELAS little knew or care about communism. After all, as we have seen, Greece was a country of smallholders who believed fervently in property ownership (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) and most of the people who joined EAM-ELAS did it following a message not about class struggle but national liberation. (Heneage, 2021, p. 188)  This way the Communists were able to impose their leadership but not their ideology on a significant part of the Greek people. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 95)

Thus, all sides were simply fighting to survive in a failed state and to preserve what they could of what they valued, when even the forces of occupation could barely keep order outside the major cities, and only by terrorizing the citizens with arbitrary arrests and mass executions. (Beaton, 2021, p. 437) Towards the end of the occupation then the Greeks had once more started to fight against each other with the resistance groups exchanging accusations for collaboration with the Security Battalions and the Germans. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 98) The assassination of EKKA’s leader Psaros by the communists in April 1944 was one of the most striking events of this time and indicative of what was about to follow. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 101)

Another part of the puzzle, and a very significant one, was the intentions of the Allies. After all, Greece was a defeated country and its future depended on the overall outcome of the war and the negotiations between the Great Powers of the time. And the decision was that Greece will remain under the sphere of influence of the Western Powers. It was taken during a meeting between Churchill and Stalin in Moscow in October 1944. The exchange of views was done using a rough sheet of paper [there is even talk about a napkin (Heneage, 2021, p. 193)] on which Churchill wrote who would get what. The British prime minister found the whole process, affecting the lives of millions of people, so cynical that he suggested to burn the sheet of paper at the end of the negotiation. But Stalin continued cynically and said: ‘No, you keep it’. (Churchill, The Second Worls War (Vol II), 2010, pp. 1154-1155) It has been suggested that the Soviets informed EAM about their intentions to give up Greece already before Churchill’s visit to Moscow. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 112 - 115)

III Liberation and … another civil war!

Now, with all these in mind, what could have, ideally, be done? The Communists should realize that their military superiority was becoming doubtful, in the long term, without Soviet support and with Greece left under the influence of the Western Allies. After all, most of the ELAS fighters were not actually communists. They should try, nevertheless, to capitalize on the fight they put up against the Axis as leaders of the most massive resistance movement and ‘cash out’, so to say, any positive appeal this might have to the people by getting more votes and seats in the parliament compared to the pre-war period. The king and the government, on the other hand, should play down the communist threat, especially after the decision of the Allies, and work for a smooth transition to the post-war period and for the recovery of Greece that suffered heavy human and material losses during the war. To this end, both parties should lay their guns down, when the Germans fled from Greece in October 1944, and stand united at the peace negotiations claiming effective support for their country.

Ideally yes. But what did really happen? The truth is that at the beginning the Communist Party made some concessions. Instead of using its military superiority to take Athens and the power, after the withdrawal of the Germans, it accepted to participate in a government of national unity under Georgios Papandreou, head of the exiled government in Cairo, and set ELAS under British command. The king’s fate and consequently the form of the state system (reigned or unreigned democracy) would once again be decided by referendum. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 158)

Nevertheless, violent events between the opposing factions did not stop and the mutual suspicion remained obvious. Thus, when the government ordered the dissolution of the guerrilla groups, including ELAS, that were to be replaced by a national army, a crisis erupted. The problem was that the national army was to have the heavily armed Greek brigade, that fought under allied command and the exiled government brought with it, at its core. After the purge of its democratic elements in the Middle East we saw earlier though, this was fanatically pro-royal and the Communists demanded its dissolution as well. Papandreou denied. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 117) The Communists then left the government of national unity, withdrew ELAS from British command and organized a general strike and a large rally in Athens. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 159)

The later took place on the 3rd of December 1944 and was drowned in blood when the security forces started firing against the crowd. It is not clear if the order came from the government, the British or if the Security Battalions, whose members at that time were laying low following the developments, were involved in the incident, but hundreds of the demonstrators lost their lives or were wounded. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 120 - 122) In response, the communists chose to resort also to violence and the crisis culminated to the Battle of Athens, that started after the rally and lasted for 33 days. The visit, in the midst of the fighting, of the British prime minister, Winston Churchill, in Athens was indicative of the latter’s determination to keep Greece under the sphere of influence of the western allies. (Churchill, The Second Worls War (Vol II), 2010, pp. 1172 - 1184) His interventions have actually been heavily criticised as triggering the devastating all out civil war that would shatter all hope for post war unity in Greece (Heneage, 2021, p. 197), and it is a fact, that with the help of the British forces that landed in Greece after the withdrawal of the Germans, the government was able to draw the Communists to sign in February 1945 the Agreement of Varkiza. The latter provided for the demobilisation and disarmament of ELAS, general amnesty for ‘political’, but not criminal, offenses, the holding of general elections and the referendum for the fate of the king. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 161)

Nevertheless, as atrocities were carried out by both factions, during all this time, many issues remained open. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 133) Things were made worst by the participation in the Battle of Athens of many members of the quisling militias who collaborated with the Germans on the side of the government against the communists. This way, the battle acted as a legitimizer for these organizations, as it seemed to confirm the view that the quisling militias were nothing more than a means of dealing with the communist threat. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 162) With the tolerance of the government these people infiltrated into the ranks of the security forces and continued to terrorize anyone who was or was perceived to be communist. After all, the fact that criminal offences could still be prosecuted even after the compromise reached at Varkiza offered a good pretence. This was also admitted by Nikolaos Plastiras that returned to Greece after 10 years in exile to replace Papandreou in the premiership, before the Varkiza truce. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 136) His Venizelist past (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) was hoped to work conciliatory for the warring factions. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 133) To no avail. According to EAM in the year between the Varkiza agreement and the elections set for March 1946 1,289 people were murdered, 6,671 were seriously wounded, 31,632 tortured and 84,931 arrested. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 137)

This political climate led the communists and a significant part of other left and centrist parties to abstain from the elections set for the 31st of March 1946. When they realized that this way they would lose any chance they had to co-shape the political establishment after the end of the war, they revised their position, but this was two days after the deadline for submitting nominations. Thus, they asked for the postponement of the elections, but prime minister Sofoulis, leading the fourth government formed after the replacement of Plastiras in April 1945 (Kostis, 2018, p. 296), declined. Ernest Bevin, the British foreign secretary in the Labour government of Clement Attlee, that replaced Churchill in the premiership in July 1945, is supposed to have exercised the influence ensured by the presence of the British army in Greece towards this direction. As a result, voters abstention reached 50%, but the elections gave legitimacy to the right-wing government and cemented the re-emergence of the royalists. Indeed, in the September 1946 referendum on the fate of king George, the system of government was confirmed as a reigned democracy with 68,9% of the votes. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 140-141)

The decision for abstention from the elections of the left and centrist parties and its exploitation from the parties of the right would prove to be a fatal error. The only option left was the extra-parliamentary opposition. Encouraged by the hardening of the Soviets’ attitude already during the Potsdam Conference in the summer of 1945, where they stated their disagreement and protest against the ways of the British in Greece based on Stalin’s ‘old and vague authorization’ to Churchill (see above), and later, in January 1946, during the first session of the UN Security Council, where they demanded the withdrawal of the British forces from Greece, the Communist Party commissioned General Markos Vafiadis to set up the Democratic Army in the mountains in August 1946. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 143-145) Nevertheless, support was to come mainly from the neighbouring Communist countries, Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Albania, that pledged to fully support the operations of the Democratic Army, during a conference in the Slovenian city of Bled in August 1947. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 163) Thus, in the summer of 1947, Greece was, yet again, engaged in an all-out civil war with incalculable consequences.

IV Fighting among themselves … almost

At the end of the First World War, Greece continued the fighting for another 4 years in an attempt to increase its territorial gains in Asia Minor. The undertaking resulted in the catastrophe of 1922. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2022) At the end of World War Two the modern Greek state had once more territorial gains (its last): the Dodecanese. On the 31st of March 1947, the British surrendered the islands to a Greek military commander although the law on the annexation of the Dodecanese to Greece was published in the Government Gazette on 9.1.1948 with retroactive effect from 28.10.1948. (Divani, 2010, pp. 683-685) Nevertheless, instead of focusing on the rebuilding of the country like most of the winners, and losers, of WWII, the Greeks, once more, continued the fighting. This time it was not about further territorial expansion. It was a fight for power among themselves.

Among themselves? Almost. As I commented before (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023), division invites foreign intervention. Indeed, after the Battle of Athens, Churchill’s remark was that at the time when 3,000,000 men on both sides fight in the western front and massive American forces line up in the Pacific against the Japanese, the Greek crisis might seem of minor importance. But the country is at the nerve center of power, law, and freedom of the Western world. Consequently, he wouldn’t back off easily from the deal he made with Stalin (see above). The problem was that the British Empire was on the retreat after WWII. It was not the British who were to conclude the mission in Greece. It would take the persistent efforts of the one who would soon constitute the united power of the English-speaking world: Uncle Sam. (Churchill, The Second Worls War (Vol II), 2010, p. 1184)

In March 1947 the USA adopted a diplomatic policy, under the ‘Truman Doctrine’, which stipulated that any threat from the Left to a non-communist country would be deterred even by force. The size of military and economic support to Greece thanks to the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan (Wikipedia, 2023) was tremendous. Three hundred million dollars were granted by the US Congress in 1947 only and much more later. The effect of the American support on the army was huge. It reached 200,000 men including well trained mountain troops. It was equipped with modern weapons, artillery and fighting aircraft. A modern communications network was built. The airfields, roads, bridges, and ports that had fallen into disuse during the occupation were repaired. American military advisors were working together with the Greek General Staff for the planning of the operations against the Communists. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 151-152, 157)

The latter on the other hand were in a tough spot. As we have seen they were getting some support from the neighboring communist countries, but only against concessions in Macedonia, which made their cause very unpopular in the rural areas in the north, in view also of recent atrocities of the Bulgarians there during the occupation. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 159-160) Their networks in the cities were also gradually being neutralized by the police as the Communist Party was outlawed and thousands of its members were sent to exile. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 158) Additionally, for most of the Greeks 6 years of fighting was already enough. Recovery and financial stability were now the imperative. Any attempt for further unrest met their disapproval and dismay. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 148) Thus, the Democratic Army had soon problems in finding new conscripts. Eventually, 25% of the fighters in its ranks were women and the voluntary conscription was replaced by a forced one. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 155) This was followed by terror tactics like hostage taking. A striking case was that of young children at the age of 3 to 14 years and their expatriation to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 159) All these were exploited of course by the government propaganda.

Things got worse for the Communists because of internal disputes. In view of the problems in conscription, training, and equipment, Vafiadis resorted more to guerilla tactics, but the General Secretary of the Communist Party, Nikos Zachariadis, wanted to turn to more conventional ways of war. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 160) Vafiadis was finally replaced by the General Secretary in the leadership of the Democratic Army, but the decisive turn came in June 1948, when Yugoslavia’s leader Tito disagreed with Stalin and his country was expelled from the Cominform. (Wikipedia, 2023) Despite the fact that the Soviet Union offered little practical support during the war, it was the ‘mother’ to which communist hard-liners, and especially Zachariadis, had to obey. (Tsoucalas, 2020, pp. 158-159) Thus, a year later, in July 1949, Tito closed the border and the Democratic Army lost access to the rear of Yugoslavia where it used to withdraw in times of danger in order to regroup and resupply. At the same time, the imminent threat of an invasion of the Greek army in Albania forced the Communist Party to declare a cease fire on the 16th of October 1949. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 166) (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 162) This is 5 years after the Germans left Athens in 1944.

V The aftermath: A new schism

At the end of the Second World War the magnitude of the disasters that Greece had suffered could only be compared with those of Yugoslavia, Poland, or the Soviet Union. From 1940 till 1944 550,000 people were killed (corresponds to 8% of the total population) and 34 % of the national wealth was lost. 401,500 houses were destroyed and the number of the homeless reached 1,200,000. 1,770 villages were set on fire, whereas the big ports, the railway lines, the locomotives, the telephone network, the civil airports, and the bridges were in ruins. 73% of the capacity of the merchant fleet and 94% of the capacity of the passenger fleet was sunk. 56% of the road network, 65% of privately owned vehicles, 66% of trucks and 80% of the buses was also lost. The number of horses was reduced by 60%, of small animals by 80% and 25% of forests was burned. By 1944 the production of cereals was down by 40%, of tobacco by 89%, and that of currant by 66%. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 134)

And yet, in front of all this devastation, the Greeks continued fighting a civil war for another 5 years! This brought more dead (40,000 according to official statistics, 158,000 according to unofficial calculations), hundreds of thousands of additional homeless and material damages comparable to that estimated at the end of 1944. Moreover, 80,000 to 100,000 Greeks branded as communists back home fled or were forcibly taken across the country’s northern border and would have to make new homes in eastern Europe’s communist countries. The largest such Greek community was established in the city of Tashkent in Uzbekistan. (Tsoucalas, 2020, p. 163) (Beaton, 2021, p. 438)

This ‘exodus’ was a manifestation of a new schism in the Greek society that was realized by 1949 and replaced that between Venizelists and anti-Venizelists (and of course others before that): the schism between ‘nationalists’ (ethnikofrones) and ‘communists’. In a nutshell, the nationalists stood on the winning side of the civil war and professed the defence of the ‘Greco-Christian’ tradition against the subversive dispositions of the loosing side, that is the ‘communists’. The distinction was rather blur (e.g. we saw – see above – that many ELAS members were not actually communists) and thus served for the prosecution of many whose political convictions did not suit the state at the time. Indeed,  postwar Greece was very far from being a liberal paradise (although neither was it, as we will see, Stalinist Russia). (Heneage, 2021, pp. 205-206) In fact, this schism, in a much milder form though, is carried to this day between the ‘conservative’ or ‘right-wing’ and the ‘progressive’ parties that continue to fail to collaborate even under severe conditions, like the current economic crisis, with devastating consequences for the country.

VI Conclusion: Who’s fault was it?

Greece is probably the only country in the world that does not have a celebration for the victory in the First World War whereas victory in the Second World War is (strangely) celebrated at the date that marked the entrance of the country to the deadliest conflict the world has ever seen and not that of its liberation and exit. The reason, obviously, is the fact that in both cases the Greeks continued the fighting undertaking a disastrous campaign in Asia Minor in the first case and engaging in a protracted civil war in the second. Nothing to celebrate then.

If we were to ask the question who’s fault was it that Greece fought yet another civil war, a popular narrative is that the war was the result of the pressure that the government, supported by the British, exercised on the communists in an attempt to eliminate their influence on the social and political life which was significantly increased as a result of their leading role in the resistance against the axis forces that occupied Greece.

Some of this narrative, implying that the Communist Party was in ‘self-defense’ was carefully presented in the previous sections. And caution is indeed necessary as there is also harsh criticism of the communist leadership’s stance at that time from former party members. There were indeed incomprehensible positions and decisions of the party like (i) the adoption of the slogan for an independent Macedonia and Thrace, particularly unpopular to the Greek general public, (ii) the compromise with the exiled government in Egypt and avoidance of taking the power by force, when ELAS had overwhelming military superiority at the end of the occupation in 1944, followed by (iii) a turn to military means at an unfavorable time, when the government and its army returned and established itself in the country, with the help of the British and later the Americans. These are interpreted as the implementation, by the internationalist leadership of the party, of the decisions and commands of the Soviet Union that were based on the latter’s conflicts, agreements and overall power play with the British and the Americans in the region and elsewhere. (Lazaridis, 2022 (8th Edition), pp. 21-22, 77-82, 84-86 ) In a nutshell, it is suggested that the communist leadership was working for the Soviet interests.

I believe that the developments that culminated to the civil war can be readily understood within the concept of clientelism, which was described in detail in the previous article of this series on the interwar period. (Papageorgiou, History is Now Magazine, 2023) Once again two rival factions used their audiences (clients) to collide for power. Continuing the devastation of the Second World War they worked against the country’s recovery and had to resort to foreign support (intervention) to achieve their goals. The communists lost because they did not get the lavish support that the government enjoyed from the British and the Americans. Additionally, their real audience was much smaller whereas some of their positions made their cause even more unpopular to the public, as unpopular was already the continuation of the war by both factions, after the end of the Second World War. What needs to be stressed here is that clientelism is not something that is restricted internally in a state. When clientelism is in place the state itself becomes a client. The price of American largesse was that Greece effectively became a client state. (Heneage, 2021, p. 204) If the communists had won, Greece would correspondingly become a client state of the Soviets.

In fact, retrospectively thinking, if we were to find a positive element in the events of the period, this is undoubtedly the avoidance of the fate of Greece’s northern neighbors that ended up in the Soviet sphere of influence. On the contrary, Greece remained firmly connected to the West, it managed to benefit from the Marshall Plan and, after the civil war, it followed the amazing economic course of the Western European countries, finally achieving an unprecedented leap in economic development that put it far ahead of its Balkan neighbors. (Kalyvas, 2020 (3rd Edition), p. 170) More on this in the articles to follow.   

What do you think of the 1940s in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

References

Beaton, R. (2021). The Greeks, A global history. New York: Basic Books.

Churchill, W. S. (2010). The Second World War (Vol. I). Athens: Govostis (in Greek - The work is also available in English by Penguin Classics).

Churchill, W. S. (2010). The Second Worls War (Vol II). Athens: Govostis (in Greek - The work is also available in English by Penguin Classics).

Divani, L. (2010). The Territorial Completion of Greece (1830-1947), An Attempt at Local Lore. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Gerasis, G. (2013). The Chronicle of a National Tragedy. Athens: Roes (in Greek).

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

Kalyvas, N. S. (2020 (3rd Edition)). Catastrophies and Triumphs, The 7 cycles of modern Greek history. Athens: Papadopoulos (in Greek, in English under the title Modern Greece: What everyone needs to know by Oxford University Press).

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

Lazaridis, T. (2022 (8th Edition)). Fortunately, We Were Defeated Comrades. Salonika: Epikentro (in Greek).

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. (2023, March 22). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2023/3/22/the-modern-greek-state-19231940-the-issues-of-clientelism#.ZDj9i_ZBy3A

Tsoucalas, C. (2020). The Greek Tragedy, From the liberation to the colonels. Athens: Patakis (in Greek, originally published in English by Penguin in 1969).

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

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Harling

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalavryta_massacre

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distomo_massacre

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_split

The 1936 Summer Olympic Games: Nazism on the World Stage

The Olympic games have been around since the time of the ancient Greeks, being a showcase of physical feats and sport prowess. After Germany won the bid for the Olympic games in 1931, the Nazis would unfortunately be able to use it to showcase the country’s technological and economic prowess to the world. In the process they would also set the precedent for all Olympic games to come.

Kyle Brett explains.

The torch relay for the Summer Olympic Games, 1936. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-116-08A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Germany wins the Olympic bid

Germany originally won the Olympic bid to host the summer games in Berlin in 1908. This would not come to fruition as the advent of the first World War led to the games being canceled. Organizers of the event wanted to have the games continue to run during wartime like the ancient Greeks had done, but the brutality of the war made the games unfeasible. Thus the next Olympic games would be held in Antwerp, Belgium in 1920.

Germany, after the First World War, was broken, its economy was in tatters and its people left unhappy with their leadership. These problems were further exacerbated by the advent of the Wall street crash and the Great Depression. The 1924 Olympic games in Paris had even banned Germany from participating in the games, which followed the general public sentiment that people were not fond of Germany for their actions during the first World War. This would all change with Dr. Theadore Levalde and his lobbying for Berlin in the International Olympic committee.

The 1930 and 1931 meetings of the International Olympic committee saw much debate on which city would be the one to host the 1936 summer games. Levalde would spend much of these debates proposing Berlin as the host city and defending Germany in these meetings. Levalde was Germany’s Olympic representative since 1904 and was  a very well respected member of the International Olympic Committee community. That gave Germany a good chance to win the bid and host the Olympics. There was also a rising sentiment of utilizing the games to bring the world together. The past 20 years saw much division in the world, and the IOC sought to help right that with the Olympic games. At the end of the 1931 meeting 2 cities had to be chosen: Barcelona and Berlin. In the end it came down to an uncertainty surrounding the Republic of Spain and their ability to host the summer Olympics in Barcelona. This left Germany the winner and thus the 1936 bid for the Olympic games went to Germany and to the failing Weimar Republic.

A new Ideology rises to claim the Olympics

The Nazi party rose out of the failure of the Weimar Republic to capture the public's trust, thus the people of Germany yearned for a leader who would change the country for the better. To this end saw an ever growing support for the Nazi party and its very strong ideological values and economic solutions. This culminated in 1933 with the Nazi party seizing power from the Weimar Republic and becoming the leaders of Germany as well as the inheritors of the Olympic Games.

Originally Germany’s leader Adolf Hitler was apprehensive about the Olympic games as he saw no real need to host them or to participate in them. His opinion was swayed by the chief propagandist for the Nazi party Paul Joseph Goebbels. Goebbles convinced Hitler that the Olympics could be an opportunity to put Nazism and Germany’s achievements on the world stage, and thus construction of the Olympic stadium in Berlin began.  The Olympic games were to be a showcase of the success of Germany and how their new ideology was to be spread around the world.

Problems fueled by hate

The German government’s state sponsored anti-semitism was not unknown by many of the participating countries. It was originally decided that for the games that no Jewish athletes would be allowed to participate, however facing backlash that rule was lowered to appease the other countries that would be in the games. The 1935 Nuremberg Laws declared that all German Jews were no longer citizens of Germany and thus they were no longer allowed to participate in the games for the German team. These ideas of hate would not leave the games as many countries would sideline their Jewish athletes to appease the German hosts.

There was one problem with the games actually happening and that was the participation of the United States of America. The US would be the largest presence at the games and if they chose to stay out of the games many other countries might also back out. As for if they were to join, there were 2 people responsible for deciding if the US would participate in the games. Those 2 people were Avery Brundage and Jerimiah Mahoney. Avery was an Olympian himself as well as being a self made millionaire. He also saw what was happening in Germany and had no real problems with it, even aligning himself with Nazi values. Mahoney on the other hand would be the opposite, he was a judge who served on the supreme court and he was very staunchly anti-Nazi. His main point on his disdain for the Nazis was their anti-Christian stance on religion in society and that would drive his position against them.

Mahoney was against the games and Brundage was all for US participation, so in a bid to rally support for his position Brundage would travel to Berlin to make sure that the Jewish athletes were being treated fairly. His trip to Berlin, which was very controlled and deceptive, had shown no mistreatment of Jewish athletes by the Germans and had actually shown Germany to be a fair and equal place for all athletes. In reality Brundage was shepherded around by Hitler and taken to talk to actors. It also did not help that Brundage did not speak any German and would need a translator the entire trip. Nonetheless Brundage returned to the US and with his evidence was able to convince the organizers of American athletics that Germany was fit for the Olympics.

Olympic preparations

Germany began their preparations for the 1936 Olympics with the building of the Olympiastadion, a large neoclassical oval stadium that could house 100,000 spectators. This was only the start of Germany’s display of the opulence of the Third Reich.  They would do a tremendous amount of cleanup in Berlin for the upcoming games. One of the main things they would do is remove all forms of hate from the streets. They cleaned up all signs of anti-semitism and would replace them with either the swastika, or with the Olympic flag. This was in an effort to make Germany seem much more liberal than they were in reality. They would also set out to arrest and ship off all of the Romani people in the area around the venue to try to make the stadium seem more opulent and refined. Shops near the stadium were also told to lower the prices drastically in an effort to make the economy of Germany seem much better than it was. There was also a major campaign to repaint and fix up any buildings that were looking run down. This extended out of Berlin to any building along the train lines that lead to Berlin. All of these efforts culminated in a fresh and beautiful city perfect to host the Olympics.

Technology was another major point of focus for the Nazis and something they proudly displayed at the Olympic games. They built 6 large international transmitters so that the journalists could report back to their home countries about the games. They also put cameras in the stadium so that this could be the first ever televised Olympic games. On top of that they showed off other technological achievements like the Hindenburg which was a huge airship as well as various military technologies.

Let the Games begin

The 11th Olympiad began with an opening ceremony and with a new tradition that would become a staple of the modern Olympics. That tradition would be the Olympic flame and its journey from Olympia in Greece to the Olympic brazier. The tradition was treated as if it were an ancient tradition; however it was made up for the Olympics by the Nazis. It was followed by the entrance of Hitler and his entourage which was played up to show the extravagance of the German leadership. The marches of the 49 different countries would follow Hitler’s entrance, with each country showing off their flag and their teams. The opening ceremony continued with a flyover from the Hindenburg and with much more fanfare, really playing up the glory of the Third Reich. With that the games were underway and the first televised Olympics was on for the world to see.

Hitler made sure to provide the journalists and reporters with all the equipment they would need, along with nice living quarters to keep their opinions about Germany good and to keep their reports about the games in good spirits. The eyes of the world were on Germany as the games commenced. There were a few athletes that the public were eager to see like Jesse Owens from the US. The stands would be filled up for most of the games as people were eager to see this worldwide event in person.

The main goal of the Nazis in the Olympics was to show off the Aryan race and their superiority. When all was said and done, Germany led with the most gold medals and with the most medals overall. There were instances, such as Jesse Owens, a black athlete from the US, beating the German champion Luz Long in the long jump that may have hindered their aspirations. However when all was said and done the Germans came out of the Olympics the leaders of the world in athletic prowess, which ultimately was their goal.

The Olympics comes to a close

When the games came to a close and all of the spectators filtered out the hate and discrimination that surrounded the Nazi party before the Olympics had resumed. They returned to persecuting Jews and anyone who was Jewish through what the Nuremberg laws had dictated. Many Jewish families were invited back to Germany before and during the games in an attempt to show the liberalization efforts the Nazi party was trying to showcase. These families were persecuted along with every Jewish person under the Third Reich. The Olympics had generally been a pause for hate and discrimination, but once they had left Germany so too did the facade of a liberal society.

The 1936 summer Olympics was a major success for the Nazi party. They had turned the public perception of Germany from a hateful and downtrodden country, into a much more economically wealthy and liberalized society. They succeeded in showing their technological and economic prowess off to the world and painting the picture of a new and improved society.

What do you think of the 1936 summer Olympics? Let us know below.

Sources

Bachrach, Susan D. The nazi olympics: Berlin 1936. Little, Brown, 2000.

Walters, Guy. Berlin Games: How Hitler stole the Olympic Dream. London: John Murray, 2007.

Winston Churchill’s Anti-Appeasement Views in the 1930s

British politician Winston Churchill was famously against the appeasement of Adolf Hitler and the Nazis in the 1930s. However, a public who still remembered World War One, were not altogether sympathetic towards these arguments. Here, Bilal Junejo looks at this period.

Winston Churchill and Neville Chamberlain in 1935.

“Appeasement” refers to “the response of British foreign policy makers in the 1930s to the rise of the dictator powers, especially Nazi Germany … it is seen as a policy of making one-sided concessions, often at the expense of third parties and with nothing offered in return except promises of better behaviour in the future, in a vain attempt to satisfy the aspirations of the aggressor states (Dutton, 2007).”

Appeasement arose as “an attempt to adjust the balance between the victorious and vanquished powers of the peace settlement of 1919 by concessions based on the widely held feeling that the terms of that peace had been unacceptably harsh (Dutton, 2007).” It would also be helpful to remember what is meant linguistically by the word “appease” — “to pacify or placate someone by acceding to their demands”, as per the Oxford English Dictionary. The meaning implies the presence of a choice for the appeaser. One does not “accede” to a demand when one does not have a choice in resisting it — one simply acquiesces therein! Since the application of the word “appeasement” to British foreign policy in the 1930s implies that there was nothing inevitable about that policy — that it could have been different, had its makers so chosen — we must consider the reasoning which was propounded at the time (i.e. without the benefit of hindsight) in favour of that policy, if we are to be at all able to determine just how realistic, in the sense of being practicable, were the arguments which Churchill put forward against it.

The doctrine of collective security, which was laid down in Article 16 of the League of Nations’ Covenant, stipulated that the League must present a united front in the face of unprovoked aggression against any member. However, “the basic premise of collective security was that all nations would view every threat to security in the same way and be prepared to run the same risks in resisting it (Kissinger, 1994, page 52).” In an organisation which boasted 60 different members from around the world at its greatest extent in the mid-thirties, this was never likely to be the case, least of all after the Great Depression’s advent in 1929, when the economic woes of Great Britain, one of the League’s principal ‘policemen’, not only precluded the imposition of meaningful economic sanctions by her upon an aggressor, but also necessitated the reduction of expenditure upon defence to the barest minimum required for national and imperial security. The League was only as strong as the collective will of its members, and since collective security, by definition, did not envisage unilateral action by a member, the stage was set for Great Britain, already riddled with moral doubts as to the peace settlement of 1919 and weakened by the Depression, to embark upon appeasement.

Japan - 1930s

First came Japan, in 1931. Then Italy, in 1935. Churchill, however, was selective in his opposition to appeasement. Whilst he adamantly opposed any manner of compromise with Hitler’s Germany to the last, he exuded no similar sentiment when Mussolini invaded Abyssinia, “[remaining] out of the country during the autumn of 1935 so as to avoid having to pronounce for or against Italy (Taylor, 1964, page 123).” Even after Mussolini’s assault upon Albania in April 1939, Churchill was able to say that the invasion was “not necessarily a final test … [since it appeared], like so many other episodes at these times, in an ambiguous guise (The Daily Telegraph, 13 April 1939, page 14).” In believing that Italy should be appeased, so as to retain her crucial goodwill in dealing firmly with Germany, Churchill was not alone, his views finding harmonious echoes in the thinking of men such as Robert Vansittart, who was permanent under-secretary at the Foreign Office from 1930-8. Churchill had two reasons for singling out Germany — her inherent economic and military strength, and the advent of Adolf Hitler.

Hitler’s rise

Hitler became Chancellor in January 1933. In October, Germany walked out of not only the otiose Disarmament Conference, but also the League of Nations, of which she had been a member since 1926! That she was able to do so with complete impunity was in itself a harbinger of what was to come — from the Anglo-German naval agreement of June 1935, to the Munich agreement of September 1938. In an early speech which, significantly, he delivered to his constituents at a fête in Theydon Bois, Essex — almost as though he were testing the mood of the people before he delivered the same remarks in the House of Commons and committed himself more palpably to the cause of anti-appeasement — Churchill warned that “at present Germany is only partly armed and most of her fury is turned upon herself. But already her smaller neighbours … feel a deep disquietude. There is grave reason to believe that Germany is arming herself … I have always opposed … all this foolish talk of placing [Germany] upon some kind of [military] equality with France … Britain’s hour of weakness is Europe’s hour of danger. I look to the League of Nations to rally the forces which make for the peace of the civilised world and not in any way to weaken them (The Times, 14 August 1933, page 12).” In other words, Germany could not be treated as an equal without resurrecting the military imbalance which had haunted Europe since 1871. There was no need for Great Britain either to ignore her own rearmament or to appease Germany by tolerating hers, least of all at the expense of France. Churchill’s principal apprehension was that a rearmed Germany would attack in the west — a fear which the British Government did not come to share until after the Nazi-Soviet Pact’s conclusion in August 1939, which explains why they reacted in the manner that they did to the subsequent invasion of Poland. But the fact remains that after remilitarising the Rhineland in March 1936, Hitler only moved eastwards. Would he have turned westwards after dismantling Poland, an Anglo-French ally, with Soviet help? In retrospect, Operation Barbarossa makes that seem somewhat unlikely.

If, as the appeasers believed, Hitler’s advent was only the culmination of German resentment at the invidious Treaty of Versailles, then the sooner that settlement was dismantled in favour of a more congenial one, the sooner would the wind be taken out of the Nazi sail, and stability return to Europe. But there was also the risk that alleviation of that resentment during the existence of the Nazi regime could actually fortify its national appeal. As a contemporary would eventually put it, “three main factors have militated against the growth of active opposition to the regime. In order of importance they are the success of German foreign policy, the absence of any apparent alternative to Hitlerism, and the success of the Government in combating unemployment (The Times, 2 January 1939, page 15).” As it was a catch-22 situation, Churchill saw no merit in strengthening a brutal regime with needless concessions, and was correct in fearing that appeasement would only send the wrong signal to Hitler.

Foresight

Churchill’s foresight, however, was not commonly appreciated. “It was partly Churchill’s extremely dangerous time on the Afghan-Pakistan border in 1896 and 1897, and in the Sudan in 1898, which had brought him up close to militant Islamic fundamentalism, that allowed him to spot the fanatical nature of Nazism that so many of his fellow politicians missed in the 1930s (Roberts, 2020, page 56).” As late as 1938, Anthony Eden, who had already resigned as Foreign Secretary over diplomatic differences with Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, was arguing that “a settlement of the Sudeten German problem by conciliation is of the utmost urgency in view of the growing realisation of the far-reaching consequences of any resort to a decision by armed force in Central Europe (The Times, 12 September 1938, page 13)” — a settlement which was decried by Churchill as “a total and unmitigated defeat” on the floor of the House on 5 October 1938. The fact was that the appeasers not only believed that Nazi Germany would help counter what they considered was a bigger threat from Soviet Russia, but also remembered the horrors of the Great War — too vividly to recognise the import of caving in to Nazi bellicosity.

Conclusion

To conclude, acting upon Churchill’s counsel, the realism of which depended entirely upon the goals of its recipient, would have required rapid rearmament. Rearmament presupposed economic stability, which was already precarious at the time. But if the Government still believed, even in an era of Jarrow Marchers and an increasingly turbulent empire, that preserving a country which only (re)appeared on the map when both Germany and Russia were down and out in 1919 was vital to their own interests, then, with hindsight, it can be reasonably said that they should have issued an ultimatum when an infant regime committed its first act of overt “aggression” in March 1936 (Taylor, 1964, page 134). It might have averted another world war.

What do you think of Winston Churchill’s anti-appeasement in the 1930s? Let us know below.

Bibliography

Dutton, D. (2007) Proponents and critics of appeasement. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography [Online]. Available at: https://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-95646?rskey=aCl7MO&result=1 [Accessed on 22.11.22]

Kissinger, H. (1994) Diplomacy. Simon & Schuster Paperbacks.

Roberts, A. (2020) Leadership in War. Penguin Books.

Taylor, A. (1964) The Origins of the Second World War. Penguin Books.

The Times

The Daily Telegraph

How did Junior Military Officers Push Japan Into World War 2?

Of all of the ways in which Japan’s military was the most dysfunctional fighting force in modern history, Gekokujō was surely the strangest. Its origin is murky. All one Japanese encyclopedia could say was that; “since the medieval period, (mid-12th–14th centuries) writers have used the term to describe a variety of situations in which established authority was being challenged from below.”

Here, Daniel McEwen looks at Gekokujō and three key events in the 1930s that led Japan into war.

Japanese soldiers during the 1931 Mukden Incident.

Gekokujō: [translation; "the lower rules the higher" or "the low overcomes the high"]; someone of a lower position overthrowing someone of a higher position using military or political might.

Japan was an isolated nation of subsistence farmers and fishermen when Portuguese traders landed on its shores in 1540. Although initially welcomed, over the next century, these first Europeans wore out their welcome and were expelled by the shogunate in 1639 who then sealed their country off from the West for two hundred years! Then in the 1850’s, it was the Americans who forced Japan at gunpoint to throw open its doors to the world. The incoming rush of capital and technology transformed it into an industrial and military powerhouse. However, the accompanying influx of foreigners, government corruption, social unrest and widespread poverty left many feeling their country had sold it’s soul to the West. This head-on collision between Western modernity and Confucian tradition culminated in the 1930’s, with three “incidents” of Gekokujō that pushed Japan further down the path to Pearl Harbour.

1] The Mukden Incident [1931]

The most prestigious unit of the Japanese army, the Kwantung Army was the military muscle behind Japanese colonial expansion into Manchuria [present day Korea], China and Mongolia. Its field commanders often went rogue, violating orders from Army HQ in Tokyo without consequences. Most fatefully, in September of 1931, a group of its renegade officers staged-managed the bombing of a Japanese railway station in Mukden [present day Shenyang, China] which it then used as the excuse for occupying all of the Manchurian peninsula – despite specific orders to the contrary from Tokyo!

It is an act without equal among WW2’s combatant nations: rogue officers taking their country to war. A war they could not win. The Russians, also seeking power and influence in the western Pacific, took the occupation as a direct threat and attacked. Skilled only in massacring unarmed civilians, the Kwantung Army would fight several costly, losing battles with Joseph Stalin’s highly-mechanized battalions throughout the 1930’s before being routed decisively in 1939. Six years later, on August 8th, 1945 Red Army tanks stormed back into Manchuria, delivering a final stinging defeat to the Kwantung Army before the A-bombs ended the war.

It is telling that when their army’s treachery at Mukden was publicly revealed in 1933, rather than withdraw from the peninsula, Japan’s political leaders chose to withdraw from the League of Nations, officially endorsing the Kwantung Army’s insubordination. Many contend that the Mukden Incident was indeed the opening shot of WW2.

2] The May 15th Incident [1932]

In an act of cold-blooded treason, eleven young naval officers invaded the home of Prime Minister Inukai Tsuyoshi and assassinated him before police could stop them. To a man, the eleven were followers of the Kōdōha or Imperial Way Faction, a cabal of influential military officers who envisioned a return to a pre-Westernized Japan in which a military dictatorship dedicated to aggressive expansion would purge the country of the corrupt elites in both government and industry who it blamed for all of Japan’s many ills. But it’s what happened at the officers’ public trial that proved so fateful. Incredibly, a  nation that should have been appalled by the death of their PM instead fell in love with his assassins! The officers’ eloquence in spinning the murder as an act of patriotism aimed at reforming a corrupt government, swayed public opinion in their favour. The court was deluged with over 100,000 petitions demanding clemency and caved in, handing out light sentences that would see the killers serve only a few years behind bars. Critics argue that this leniency weakened Japan’s democracy and made the third incident inevitable.

3] The February 26th Incident [1936]

Emboldened by the navy officers’ success, young army officers launched their attempt to violently purge the government of any and all opponents of Kōdōha. Calling themselves The Righteous Army, some 1,500 young officers and cadets fanned out across the city. Armed to the teeth and carrying Death Lists, they roamed the streets of Tokyo for three days, fighting running gun government troops, storming public buildings, often shooting it out with bodyguards to get at the people on their lists. British news correspondent Hugh Byas described it as "government by assassination".

Several government dignitaries including two former Prime Ministers were gunned down but the coup was too poorly executed and the government too well prepared. Eventually cornered by loyal Imperial soldiers, the rebels surrendered. This time there would be no public trials. All 1,500 were convicted by secret court martials and punished with prison terms and demotions. Only the 17 ringleaders were executed. Kōdōha was dead as a movement and yet surprisingly, its presence would be felt in the next election in that voters elected a more war-like government! Young officers would have one last shot at changing their country’s history.

Despite the American’s use of atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan’s War Council remained deadlocked on the issue of surrender. Enter Emperor Hirohito who had originally supported the Council’s imperialist ambitions, but now was aghast at the horrific destruction wrought by the A-bombs. He urged the Council to stop the insanity and grudgingly, the hard-liners agreed that he would record a surrender statement admitting only to the “futility of further resistance”, to be broadcast to the country. But a squad of young officers got wind of the plan and occupied the recording studio in an 11th hour attempt to prevent the broadcast. In this too they failed and on August 15th, Hirohito’s voice was heard by his subjects for the first time. They rejoiced that the war was over.

Was Gekokujō ever anything more than thuggery wrapped in a flag, domestic terrorism on     steroids, fascism disguised as patriotism? Too much blood had been spilled, too much pain inflicted to find anything enobling in the “challenge from below” those young officers presented their country.

What do you think of Gekokujō? Let us know below.

You can contact Daniel at danielcmcewen@gmail.com

History Will Absolve the Cuban Republic, but Not Fidel Castro

In 1953, following his July 26 assault on the Moncada Barracks in Oriente province, a young lawyer and the mastermind of the attack in which many Cubans perished, named Fidel Castro, appeared in court to face prosecution. Out of as much desperation as revolutionary zeal, he delivered a powerful, hours-long speech in his defense. As of yet, no record of this speech has been found, and Fidel Castro was unsuccessful in avoiding conviction.

Here, Logan M. Williams considers Castro’s speech and looks at the history, successes, and failures of pre-revolutionary Cuba.

Fidel Castro under arrest after the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks.

Castro was sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment, of which he only ended up serving less than three, in Cuba’s Presidio Modelo on the Isle of Pines. During his time in prison, he gave newspaper interviews, and continued to participate in the organizing of Cuba’s anti-Batista efforts. While in prison, he also spent a great deal of time reconstructing a “record” – used loosely, because it was not an exact copy or a true record, due to the fact that it contained several embellishments and added phrases – of the speech that he delivered in court on that fateful day. One of the embellishments which he added to the recreated speech is one of the most infamous political phrases of the modern era, and it would become the title of his work: “History Will Absolve Me." The phrase was eerily similar to one used by the German despot, Adolf Hitler, who said when he found himself in a situation much like Castro’s, that the judgement of the “eternal court of history” would exonerate him.

Castro’s recreated speech would eventually transform into a manifesto for his future revolutionary activities and become required reading for militant leftists around the world. In it, Castro expressed the belief that the desperate conditions under which some Cubans suffered, provided justification for the radical nature of his actions. Castro described these conditions as follows: “the people have neither homes nor electricity” and those who were lucky enough to have shelter “live cramped [with their families] into barracks and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements.” He stated that “rural children are consumed by parasites which filter through their bare feet from the earth” and that Cuba had “thousands of children who die every year from lack of [medical] facilities.” Castro attributed these social conditions to an indifferent society as well as a corrupt and negligent government. Indeed, denigration of the Cuban Republic period is still a mainstay of Cuban regime propaganda today, which sees this sort of fear-mongering as the only way to justify its increasingly repressive regime.

Pre-Revolutionary Cuba

This propaganda may be effective, as most of today’s world now knows the Cuban Republic of 1902-1959 by its reputation for troubling and potentially neo-colonial relations with the United States or as a period of crime, graft, moral decay, political unrest, and total misery (if they know anything at all). However, this isn’t a complete representation of the era, as Castro himself alluded to in his speech before the court. Of the Cuban Republic, before the inception of the Batista dictatorship in 1952, Castro stated:

“It had its constitution, its laws, its civil rights, a president, a Congress, and law courts. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but [the people] had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they were going to do so! There existed a public opinion both respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums, and public meetings. The whole nation throbbed with enthusiasm.”

He also noted that “the [Cuban] people were proud of their love of liberty and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right.” Within today’s Cuba, Castro’s pamphlet, “History Will Absolve Me,” is not easily found in its entirety.

While certain aspects of Cuban society (particularly the government and political class) may have earned the harrowing reputation presented by Castroist propaganda, the lived experience of the average Cuban who resided on the island in this era – which was actually a period in which Cuba underwent a remarkable transformation and made steadfast progress towards liberal development – tells a vastly different story. Due to the work of a few committed scholars, who have dedicated their time to chronicling the achievements of the Cuban people, we have brought light to the Cuban “Dark Ages.”

Cuban Republic in History

Traditionally, the Cuban Republic is identified as the form of government which existed between the years 1902 and 1959, although this is not entirely accurate, and it doesn’t do justice to the efforts of Cuba’s liberals and independence fighters. The Cuban Republic came into existence for the first time during the second half of the nineteenth century, during the Ten Years War, when the island revolted against Spain. However, it ceased to exist following the defeat of the Cuban separatists, and the complete reimposition of Spanish colonial rule. The Cuban Republic was revived during the Cuban War of Independence, and it experienced several early and remarkable successes in governance, whilst embroiled in a brutally destructive war with Spain. Horatio Rubens, a New York-based attorney who was a personal friend of Jose Martí and who served as a principal advisor to Martí’s Cuban Revolutionary Party as well as the U.S. provisional government during the brief occupation of the island, describes the accomplishments of this iteration of the Cuban Republic in an 1898 journal article for The North American Review. These revolutionaries, amid a war, had built a modern, representative government, based upon republican principles. This new government included a system for the collection of taxes, as well as significant checks and balances, especially upon military authority. In Eastern Cuba which, at this point, was largely poor as well as underdeveloped, and entirely in the control of the revolutionaries (except for major cities), newspapers were published frequently, which was a positive indicator for free speech as well as other democratic freedoms, and schools were even established. Most notably, the Cuban Republic experienced its first election in 1897, ostensibly free from the corruption and political violence which would plague future such elections.

After a brief period of initial occupation lasting from the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 to 1902, the United States’ provisional government and most of its soldiers departed Cuba; the island nation had finally achieved a measure of autonomy (autonomy is used in this case to indicate the existence of a level of agency and self-government short of complete sovereignty). Most scholars of the Republic during this period in Cuban history stubbornly refuse to refer to it as sovereign Cuba, at least until the 1930s, due to the existence of the Platt Amendment, which formalized the continuation of U.S. dominance over Cuba by restricting the new island nation’s rights in the realm of international relations and by cementing the United States’ right to intervene militarily on the island under certain circumstances. Thus, Cuba’s sovereignty was so constrained until at least 1934, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy – and the persistence of Cuban diplomats – brought about the dismantling of the amendment.

The economy

After 1902, however, regardless of the existence of the Platt Amendment, the Cuban Republic was once again free to pursue liberalization and advancement in a Cuban manner. In spite of the many aforementioned plagues and hurdles faced by Cuba’s newly formed state, the Cuban Republic made extraordinary progress in the economic and social spheres; it was fully engaged in the crucible that is liberalization.

Economic data from this period indicate that the Cuban Republic was a middle-income (likely upper-middle income by modern standards) country, with living conditions comparable to some European countries, or to those in the southern United States (which were the poorest states in the U.S. at this time). Consumption rates at certain points during the Cuban Republic measured as high as 70% of most European economies and exceeded those of almost every other Latin American nation. The Cuban Republic’s income per capita before the Revolution of 1959, was well above the average for Latin America; in fact, it was equidistant from the European and Latin American averages. Several consumption-based economic indicators are especially useful in highlighting Cuba’s prosperity during the republican period, mainly those which relate to private ownership of technology and luxury items, as well as those which relate to food supply and nourishment. The Cuban Republic’s rate of private television ownership (measured by the number of televisions per 1000 persons) was nearly 7 times greater than the average for Latin American states, and approximately equal to the European average. Likewise, Cuban private ownership of radios was well above Latin America’s average, as was the rate of private ownership for passenger vehicles. Additionally, during the Cuban Republic period, Cuba regularly led Latin America in food production, as well as per capita daily caloric consumption; whereas, Cuba following the Revolution of 1959 has often lagged behind other Latin American nations in these regards. Finally, the rapid development of Cuba during the Republic era is evident by the fact that for much of that time period, Cuba led Latin America as the region's largest consumer of cement, a resource which is essential for the construction of new infrastructure. Additionally, Cuba’s investment in technology and mechanization during this period drastically exceeded that of its neighbors. In 1920, a time known as the “Dance of Millions” due to its especially high levels of prosperity, Cuba’s investment in these goods accounted for a quarter of the total investment in machinery for the entirety of Latin America (more of a cultural conception than a geographic region, “Latin America” has ill-defined borders, but for context can be estimated as containing approximately between 20-30 different countries.) After presenting many of the above statistics, and in light of the decidedly positive, albeit one-sided, perspective that they offer, authors of the above-cited paper in the Journal of Economic History, Marriane Ward and John Devereux concluded that “The story of Cuba during the twentieth century is therefore the story of how it has fallen in the world income distribution…. Over the last fifty years, Cuba has replicated the failings of command economies elsewhere albeit in a uniquely Cuban fashion.”

Infrastructure

The Cuban Republic’s remarkable success wasn’t limited to solely economic factors, Cuba also made remarkable progress in improving its transportation infrastructure. This helped the Republic to extend the rule of law, as well as healthcare and education opportunities, into the Eastern (largely rural and poor) portion of the island. During the republican period, railroads were constructed which spanned the entirety of Cuba, with the assistance of at least $60 million (likely over $1 billion in today’s currency) in American investment. The Cuban Republic’s relatively well-developed transportation is credited with facilitating much of the Republic’s incredible progress in healthcare. The same article notes that the Cuban Republic was exceptional by Latin American standards due to its ability to provide “relatively easy access to fairly high-quality healthcare for an unusually large share of the population…,” due partly to the government’s investment in social services, and aided by the government's drastic improvement of sanitation as well as water and sewer infrastructure. Before the Revolution of 1959, Cuba’s infant mortality rate was only 33 per 1000, less than a third of the average for Latin America and functionally identical to that of Europe. Additionally, the ratio of medical personnel to population in the Cuban republic was 2.5 times greater than the average for the region and virtually identical to the European average. Life expectancy in the Cuban Republic was 64 years, a full 14 years greater than the average for Latin America, and just five years below that of the United States. The Cuban Republic was also notably dedicated to matters relating to education, and the Cuban constitution – in its various iterations – always provided for free and compulsory education. As a result of this dedication, in 1955, Cuba’s literacy rate was 79 percent, amongst the highest in Latin America. Taking into account Cuba’s significant rural population, largely unreachable by the government at that time (not an unusual problem for developing nations), these feats in medicine and education are truly remarkable.

Human rights

Finally, and most importantly, the Cuban Republic continually made impressive advancements in human rights and liberalization. In Cuba’s 1940 Constitution, widely considered a bulwark of freedom and social justice, Cuban delegates included language which provided for anti-discrimination protections and other liberal principles. Notably, the constitution included unparalleled protections for Cuban women. The United States had, prior to the end of its provisional occupation in 1902, re-imposed the Spanish Civil Code upon Cuba as a stop-gap alternative to the difficult process of drafting a new body of law for the island. The Spanish Civil Code was heavily Catholicized, and thus, held regressive and prohibitive views of women and their role in society. During the short period of its existence, the Cuban Republic made remarkable progress in removing the religious influences from its body of law, and in elevating the status of women in the Cuban society. In the early 20th century, Cuban women catapulted from a position in which the law afforded them little autonomy and no property rights, to being able to own property, vote, divorce their husbands, and organize politically. Laws were also passed which attempted to abolish all forms of discrimination based upon sex, although their implementation proved difficult.

Cuba’s contributions to the cause of human rights during the republican period were not limited to the Constitution of 1940, or to Cuban domestic pursuits; Cuba was essential to the progress of the international human rights movement. In the latter years of World War 2, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt communed to discuss the post-war order, and to construct a world order amenable to their respective interests. The notions underpinning the United Nations, as an international organization dominated by the great powers and designed to serve as the arbiter of their new world order, emerged from these discussions. It was the efforts of various Latin American nations which made the United Nations what it is today: not just an organization designed for ensuring security and stability, but a dedicated, efficacious bastion of human rights. More specifically, it was Cuba’s delegation that assumed a leadership role of the Latin American bloc, at that time the largest group of nations in the original 58-state body, and spearheaded an aggressive charge to re-define the nature of the United Nations as a body primarily dedicated to the defense of human dignity. During the first session of the United Nations, the Cuban delegation became the first to submit a proposal that the United Nations consider issuing an authoritative statement demonstrating its commitment to human rights, a suggestion that ran counter to the immediate interests of the United States and other major members of the body. When the original motion failed the Cuban delegation resolved to pursue it with the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council which, due to the Republic of Cuba’s tenacity, established the Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of drafting an “international bill of rights.” Cuba also submitted a draft such declaration, which inspired the final document, serving as a model in both substance and form. If it were not for Cuba’s novel idea that universal human rights should be listed, so that they might be easily understood, attained, and defended by persons of every walk of life, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights might never have come into existence. Throughout most of the modern era, outside of religious doctrine and certain areas of academia, rights were seldom discussed in the context of “humankind,” “international,” or “universal.” Rather, rights were seen as the prerogative of the nation-state and were outlined in national contexts or documents (e.g., state constitutions.) Cuban, and larger Latin American influence over the United Nations assisted in shifting that paradigm, and it is perhaps the most incredible part of the Cuban Republic’s legacy.

Conclusion

It is important that the presentation of these facts not be mistaken as an effort to obscure the serious shortcomings of the Cuban Republic. It is especially critical that the aforementioned economic statistics not be misused to obscure the gross income inequality under which a segment of the Cuban Republic’s poor languished, or to exonerate those responsible for the political instability which plagued the era. Rather, knowledge of this period is crucial for two major reasons. First, the Cuban regime often boasts about spectacular achievements (particularly in the fields of health care and literacy), and these “achievements” form a central pillar of revolution propaganda, but the above data illustrate that most of these regime “successes” were largely achieved by the Republic which came before. Second, and even more important, this story of the Cuban Republic is the story of a brave people who fought for countless years to achieve some measure of freedom and liberalism, only to have it snatched away from them by a revolution – and revolutionaries – steeped in perfidy. Unfortunately, irony abounds in present-day Cuba which, once a key drafter of the original document, now bans the distribution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the island and severely punished those in possession of the document. Additionally, while Fidel Castro was given the chance to defend himself in open court on July 26, 1953 – in front of relatively fair-minded judges and the press – those who live on the island in the present day are denied that right. While Castro was released from prison after organizing an amnesty campaign from his cell, having served less than 3 years of his 15-year sentence, Cubans are now subjected to draconian prison sentences in medieval prisons. Perhaps this is why many Cubans prefer to refer to the Republican period as “free Cuba,” drawing a powerful juxtaposition with present-day, “un-free Cuba.”

History has yet to absolve Fidel Castro, or the brutally oppressive regime that he left behind, but it seems to be in the process of absolving the principles of the Republic which Castro worked so hard to topple.

What do you think of pre-revolutionary Cuba? Let us know below.

What was the Rhodesian Bush War?

The Rhodesian Bush War raged in the mostly unrecognised African nation of Rhodesia, modern-day Zimbabwe, a nation that had been unilaterally declared independent by the Prime Minister Ian Smith in 1965.

Smith defied calls from the British and international governments to implement a policy known as NIMBAR (No Independence Before Majority Rule). This led to a bloody guerrilla conflict between Smith’s government and militant pro-independence groups known as the Bush War from 1974-79. This was also a proxy battle within the Cold War. The war eventually culminated in the Lancaster House Agreement which reestablished the country as present-day Zimbabwe.

But why did Smith choose to pursue independence?

The origins of Smith’s decision and the Bush War lay within Rhodesia’s complex history.

Matthew Davey explains.

Rhodesian African Rifles on Lake Kariba in December 1976. Source: Ggwallace1954, available here.

Southern Rhodesia

Rhodesia was originally known as “Southern Rhodesia” and was part of a federation of nations which had become colonies of Britain in the 19th century following expeditions by the British South Africa Company. White settlers emigrated to the new colony seeking opportunities in mining and farming and established rooted communities.

Southern Rhodesia was also unique through being granted responsible government status in 1923, allowing colonial politicians to make decisions without deferring to London. This arrangement continued through the Second World War up until the 1960s when European authorities began to relinquish former colonies.

Who was Ian Smith?

Smith was born on April 8, 1919 in the mining township of Selukwe (now Shurugwi) to parents from the United Kingdom. His father was John Douglas Smith and his mother Agnes. John worked variously as a butcher, rancher, miner and a garage owner, but the family were known for their involvement in local politics.

Although Southern Rhodesia had self-governing status, it entered the Second World War by default when Britain declared war on Germany. The war was a turning point for Smith who suspended a place at university to enlist in the Royal Air Force in 1941.

Smith was posted to the Middle East as part of a Hurricane squadron. While performing a flight over Egypt he survived a crash and had plastic surgery performed on his face as a result.

Upon returning to Africa, Smith resumed his studies at Rhodes University in South Africa. It was around this time that his interest in politics began when he became leader of a campus veterans association.

Although Smith was a reluctant politician, preferring to devote himself to a farm he ran with his wife, he decided to run for office and was elected to parliament in 1948 for the Rhodesian Liberal Party.

He later founded the Rhodesian Front which won the 1962 election and Smith became Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1964.

Declaring UDI

In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave the “Wind of Change” speech, arguing that Britain should not hinder the process of independence for African nations.

The British were concerned that violence seen in other former European colonies could spill into British colonies while the United States argued communism would expand into Africa through nationalist groups if European governments denied them independence. The British government endorsed the policy of NIMBAR; independence could not be granted unless a majority native government was in place.

This posed complications for Rhodesia.

By this stage, Rhodesia had a significant white population, many of whom feared a repeat of the violence which had targeted Europeans in the Congo and Algeria under native governments. Smith himself believed that the sudden emergence of an unprepared black government would lead to civil war and economic strife. On a personal level, he also felt a sense of betrayal at Britain having fought in the war before being told to give up his position as Prime Minister.

Although white Rhodesians made up a smaller percentage of the population, economic and social disparities between the black and white citizens were significant. Although all racial groups were allowed to vote in elections, most black Rhodesians did not enjoy the same property ownership or financial status which were required for political participation.

Spurred by economic grievances and political exclusion, African nationalist groups called for an uprising against the Rhodesian government and for independence with a majority government.

In 1964, Harold Wilson was elected Prime Minister of Britain and took a firm stance on NIMBAR. Although calls for independence were growing, Smith maintained that an experienced white government was the best way for all Rhodesians to experience security and a path to equal partnership, and claimed the British were too hasty in granting independence to countries that had descended into conflict. Wilson countered that the Rhodesian system was discriminatory and the solution for independence was black participation in a majority government. Smith and Wilson met for a series of negotiations in London but failed to reach an agreement.

Smith decided to call an election in 1965. He campaigned to declare Rhodesia independent with his government in charge. The Rhodesian Front won a majority and Smith issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).

The UDI was not recognised by the British who imposed sanctions but Smith was determined to continue.

Bush War

A major consequence of the UDI was that militant action by two major groups opposed to the Smith government intensified.

Before the UDI, the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) was formed by Joshua Nkomo to oppose the Rhodesian government. The group adhered to socialist and anti-colonial beliefs but saw an ideological split when Robert Mugabe and Ndabaningi Sithole left in protest at Nkomo’s leadership to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).

The two groups at first engaged in low-level tactics including arson and sporadic killings of white Rhodesians before the UDI and both were subsequently banned by the government.

Although under sanction, the Rhodesian government received supplies from apartheid South Africa and Portugal. The ZANU and ZAPU factions were divided on tribal lines, with the Shona tribe supporting Mugabe and the Ndebele and Kalanga people rallying for ZAPU. However, tribal rivalry was supplanted by Cold War politics; Mugabe declared himself a Maoist which angered the Soviets who responded by exclusively supporting ZAPU while China backed ZANU. The Bush War escalated into a proxy conflict of the Cold War, although Western governments did not wish to collude with Smith directly and urged him to hold peace talks.

From 1966, the Rhodesian army, ZANU and ZAPU began to engage each other directly in combat. Both ZANU and ZAPU engaged in terrorism and guerrilla tactics while the Rhodesian military responded with cross-border raids into Mozambique and Zambia to destroy their camps.

The war also saw civilians caught in the crossfire; native Africans in rural areas who refused to join either militia groups or were accusing of spying were killed while ZAPU and ZANU fought each other for political dominance with factional Cold War support. In 1977, a Woolworths store was bombed, killing eleven people. In 1978 two Air Rhodesia flights were shot down by ZAPU militants, in the first shootdown surviving passengers were massacred on the ground. The attacks prompted uproar but posed difficulties for international governments who did not want to compromise peace negotiations.

The independence of Mozambique from Portugal complicated matters for Smith as militants could now operate freely across the border. At the same time, the government of South Africa wanted to build credibility as global opposition to apartheid grew and decided supporting Smith was untenable.

By 1978, it was apparent that militants were entering the country faster than the army could intercept them and with lifelines cut off, the Smith government was now forced to compromise.

Compromise

Smith concluded that his best opportunity was an internal settlement with more moderate opposition forces.

In 1978, the country was renamed Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and elections were held in 1979. The first black Prime Minister Bishop Abel Muzorewa was elected. However, the election and internal settlement were not recognised by foreign governments.

In December 1979, Muzorewa was persuaded to attend the Lancaster House Agreement. The Agreement nulled the UDI and temporarily returned Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to British rule with the UK and United States agreeing to drop sanctions after fresh elections. The British government re-declared the country independent as free elections were held. ZANU led by Robert Mugabe won the vote.

Conclusion

The war concluded with an estimated 20,000 people killed overall.

Although international governments hoped for reconciliation after the 1980 election, violence continued with Cold War politics leaving its mark. Mugabe initially included white politicians and his former rival Nkomo in government but later fired them after disagreements and consolidated his power.

Mugabe then sought to purge opponents under what was known as the Gukurahundi; members of the Zimbabwean army trained by North Korea carried out bloody pogroms against the Ndebele and Kalanga who had mostly supported ZAPU.

What do you think of the Rhodesian Bush War? Let us know below.

The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: A History

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 had huge impacts on the city. The earthquake measured 7.9, with over 3,000 lives lost and some 80% of the city destroyed. Richard Bluttal explains.

Fire in San Francisco following the 1906 earthquake.

At the turn of the twentieth century, San Francisco’s most striking physical feature was the great multitude of boats and ships crowded along the city’s waterfront and extending far into San Francisco Bay. Communication, transportation, and above all trade and commerce had been the key ingredients in transforming barren, wind-swept hills and sand dunes into a bustling metropolis.

The newspaper correspondent Jack London was relaxing in his home when word was delivered to him from his employer Colliers Magazine. He was requested to go to the scene of the disaster and write the story of what he saw. London started at once, he sent the dramatic description of the tragic events he witnessed in the burning city.

“The earthquake shook down in San Francisco hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of walls and chimneys. But the conflagration that followed burned up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of property  There is no estimating within hundreds of millions the actual damage wrought. Not in history has a modern imperial city been so completely destroyed. San Francisco is gone. Nothing remains of it but memories and a fringe of dwelling-houses on its outskirts. Its industrial section is wiped out. Its business section is wiped out. Its social and residential section is wiped out. The factories and warehouses, the great stores and newspaper buildings, the hotels and the palaces of the nabobs, are all gone. Remains only the fringe of dwelling houses on the outskirts of what was once San Francisco.

Smoke

Within an hour after the earthquake shock the smoke of San Francisco's burning was a lurid tower visible a hundred miles away. And for three days and nights this lurid tower swayed in the sky, reddening the sun, darkening the day, and filling the land with smoke. “

On Wednesday morning at a quarter past five came the earthquake. A minute later the flames were leaping upward in a dozen different quarters south of Market Street, in the working-class ghetto, and in the factories, fires started. There was no opposing the flames. There was no organization, no communication. All the cunning adjustments of a twentieth century city had been smashed by the earthquake. The streets were humped into ridges and depressions and piled with the debris of fallen walls. The steel rails were twisted into perpendicular and horizontal angles. The telephone and telegraph systems were disrupted. And the great water mains had burst. All the shrewd contrivances and safeguards of man had been thrown out of gear by thirty seconds' twitching of the earth-crust….”  

George Bernard Musson, captain of the S.S. Henley, a British steamer was at port in San Francisco at the time of earthquake. The ship served as a floating refugee camp for many displaced by the earthquake and subsequent fires that engulfed the city. He wrote this letter to his mother on April 21, 1906, three days after the quake.

          “My dearest Mother,

...If you picture the scenes described and imagine the horrors a thousand times greater you will still know less than I have personally witnessed. The shock threw me from side to side in my bed and I thought our engines were blown up until I reached the deck and even in that short space of time smoke was breaking out from 100 places in the town and of course all water conduits were destroyed so that little could be done to save the city from the terrific sea of flames which swept and roared from block to block....

This is the most hideous catastrophe that has ever happened to any city and thousands still be buried beneath the smoldering ruins. I have got a large number of homeless people aboard and the tales of woe are fit to break any human heart….

One sweet old lady onboard saved only her umbrella and a cage of pet canaries together with the clothes she wears. Others have nothing but what they had time to put on, motherless children and childless women are here, the old and aged and young are all here, high born and low are all one class and I shame to say it, but the women are more cheerful in all their grief than the men....

I have been condensing day and night and have supplied tens of thousands with water to drink. Fancy people walking miles and miles through blazing streets to get a drink of water and a bite to eat....

Oh, the brave deeds will never be all known and neither will the despicable nature of others. Justice is swift and sure now and all are shot down on sight who refuse to work when called upon, or thieves, or for molesting women.

From Poor Old Burns. “

5:12 a.m. April 18, 1906

At almost precisely 5:12 a.m., local time, a foreshock occurred with sufficient force to be felt widely throughout the San Francisco Bay area. The great earthquake broke loose some 20 to 25 seconds later, with an epicenter near San Francisco. Violent shocks punctuated the strong shaking which lasted some 45 to 60 seconds. The earthquake was felt from southern Oregon to south of Los Angeles and inland as far as central Nevada. The highest Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI's) of VII to IX paralleled the length of the rupture, extending as far as 80 kilometers inland from the fault trace. One important characteristic of the shaking intensity noted in Lawson's (1908) report was the clear correlation of intensity with underlying geologic conditions. Areas situated in sediment-filled valleys sustained stronger shaking than nearby bedrock sites, and the strongest shaking occurred in areas where ground reclaimed from San Francisco Bay failed in the earthquake.

Duration: 45 to 60 seconds -Fault: The San Andreas Fault – earthquake Damage Cost: more than $400 million in 1906 dollars –  Strength: 7.9-8.3

The shock was violent in the region about the Bay of San Francisco, and with few exceptions inspired all who felt it with alarm and consternation. In the cities many people were injured or killed, and in some cases persons became mentally deranged, as a result of the disasters which immediately ensued from the commotion of the earth. The manifestations of the earthquake were numerous and varied. It resulted in the general awakening of all people asleep, and many were thrown from their beds. In the zone of maximum disturbance persons who were awake and attending to their affairs were in many cases thrown to the ground. Many persons heard rumbling sounds immediately before feeling the shock. Some who were in the fields report having seen the violent swaying of trees so that their top branches seemed to touch the ground, and others saw the passage of undulations of the soil. Several cases are reported in which people suffered from nausea as a result of the swaying of the ground. Many cattle were thrown to the ground, and in some instances horses with riders in the saddle were similarly thrown.

In the inanimate world the most common and characteristic effects were the rattling of windows, the swaying of doors, and the rocking and shaking of houses. Pendant fixtures were caused to swing back and forth or in more or less elliptical orbits. Pendulum clocks stopped. Furniture and other loose objects in rooms were suddenly displaced. Brick chimneys fell very generally. Buildings were in many instances partially or completely wrecked; others were shifted on their foundations without being otherwise seriously damaged. Many water tanks were thrown to the ground. Springs were affected either temporarily or permanently, some being diminished, others increased in flow. Landslides were caused on steep slopes, and on the bottom lands of the streams the soft aluminum  was in many places caused to crack and to lurch, producing often very considerable deformations of the surface. This deformation of the soil was an important cause of damage and wreckage of buildings situated in such tracts. Railway tracks were buckled and broken. In timbered areas in the zone of maximum disturbance many large trees were thrown to the ground and in some cases, they were snapped off above the ground.

Cause of the Earthquake

The 1906 earthquake preceded the development of the Richter magnitude by three decades. The most widely accepted estimate for the magnitude of the quake on the modern moment magnitude scale  is 7.9; values from 7.7 to as high as 8.3 have been proposed. According to findings published in the  Journal of Geophysical Research, severe deformations in the Earth’s crust took place both before and after the earthquake’s impact. Accumulated strain on the faults in the system was relieved during the earthquake, which is the supposed cause of the damage along the 280-mile-long (450 km) segment of the San Andreas plate boundary. The 1906 rupture propagated both northward and southward for a total of 296 miles (476 km). Shaking was felt from Oregon to Los Angeles, and as far inland as central Nevada.

The only aftershock in the first few days of near M 5 or greater occurred near Santa Cruz at 14:28 PST on April 18, with a magnitude of about 4.9 M. The largest aftershock happened at 01:10 PST on April 23, west of Eureka with an estimated magnitude of about 6.7 MI , with another of the same size more than three years later at 22:45 PST on October 28 near Cape Mendocino.

Remotely triggered events included an earthquake swarm in the Imperial Valley area, which culminated in an earthquake of about 6.1 MI  at 16:30 PST on April 18, 1906. Another event of this type occurred at 12:31 PST on April 19, 1906, with an estimated magnitude of about 5.0 MI , and an epicenter beneath Santa Monica Bay.

The Structural and Human Damage

The massive earthquake that struck San Francisco on April 18, 1906, destroyed hundreds of buildings in a little over a minute. When the shaking stopped, most of the city was intact, though damaged. That would soon change as one of history’s greatest urban firestorms swept over San Francisco. In the course of three days, 28,188 buildings burned. Virtually all of these buildings were totally destroyed. Nearly 25,000 wood buildings burned to the ground. Fire gutted the interiors of brick buildings. Many of these buildings collapsed completely. Others were reduced to burned-out shells. Although a great many brick buildings came through the earthquake relatively unscathed, losing perhaps cornices or parts of their facades, when fire burned through their floors and internal framing, their walls fractured and fell. Only the most stoutly constructed brick buildings remained structurally intact. Some of the city’s steel-frame and supposedly fireproof buildings also succumbed to the fire. They suffered severe structural damage as under-fireproofed steel buckled and deformed in the intense heat. When the fire finally burned itself out, the commercial, financial, and residential core of the West Coast’s leading city was in ruins.

The earthquake and fires killed an estimated 3,000 people and left half of the city's 400,000 residents homeless.

The earthquake and fire hit the poorest San Franciscans the hardest. On the eve of the quake, the poorest workers lived in old, run-down boarding houses and apartments. Employment was scarce and poorly paid. Working families, especially those living in the south of Market Street neighborhood, often stretched their incomes by taking borders into their already crowded homes. The flimsy construction of these neighborhoods guaranteed their destruction by the quake and fire. With most housing burnt to the ground, rents immediately soared 350%, and in 1910 were still 71% higher than pre-fire rates. Women faced especially severe problems, as their manufacturing and service employments disappeared along with the income they had received for cooking, cleaning, and laundering for lodgers. Asian San Franciscans faced additional barriers to survival. In the weeks following the disaster, Chinese refugees remained segregated and were relocated four times by city and military officials in response to whites who refused to share space with the much-despised Asians. Although ultimately unsuccessful in their efforts, city developers seized upon the destruction of Chinatown, located on some of the most valuable property in the city, as the perfect solution to ridding the city of Asians once and for all. Asian San Franciscans were totally excluded from official relief efforts.

Although the impact of the earthquake on San Francisco was the most famous, the earthquake also inflicted considerable damage on several other cities. These include San Jose and Santa Rosa, the entire downtown of which was essentially destroyed.

The Cleanup

Despite its utter devastation, San Francisco quickly recovered thanks to the help of some mighty machinery. Considered modern technology at the time, steam-powered equipment helped clean up the mess caused by the quake. Large Holt and Best steam tractors helped clear the immense amount of rubble, in an effort to help people and businesses reclaim what was lost. The use of these machines, in its own small way, led to the rebirth of San Francisco.

The survivors slept in tents in city parks and the Presidio, stood in long lines for food, and were required to do their cooking in the street to minimize the threat of additional fires. On April 19th, Lieutenant Colonel George H. Torney, commanding officer of the Presidio’s Army General Hospital, telegrammed Washington, D.C. with the alarming news, “Medical Supply Depot was destroyed totally.” He requested immediate shipment of first aid supplies. The Army General Hospital fared better than those in the city and opened its doors to civilians. An Army Field Hospital sent from the East and 26 medical dispensaries also provided free medical care to thousands of civilians throughout the city. Based on the army's experience in the 1906 disaster, clear and formal policies were developed regarding civil relief and the Army's relationship with the Red Cross was formally defined. Food donations began arriving in San Francisco almost immediately. However, prohibitions against fires forbade people from cooking.

By April 23rd, less than one week after the earthquake, the Citizen's Relief Committee was overcome by the food distribution efforts and the mayor asked the army to take over. General Greely, now back in San Francisco, initially refused Mayor Schmitz's request to manage food distribution. It was only after prodding by members of the Committee of Fifty that Greely agreed to set up nine food depots. Each civilian was fed the equivalent of three-quarters of an Army enlisted man's rations. On April 30th more than 300,000 people were fed at these commissary food stations. The Army commissary later assisted in organizing and opening relief restaurants.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, an estimated 75,000 citizens simply left San Francisco. The remaining homeless population of 250,000 established makeshift camps in park areas and amidst the burnt-out ruins of city buildings. As fires burned across the eastern side of the city, refugees migrated west towards Golden Gate Park and the Presidio seeking food and shelter. Eventually, the Army would house 20,000 refugees in military-style tent camps—including 16,000 at the Presidio.

Soon, the refugee camps became small and highly organized tent towns, where, according to some reports, "The people are well cared for and are taking things as happily and philosophically as if they were out on a summer's camping trip." Despite their recent hardships, refugees in the camps quickly established routines of regular life. Children formed playgroups in the camps and dining halls became a center of social gatherings. These camps emptied as the city was rebuilt. The Presidio camps were dismantled first, closing in June 1906.

Immediately following the 1906 disaster, risks to public health were very real. The lack of clean water supplies, the broken sewage system, and accumulating garbage and debris led to high rates of typhoid and smallpox. To avoid a panic that could harm relief efforts, health officials dealt with the problem of disease discreetly. Those disease outbreaks were controlled by late 1906.

Response and Aftermath

Almost immediately after the quake (and even during the disaster), planning and reconstruction plans were hatched to quickly rebuild the city. Rebuilding funds were immediately tied up by the fact that virtually all the major banks had been sites of the conflagration, requiring a lengthy wait of seven to ten days before their fire-proof vaults could cool sufficiently to be safely opened. The Bank of Italy (now Bank of America) had evacuated its funds and was able to provide liquidity in the immediate aftermath. Its president also immediately chartered and financed the sending of two ships to return with shiploads of lumber from Washington and Oregon mills which provided the initial reconstruction materials and surge. During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil  and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the The Bank of Candad in Ottawa gave $25,000. The U.S. government quickly voted for one million dollars in relief supplies which were immediately rushed to the area, including supplies for food kitchens and many thousands of tents that city dwellers would occupy the next several years.

Congress responded to the disaster in several ways. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committees enacted emergency appropriations for the city to pay for food, water, tents, blankets, and medical supplies in the weeks following the earthquake and fire. They also appropriated funds to reconstruct many of the public buildings that were damaged or destroyed.

Other congressional responses included the House Claims Committee handling claims from owners seeking reimbursement for destroyed property. For example, the committee received claims from the owners of several saloons and liquor stores, whose supplies of alcoholic spirits were destroyed by law enforcement officers trying to minimize the spread of fires and threat of mob violence. In the days following the earthquake, officials destroyed an estimated $30,000 worth of intoxicating liquors.

Conclusion

The earthquake, despite its tragic destruction, birthed our modern understanding of earthquakes in the United States. Extensive research in the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake led to the formulation of the elastic-rebound theory related to earthquake source by Reid (1910). With the theory of plate tectonics coming more than 50 years after the earthquake, it’s appropriate to say this event helped to motivate and develop a better understanding of how such earthquakes come about.

A commission of over 25 geologists, seismologists, and other scientists worked to provide The Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, published in May of 1906, with a subsequent report published by Lawson in 1908. The 1908 publication is widely believed to be the most extensive and influential single earthquake reports.

Do you have any thoughts in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? If so, let us know below.

Now read Richard’s article on the role of baseball in the US Civil War here.