The Chinese Boxer Rebellion: A Clash of Cultures and Powers

In the twilight of the 19th century, the world watched as China convulsed in a tumultuous uprising known as the Boxer Rebellion. This cataclysmic event, which erupted in 1900, was not merely a clash of arms, but a collision of civilizations, ideologies, and ambitions. At its core, the Boxer Rebellion was a struggle for the soul of China, pitting traditional values against encroaching foreign influence.

Here Terry Bailey delves into the multifaceted dimensions of the rebellion, outline the foreign powers involved, their political aims, the valor recognized through decorations like the Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor, and the perspectives of the Chinese Boxers, including the pivotal role played by Empress Dowager Cixi.

The photo shows foreign forces inside the Forbidden City in Beijing in November 1900 during the Boxer Rebellion.

Origins of the Boxer Movement

To comprehend the Boxer Rebellion, one must understand its roots deeply entwined with China's history of internal strife and external pressures. The late 19th century saw China reeling from a series of humiliations at the hands of foreign powers, compounded by internal turmoil and economic distress. The Boxers, officially known as the Society of Righteous and Harmonious Fists, emerged as a grassroots movement fueled by resentment towards foreign domination and perceived cultural erosion.

The International Response

As the Boxer movement gained momentum, foreign nationals and missionaries in China became targets of violent attacks, triggering international alarm. In response, an Eight-Nation Alliance composed of troops from Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom intervened to quell the rebellion and protect their interests in China.

Each member of the alliance had its own political aims and agendas driving their involvement in the conflict. For instance, European powers sought to safeguard their economic privileges and spheres of influence in China, while Japan seized the opportunity to assert its growing regional power. The United States, keen on preserving its ‘Open Door Policy’ and ensuring the safety of American citizens, also joined the intervention force.

The Boxers' Perspective

Contrary to portrayals by Western accounts, the Boxers were not merely mindless fanatics but individuals driven by a complex blend of nationalism, religious fervor, and socio-economic grievances. Comprising primarily of peasants and martial artists, the Boxers perceived themselves as defenders of Chinese tradition against the encroachment of Western imperialism and Christian missionary activities.

For the Boxers, their struggle was not just against foreign powers but also against the corruption and decadence of the Qing dynasty. Their rallying cry, "Support the Qing, destroy the foreigners," encapsulated their belief in restoring China's glory by expelling foreign influence and purging the nation of perceived traitors.

Empress Dowager Cixi's Role

At the heart of the Boxer Rebellion stood Empress Dowager Cixi, a formidable figure whose political maneuvering would shape the course of Chinese history. Initially hesitant to openly support the Boxers, Cixi eventually threw her support behind the movement, viewing it as a means to bolster her own waning authority and expel foreign influences.

Cixi's decision to align with the Boxers proved fateful, leading to a declaration of war against the Eight-Nation Alliance. Despite her efforts to galvanize Chinese forces, the coalition's superior firepower and logistical prowess ultimately overwhelmed the Boxer forces and brought about the collapse of their rebellion.

Legacy of the Boxer Rebellion

The Boxer Rebellion left an indelible mark on China and the world, reshaping geopolitical dynamics and fueling nationalist sentiments. While the intervention of the Eight-Nation Alliance temporarily quelled the uprising, it also deepened China's resentment towards foreign powers and sowed the seeds of future conflicts, in addition to further internal strife.

The rebellion's aftermath witnessed the imposition of harsh indemnities on China, further weakening the Qing dynasty and hastening its eventual collapse. The events of 1900 served as a stark reminder of the perils of imperialism and the enduring struggle for national sovereignty.

Sun Yat-sen, known in China as Sun Zhongshan was the eventual galvanized the popular overthrow of the imperial dynasty through his force of personality. Which occurred on the 19th of October 1911. At the time of the eventual successful overthrow of the 2000 year old dynasty Sun Yat-sen was in America attempting to raise funds for the future of China.

He was a highly educated individual who was strongly opposed to the actions of the Boxers before and during the rebellion, knowing that violent offensive action against the strong foreign powers would be detrimental to China’s future.

In conclusion

The Boxer Rebellion is an outstanding example of the complexities of history, where competing interests, ideologies, and aspirations converge in a crucible of conflict. Reflecting on this turbulent chapter, it is possible to be reminded of the enduring quest for dignity, autonomy, and justice that transcends borders and generations.

Additionally, the history of the Boxer rebellion should provide a stark reminder for any nation that decides to intervene into another nation’s concerns where the intervening power has hidden political agenda residing below the surface.

This reminder should be dealt to all nations, not only where a political fueled agenda influences an intervention by military force but any intervention that the preservation and protection of life is not the prime concern of military action.

“war is a continuation of politics by other means,”

Carl Philipp Gottfried von Clausewitz, 1st of July 1780 – 16th of November 1831

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

Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients

The Boxer Rebellion witnessed acts of exceptional bravery and heroism, recognized through prestigious military decorations such as the Victoria Cross and Congressional Medal of Honor, for soldier of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the United States of America.

Victoria Cross recipients

General Sir Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday VC, KCB

General Sir Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday VC, KCB (14th of May 1870 – 9th of March 1966) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Rank when awarded VC (and later highest rank): Captain RMLI, (later General)

His citation reads:

Captain (now Brevet Major) Lewis Stratford Tollemache Halliday, Royal Marine Light Infantry, on the 24th June, 1900. The enemy, consisting of Boxers and Imperial troops, made a fierce attack on the west wall of the British Legation, setting fire to the West Gate of the south stable quarters, and taking cover in the buildings which adjoined the wall. The fire, which spread to part of the stables, and through which and the smoke a galling fire was kept up by the Imperial troops, was with difficulty extinguished, and as the presence of the enemy in the adjoining buildings was a grave danger to the Legation, a sortie was organized to drive them out.

 A hole was made in the Legation Wall, and Captain Halliday, in command of twenty Marines, led the way into the buildings and almost immediately engaged a party of the enemy. Before he could use his revolver, however, he was shot through the left shoulder, at point blank range, the bullet fracturing the shoulder and carrying away part of the lung.

Notwithstanding the extremely severe nature of his wound, Captain Halliday killed three of his assailants, and telling his men to "carry on and not mind him," walked back unaided to the hospital, refusing escort and aid so as not to diminish the number of men engaged in the sortie.

Commander Basil John Douglas Guy VC, DSO

Commander Basil John Douglas Guy VC, DSO (9th of May 1882 – 29th of December 1956) was an English recipient of the Victoria Cross, the highest and most prestigious award for gallantry in the face of the enemy that can be awarded to British and Commonwealth forces.

Rank when awarded VC (and later highest rank): Midshipman RN, (later Commander)

London Gazette citation

“Mr, (read Midshipman), Basil John Douglas Guy, Midshipman of Her Majesty’s Ship “Barfleur”.

On 19th July, 1900, during the attack on Tientsin City, a very heavy cross-fire was brought to bear on the Naval Brigade, and there were several casualties. Among those who fell was one A.B.I. McCarthy, shot about 50 yards short of cover.

Mr. Guy stopped with him, and, after seeing what the injury was, attempted to lift him up and carry him in, but was not strong enough, so after binding up the wound Mr. Guy ran to get assistance.

In the meantime the remainder of the company had passed in under cover, and the entire fire from the city wall was concentrated on Mr. Guy and McCarthy. Shortly after Mr. Guy had got in under cover the stretchers came up, and again Mr. Guy dashed out and assisted in placing McCarthy on the stretcher and carrying him in.

The wounded man was however shot dead just as he was being carried into safety. During the whole time a very heavy fire had been brought to bear upon Mr. Guy, and the ground around him was absolutely ploughed up.

Congressional Medal of Honor Recipients

During the Boxer rebellion, 59 American servicemen received the Medal of Honor for their actions. Four of these were for Army personnel, twenty-two went to navy sailors and the remaining thirty-three went to Marines. Harry Fisher was the first Marine to receive the medal posthumously and the only posthumous recipient for this conflict.

Side note:

Total number Victoria Crosses awarded

Since the inception of the Victoria Cross in 1856, there have been 1,358 VCs awarded. This total includes three bars granted to soldiers who won a second VC and the cross awarded to the unknown American soldier.

The most recent was awarded to Lance Corporal Joshua Leakey of 1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment, whose VC was gazetted in February 2015, following an action in Afghanistan on 22nd of August 2013, this information was correct at the time of writing.

Total number of Congressional Medal of Honor, (MOH), awarded

Since the inception of the MOH in, 1861 there have been 3,536 MOH awarded.

The most recent was awarded was made to former Army Capt. Larry L. Taylor during a ceremony at the White House, by President Joe Biden, Sept. 5, 2023, this information was correct at the time of writing.

The Medal of Honor was introduced for the Naval Service in 1861, followed in 1862 a version for the Army.

The First British Labour Government – What did it Achieve?

The British Labour Party has long been at the forefront of progressive social change in the United Kingdom, introducing such policy innovations over the years as the NHS, comprehensive education, and the national minimum wage. Labour has also left its mark in local government, where historically the party has often been successful in putting its socialist principles into practice. Early Twentieth Century Labour councils built a reputation not only for providing more generous levels of social assistance in comparison to non-Labour councils, but also for fostering improvements in education and public health, lowering rates for municipal gas and electricity rates, and serving as good local employers. However, it is nationally that Labour has had the greatest impact on people’s lives; a trend that started exactly 100 years ago.

Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Prime Minister Ramsay MacDonald (middle of bottom row in lighter suit) and his ministers in January 1924.

This January marked the centenary of the formation of the First Labour Government. The product of an inconclusive election the previous month, in which the Conservatives won the most seats but were unable to win a parliamentary vote of confidence, Labour was able to form a minority government with the backing of the Liberal Party.

The coming to power of the First Labour Government has long been of great interest, due to the fact that it marked the first time that Labour, a democratic socialist party committed to radical social change, had come to lead the United Kingdom. Unsurprisingly, Labour’s ascension caused mixed reactions, with elements of the press incredulous at the thought of socialist “wildmen” running Britain, while the Annual Register, by contrast, referred to this historic event as representing ‘A revolution in British politics as profound as that associated with the Reform Act of 1832’. It also led to an overhaul of the two-party system, where for decades power had alternated between the Conservatives and Liberals; their traditional rivals. It was now Labour that held the mantle of chief rival of the Conservative Party; a role that it has continued to play to this day. Symbolically for a worker-oriented party, the new prime minister Ramsay MacDonald was the first person from a working-class background to hold that notable position.

Apart from the symbolism of Labour finally holding the reins of power after years in opposition, it is important to ask oneself what the Party actually achieved in office. One should not, I believe, celebrate a socialist government coming into being if it is unable to implement policies of social justice that represent the ideals of democratic socialism. The First Labour Government’s actions, however, certainly lived up to these.

War’s end

Labour came to power during a period following the end of the First World War when a number of other socialist parties came to power throughout Europe for the first time, either as senior or junior partners in coalitions. In Germany, the Social Democratic Party (the nation’s longest-established party) formed an all-socialist administration, while other European states like Hungary, Poland, Estonia, and Austria witnessed members of social-democratic parties assuming ministerial positions in office, enabling their members to have the opportunity to drive and influencepositive social change. British Labour was no different, although numerous policy proposals put forward during Labour’s time in opposition failed to see the light of day, hampered by the Party’s minority status in Parliament. A proposed capital levy never materialised, while Labour failed to secure passage of a number of bills such as one aimed at regulating rents and a private bill focusing on shop assistants’ hours of work. Despite these shortcomings, Labour succeeded in implementing a broad range of reforms during their relatively short period in office, many of which left an indelible stamp on society. Duties on certain foodstuffs were reduced, while improvements were made in financial support for the unemployed. Benefits were increased by a fifth for men and women, eligibility for payments to dependents was widened while more people were brought under the umbrella of unemployment insurance, and a statutory right to cash benefits was introduced. The government also acted to improve conditions for pensioners; raising pensions and extending the old-age pension to all those over the age of 70 in need. In regards to earnings, action was taken on trade boards, with the number of minimum rate enforcement inspectors increased by a third, Grocery Trade Boards revived (after having previously lapsed) and an official investigation launched into certain sections of the catering trade. Additionally, machinery for fixing minimum wage rates for agricultural workers (which was dismantled in 1921) was re-established.

Infrastructure

Emphasis was placed on developing infrastructure, with money made available for drainage, roads, and repairs and improvements for dwellings dating back to the First World War. Also of significance was the setting up of Royal Commissions on schooling and health insurance to formulate plans for delivering future changes in those areas (with the latter focusing on the uneven coverage of health insurance in Britain, amongst other aspects of the system), together with a Royal Commission on mental illness law, whose work culminated in important developments in provisions for people with mental illnesses in later years. Agricultural research received a sizeable cash injection, while the Small Debt (Scotland) Act offered support to poorer individuals in that part of the UK, with provisions such as a rise in the amount that could not be attached from wages and the direct payment by instalments of sums found due in small debt courts in rent arrear cases. As a sign of the spirit of the times, a parliamentary motion was adopted in March 1924 calling on the government to establish a Commission of Inquiry to look into the setting of minimum pay scales for working people.

The grant terms of the Unemployment Grants Committee, a body set up 4 years earlier to provide grants to local authorities offering work schemes to jobless persons, were also improved. More areas, for instance, became eligible for grants, while a 6 month probation of 75% or 87.5% of wages was eliminated and a stipulation introduced whereby contracts had to include Fair Wage Clauses. Provisions for war veterans and dependents were also improved, in keeping with the commitment made by Labour in its election programme to ensure “fair play” for this segment of British society.

True to its progressive principles, the First Labour Government reversed various austerity measures introduced in the years following the Armistice, which had entailed cutbacks in areas such as health, education, and housing. Cuts made to the educational system (including the abolition of state scholarships to universities) were reversed, a grant for adult education was bolstered, and an easing of regulations on the construction of schools was carried out. Efforts were made to reduce the number of unqualified teachers, while class sizes in elementary schools were brought down.Reflecting a policy adopted by Labour a year earlier to make universal secondary education a reality, the government increased the number of free secondary school places available; a policy development that resulted in nearly 50% of all secondary school children receiving their education for free by 1931.

Housing Act of 1924

Arguably the most radical measure of the First Labour Government was the Housing Act of 1924. The result of the work of health minister John Wheatley, this far-reaching piece of legislation, which raised government subsidies to housing let at regulated rents, facilitated the construction of more than half a million homes, increased the standard of council housing built, and included a fair wages clause for those involved in the building of these homes. This landmark law was, according to one historian, the First Labour Government’s “most significant domestic reform,” and to me represents a perfect example of progressive politics in action.

Despite these noteworthy accomplishments, Labour’s aforementioned lack of a legislative majority meant that it was unable to implement (in comparison with future Labour administrations) a programme of radical change, and lasted less than a year before losing the support of the Liberals and failing to win a snap election. In the run-up to this election, Labour was confronted with accusations that it was “soft” on the USSR, as arguably demonstrated by its recognition of and promise of a loan to the latter; decisions which possibly contributed to its electoral defeat.

The fate of Labour’s first administration was sealed by the controversy surrounding the “Campbell Case,” in which the government dropped a case put against the left-wing journalist John Campbell, who was accused of encouraging British troops to commit acts of mutiny by calling on soldiers to ignore orders to fire on striking workers if ever told to do so. A vote of confidence was held which Labour lost, and in the subsequent election, the Conservatives returned to office with a massive majority of seats in Parliament. Anti-communist propaganda deployed by Conservatives during the election campaign arguably contributed to Labour’s loss, with various Tory candidates equating the Labour Party with communism or leading Britain down this path. Both the Campbell case, along with the government’s building of bridges with the Soviet Union, gave ample ammunition for right-wing propagandists.

What helped their successful anti-socialist crusade was the publication in the Daily Mail (a few days prior to the election) of the Zinoviev Letter. Presumably from Communist International president Grigory Zinoviev to an official of the British Communist Party, the letter encouraged British communists to foment revolution. Although its authenticity remains open to debate, its likely that this document played a part in turning potential voters against Labour, bringing its first stint in power to a premature end.

Conclusion

In spite of its brevity in office, and the challenges it faced, it is to Labour’s credit that it was able to do so much, while demonstrating to voters that Labourites were democrats who believed in change through constitutional means and could be trusted to safely run the country while also being a credible alternative to the Conservatives. Undoubtedly, the positive achievements of the First Labour Government under the circumstances it found itself in demonstrated both Labour’s effectiveness as a governing party and its commitment to changing Britain for the better.

The lesson that progressives can learn from the record of the First Labour Government is that social change can be achieved even when a reforming administration lacks a majority in the chambers of power, as long as there is the will to do so. At the time of writing, Labour looks set to emerge victorious in the upcoming general election. If it does, a Starmer Administration should, in the face of a difficult economic situation, do its best to carry out as much in the way of social-democratic reform as possible if it wishes to make Britain a more just society for all in the years ahead. To do so would not only be to the benefit of ordinary people, but would serve as a great tribute to the memory of the First Labour Government.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

America’s 2021 Afghanistan Withdrawal – Lessons Not Learned?

Today, when most people think of Afghanistan, they recall the Biden administration’s calamitous withdrawal in the summer of 2021 and the end of what many have termed a ‘forever war.’ Tragically, the Taliban’s victory reversed two decades of effort to establish liberal institutions and women’s rights in the war-ravaged country. Many commentators have compared America’s retreat from Afghanistan to the country’s hasty evacuation of Vietnam in 1975. Indeed, there are similarities in the chaotic nature of the two withdrawals and the resulting tragic effects for the people of Afghanistan and Vietnam, respectively.

Brian Morra looks at the lessons the Biden Administration could have taken from earlier Soviet and American wars in Afghanistan.

Soviet troops atop a tank in Kabul in 1986.

Regarding Afghanistan, Americans are less likely to remember the Soviet Union’s war there and Moscow’s own rather ignominious pull out. This is unfortunate because there are lessons to be learned from the USSR’s ill-fated foray into Afghanistan that US policymakers ought to have heeded during our own twenty-year war. My latest historical novel, The Righteous Arrows (Amazon US | Amazon UK), published by Koehler Books, devotes a good deal of ink to the missteps made by Washington and Moscow in that long-ago war. My intention with The Righteous Arrows is to entertain while providing the reader with a sense of what should have been learned from the Soviets’ failed adventure in Afghanistan.

What was Moscow’s war in Afghanistan all about?

Like many wars, it began with what seemed to be good intentions. The Kremlin leaders who made the decision to go to war thought that it would not really be a war at all but a ‘police action’ or a ‘special military operation’ if you like. The Kremlin leadership expected their engagement in Afghanistan to be sharp and quick. Instead, it turned into a decade-long, bloody slog that contributed to the later implosion of the USSR itself. Talk about unintended consequences!

How did the Soviet foray into Afghanistan start?

It began over the Christmas season in 1979 when the Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev was convinced to come to the aid of a weak, pro-Russian socialist regime in Kabul. The initial operation was led by the KGB with support from the GRU (Soviet Military Intelligence) and Army Airborne units. After initial success, the Kremlin quickly became embroiled in a war with tribal militias who did not like either the socialist puppet regime that Moscow was propping up or the Soviet occupation.

What was supposed to be a quick operation became a ferocious guerrilla war that lasted most of the 1980s and killed some 16,000 Soviet troops. The war sapped the strength of the Soviet armed forces and exposed to anyone who was paying attention just how weak the USSR had become. By 1986, the reformist Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev had decided to get out of the bloody quagmire in Afghanistan. He found it was not that easy to leave and the last Russian forces did not depart Afghanistan until February 1989.

United States’ involvement

Beginning with the Jimmy Carter administration, the United States provided arms to the Afghan Islamic rebels fighting the Soviets. Military support from the US grew exponentially under President Ronald Reagan and by 1986 Washington was arming the Mujaheddin with advanced weapons, including the Stinger surface-to-air missiles that decimated Soviet airpower. America’s weapons turned the tide against the Soviet occupiers, but Washington also rolled the dice by arming Islamic rebels that it could not control.

Not only did the Afghan Islamic fighters become radicalized, but they were also joined by idealistic jihadis from all over the world. The Soviets’ ten-year occupation of Afghanistan became a magnet for recruiting jihadis, as did NATO’s two-decades long occupation some years later. The founder of al Qaeda, Usama bin Laden, brought together and funded Arab fighters in Afghanistan, ostensibly to fight the Russians, but mainly to build his own power base. Although Washington never armed bin Laden’s fighters, he used his presence in Afghanistan during the Soviet war and occupation as a propaganda bonanza. He trumpeted the military prowess of al Qaeda, which was largely a myth of bin Laden’s own creation, and claimed that he brought down the Soviet bear. His propaganda machine claimed that if al Qaeda could defeat one superpower (the USSR), then it also could beat the other one (the USA).

During the 1980s, Washington officials downplayed the danger of arming radical Islamic fighters. It was far more important for the White House to bring down the Soviet Union than to worry about a handful of Mujaheddin. One must admit that the Americans’ proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan was the most successful one it conducted during the entire Cold War. On the other hand, Washington opened a virtual Pandora’s box of militarized jihadism and has been dealing with the consequences ever since.

The aftermath

The Soviet occupation encouraged most of Afghanistan’s middle class to flee the country, leaving an increasingly radicalized and militarized society in its wake. This was the Afghanistan the United States invaded in the fall of 2001, shortly after bin Laden’s 9/11 attacks on Wall Street and the Pentagon. Policymakers in Washington failed to grasp just how radically Afghan society had changed because of the Soviet occupation.

There was discussion in Washington’s national security circles in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, warning of the dangers of fighting in Afghanistan. Bromides were offered, calling the country the ‘graveyard of empires’, but none of it had much impact on policy. Most officials in the George W. Bush administration did not understand how radicalized Afghan society had become and how severe the costs of fighting a counter-insurgency operation in Afghanistan might turn out to be.

The CIA-led operation to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan in the 1980s with small numbers of Americans was the game plan Washington also used in the fall of 2001 to defeat al Qaeda and bring down the ruling Taliban regime. The playbook worked brilliantly in both cases. Unfortunately, for the United States and our NATO allies, the initial defeat of the Taliban did not make for a lasting victory or an enduring peace.

For twenty years, the United States fought two different wars in Afghanistan. One was a counter-terror war, the fight to defeat al Qaeda and its affiliates and to prevent them from reconstituting. The other war was a counterinsurgency against the Taliban and their allies. The reason the United States and NATO went into Afghanistan was to prosecute the first war – the anti-terror war. We fell into a counterinsurgency conflict as the Taliban reconstituted with help from Pakistan and others. This was a classic case of ‘mission creep’ and it required large combat forces to be deployed, in contrast to the light footprint of the counter-terror operation. The first war – the counter-terror war – prevented another 9/11 style major attack on the United States, while the second one required the US and NATO to deploy massive force and – ultimately – depended on the soundness of the Afghan government we supported.

The sad fact is that the successful campaign against the Taliban and the routing of al Qaeda in 2001 and 2002 led to an unfocused twenty-year war that ended with the Taliban back in charge and a humiliated United States leaving hundreds of thousands of vulnerable Afghan allies behind. In sworn Congressional testimony, General Milley, who in 2021 was Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and General Mackenzie, who was Commander of Central Command, have stated that they forcefully advised President Biden to leave a small footprint of US forces and contractors in Afghanistan to prosecute the counter-terror war. Our NATO allies were willing to stay and in fact increased their forces in Afghanistan shortly after Biden was inaugurated. Not only did President Biden not heed his military advisors, but he also later denied that they ever counseled him to keep a small force in Afghanistan. Some have described Biden’s decision to pull out of Afghanistan as ‘pulling defeat from the jaws of victory’.

President Biden further asserted that, by withdrawing, he was merely honoring the agreement President Trump had made earlier with the Taliban. This claim does not stand up to objective scrutiny because the Taliban repeatedly violated the terms of the Trump agreement, which gave the White House ample opportunity to declare it null and void.

What are the lessons the United States should have learned from the Soviet and American wars in Afghanistan?

1. Keep your war aims limited and crystal clear.

2. Fight mission creep and do not allow it to warp the original war aims or plans for a light footprint of forces.

3. Beware of the law of unintended consequences. Consider the downside risks of arming the enemy of one’s enemy.

4. Be willing to invest for the long-term or do not get involved. The United States still has forces in Germany, Italy, and Japan nearly eighty years after the end of World War II. Some victories are worth protecting.

5. Ensure that the Washington tendency toward ‘group think’ does not hijack critical thinking. Senior policymakers must think and act strategically, so that ‘hope’ does not become the plan.

Footnote on Ukraine

I will close with a footnote about the Russian war in Ukraine. The Soviet war in Afghanistan has dire similarities with Russia’s ‘special military operation’ underway today in Ukraine. In Afghanistan, Soviet forces killed indiscriminately and almost certainly committed numerous war crimes. The war also militarized Afghan society – a condition that persists to this day, and one that had a profound impact on America’s war in Afghanistan. In Ukraine, Russia’s invasion has been characterized by war crimes, mass emigration, and the militarization of Ukrainian society.

Much as in Iraq and Afghanistan, senior US policy in Ukraine is failing to identify clear strategic outcomes. It is the role of our most senior policy officials to focus on strategic outcomes and an exit strategy (if one is warranted) beforecommitting American forces or treasure to foreign wars. Too often, platitudes have masqueraded as strategy. When one thinks of great wartime presidents like Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt, the trait they shared was a singular focus on strategic outcomes and on how to shape the post-war environment. The Soviets failed to do so in their war in Afghanistan. The US also fell short in Afghanistan. Unfortunately, the banalities that pass for foreign policy strategy we hear in Washington today indicate that we have not learned from the past.

Brian J. Morra is the author of two historical novels: “The Able Archers” (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and the recently-published “The Righteous Arrows” (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

More about Brian:

Brian a former U.S. intelligence officer and a retired senior aerospace executive. He helped lead the American intelligence team in Japan that uncovered the true story behind the Soviet Union's shootdown of Korean Airlines flight 007 in September 1983. He also served on the Air Staff at the Pentagon while on active duty. As an aerospace executive he worked on many important national security programs. Morra earned a BA from William and Mary, an MPA from the University of Oklahoma, an MA in National Security Studies from Georgetown University, and completed the Advanced Management Program at Harvard Business School. He has provided commentary for CBS, Netflix and the BBC. Learn more at: www.brianjmorra.com

Unveiling the Cosmos: A Journey through the History of Astrophysics & Astronomy

Astrophysics, the study of the universe beyond Earth's atmosphere, is a clear indication that humanity has an insatiable curiosity and relentless pursuit of knowledge. From the earliest civilizations to the modern era, our understanding of the cosmos has evolved exponentially, propelled by the brilliance of countless minds across centuries.

Here, Terry Bailey takes us on a brief yet captivating journey through history, tracing the origins and development of astrophysics and astronomy from its humble beginnings to the awe-inspiring advancements of the present day.

A depiction of Renaissance astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus.

Our journey commences in ancient times, where the seeds of astrophysics were sown amidst the fertile intellectual landscapes of early civilizations such as ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, China and Greece to name a few. Among the pioneers of this era were Democritus of Thrace born in the 5th Century BCE, whose revolutionary atomic theory posited that all matter consisted of indivisible particles called atoms. Although his ideas primarily pertained to terrestrial phenomena, it laid a foundational framework for understanding the fundamental building blocks of the universe.

Another luminary of antiquity was Aristarchus of Samos, whose heliocentric model challenged the prevailing geocentric, (Earth centric), worldview. In the 3rd century BCE, Aristarchus proposed that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun—a concept far ahead of its time. Despite facing resistance from contemporaries such as Aristotle, Aristarchus's visionary insight foreshadowed the Copernican revolution millennia later. Additionally, he calculated and estimated the distance to the Moon and the Sun and size of the Sun. It was after realizing the Sun was far larger than Earth he concluded that the Earth and other planets orbited the Sun.

Eratosthenes of Cyrene emerges as yet another luminary of antiquity, renowned for his groundbreaking contributions to geometry, astronomy and mathematics. In the 3rd century BCE, Eratosthenes accurately calculated the circumference of the Earth using simple trigonometric principles, and calculated the Earth's axial tilt. In addition, Eratosthenes also worked on calculating the distance to the Moon and Sun as well as the diameter of the Sun adding to the works of Aristarchus of Samos - showcasing the ancient world's nascent grasp of celestial mechanics.

Renaissance

As the world transitioned into the Renaissance period, the torch of astrophysical inquiry continued to burn brightly in the hands of visionaries such as Nicolaus Copernicus. Building upon the heliocentric model proposed by Aristarchus, Copernicus's seminal work "De Revolutionibus Orbium Coelestium", (On the Revolutions of the Celestial Spheres),  revolutionized our understanding of the solar system. Thereby, placing the Sun at the center of the cosmos, Copernicus catalyzed a paradigm shift that would forever alter humanity's perception of its place in the universe.

The Enlightenment era ushered in a golden age of scientific discovery, with luminaries such as Johannes Kepler and Galileo Galilei making indelible contributions to astrophysics / astronomy. Kepler's laws of planetary motion provided a mathematical framework for understanding the dynamics of celestial bodies, while Galileo's telescopic observations offered compelling evidence in support of the heliocentric model.

20th century

The dawn of the 20th century witnessed the birth of modern astrophysics / astronomy marked by transformative developments in theoretical physics and observational techniques. Albert Einstein's theory of general relativity completely changed our understanding of gravity, by adding to Isaac Newton findings, Einstein’s work offered profound insight into the curvature of space-time and the behavior of massive objects in the cosmos. Meanwhile, advancements in spectroscopy and telescopic technology facilitated unprecedented discoveries, allowing astronomers to peer deeper into the universe than ever before.

The latter half of the 20th century witnessed a surge in astrophysical / astronomical research, fueled by technological innovations such as space-based observatories and supercomputers. The advent of radio, X-ray and Gamma astronomy opened new vistas of exploration, enabling scientists to study cosmic phenomena beyond the visible spectrum. Concurrently, the emergence of particle astrophysics shed light on the enigmatic nature of dark matter and dark energy—two elusive entities that comprise the majority of the universe's mass-energy content.

In recent decades, the field of astrophysics has witnessed a convergence of disciplines, as researchers unravel the mysteries of black holes, gravitational waves, and the cosmic microwave background, (CMBR). Groundbreaking discoveries such as the detection of gravitational waves by the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory (LIGO) have provided empirical validation for Einstein's predictions, while opening new avenues for studying the dynamics of space-time.

As we stand on the precipice of a new era of exploration, the future of astrophysics / astronomy appears more promising and tantalizing than ever before. From the quest to uncover the origins of cosmic inflation to the search for extraterrestrial life, humanity's insatiable curiosity continues to drive scientific inquiry to unprecedented heights. As we gaze upon the vast expanse of the cosmos, we are reminded of our shared quest to unravel the mysteries of existence and unlock the secrets of the universe.

In perspective

In retracing the illustrious history of astrophysics / astronomy, we are reminded of humanity's enduring quest for knowledge and understanding. From the ancient musings of Democritus and Aristarchus to the groundbreaking discoveries of modern-day physicists, the journey of astrophysics serves as proof to the boundless potential of the human intellect. Gazing upon celestial weave of the cosmos, humans are reminded of our humble place within the vast expanse of space and time—a reminder of the profound interconnectedness that binds us to the universe itself.

I should add that amateur astronomers are now playing an increasingly active role in cosmic research, a number of projects are currently running that actively engage amateur astronomers to aid in the searching of the cosmos.

The vast expanse of the cosmos means it is impossible to observe the whole universe all the time, therefore, by engaging experienced home based astronomers across the globe it allows more of the cosmos to be observed, thus providing researchers with extra eyes to report possible finds.

Amateur astronomy is currently one of the fastest growing pastimes, as a professional astrophysicist I actively encourage everyone to look skyward and explore the cosmos either for pure pleasure and wonder or with the aim of possible becoming engaged in a live project.

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

Special notes:

Size of the observable universe

The observable universe is more than 46 billion light-years in any direction from Earth, therefore, the observable universe is 93 billion light-years in diameter. Given the constant expansion of the universe, the observable universe expands another light-year every Earth year. However, it is important to note this is only the observable universe and Earth is simply part of the universe and not at the center of the universe.

One light year is equivalent to 9.46 trillion kilometers.

Point of interest:

Recent ground breaking research has identified evidence that suggests black holes are the source of dark energy, however, it must be remembered that this research is in the early stages and required more work.

Although, other researchers have proposed sources for dark energy, what makes this research unique is this is the first observational research where nothing was added to explain the source of dark energy in the Universe. This research simply uses existing proven physics, in other words black holes in Einstein's theory of gravity are the dark energy.

As further research is carried out and empirical testing hopefully provides the same answers then the mystery of the source for dark energy with be known at last, resolving a physics conundrum.

Theory of general relativity

A simple summing up of the core principles of general relativity.

John Wheeler, theoretical physicist, summed up the core of Albert Einstein’s theory of general relativity. “Matter tells space-time how to curve, and curved space-time tells matter how to move”.

Historic Preservation Movement and Environmental Conservation

The historic preservation movement has shifted its focus multiple times and broadened its purposes throughout its existence. Here, Roy Williams returns and considers how it has evolved over time – and how it can be focused today.

The American Heritage Documentation Programs team measures the Kentucky School for the Blind. In Louisville, Kentucky, 1934.

In the beginning the historic preservation movement’s emphasis was preserving heritage through the built environment. The preservation of the built environment provided a framework and grounding point for understanding the culture and heritage of a nation. This provided understanding of the core valued concepts, institutions, and values which make up a nation. In addition to the preservation of the built environment, the National Park Service initially was formed to protect landscapes from the destructive industrial ravages of the 19th century. Ian Tyrell provides the argument that the rise of support for the National Park Service came as a direct result of a perceived global threat to the environment and the immediate need for conservation.[1] In this, the conservation of the environment and historic preservation have similar causes and roots. The two major reasons for preservation stand in pragmatic conservation for the utility of future use and preservation for the sake of preserving the existence of land and sites regardless of their utility to humans.

1970s

The historic preservation movement largely stood in its goals of preserving heritage and identity until the 1970s when the conservation of the environment began to become an important aspect of historic preservation. Questions of how much environmental destruction was wrought from the demolition of buildings and effects of new construction provided another angle to the importance of historic preservation. The embodied energy present in the construction of an old building provided the argument that older buildings should be preserved both out of cultural continuity regarding historic preservation as well as for the pragmatic aspect that the energy of construction would be wasted in the demolition of older buildings. The embodied energy of new construction would also add to the greater energy costs on top of the demolition of the older building. While this conclusion seems straight forward initially, there are opponents to the concept. Helena Meryman adheres to the concept of embodied energy in buildings but delves deeper into the world of materials associated with the preservation of the built environment with an emphasis upon the maintenance and conservation of the environment. In this regard, Meryman argues that while many materials should be recycled and previous methods of craftsmanship should be utilized in maintaining historic reconstructions, the importance of evaluating the potential of certain resources and their environmental impacts remains tantamount. Specifically, Meryman provides the counter argument against the proponents of wood as a sustainable material, that the lumber industry does contribute to deforestation and that, “The rates of timber consumption are exceeding the rate of renewal of natural forests.”[2] Instead, Meryman argues for the attempted extension of the life of current wood materials associated with historic structures and only using newly harvested wood for repairs when absolutely necessary. The National Park Service utilizes a concept known as replacement in kind which allows for the use of new materials at times allowing flexibility in the maintenance and rehabilitation of historic structures, the problem however with replacement in kind stands in the continued dependence on newly harvested lumber. The National Park Service provides the guidelines for when replacement in kind may be utilized as follows,

“The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation generally require that deteriorated distinctive architectural features of a historic property be repaired rather than replaced. Standard 6 of the Standards for Rehabilitation further states that when replacement of a distinctive feature is necessary, the new feature must “match the old in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual properties, and, where possible, materials” (emphasis added). While the use of matching materials to replace historic ones is always preferred under the Standards for Rehabilitation, the Standards also purposely recognize that flexibility may sometimes be needed when it comes to new and replacement materials as part of a historic rehabilitation project. Substitute materials that closely match the visual and physical properties of historic materials can be successfully used on many rehabilitation projects in ways that are consistent with the Standards.”[3]

Embodied energy

Embodied energy is largely an accepted philosophical aspect of the debate between preservation, demolition, and new construction, the costs involved in the creation of materials such as lumber, brick, steel all amount to a substantial amount monetarily and in carbon output. The energy expended in moving materials from one location to another for the actual construction also amounts to a substantial amount especially in carbon output regarding transportation through the combustion of gasoline and diesel engines. Finally, the human labor utilized to create residential and commercial buildings remains a factor in the overall energy costs embedded in a building. The question from this embodied energy in buildings then arises in whether an older building is more environmentally friendly when retrofitted and updated than the construction of a new building? While at first glance, this seems straightforward the answer is not so simple and has engendered a small but passionate debate regarding the future regarding the nexus of preservation, environmental conservation, demolition, and construction.

Some scholars argue that the previous costs or embodied energies of an older building should not factor into current decision making regarding the demolition or preservation of a building. This current of thought argues that the energy that went into the construction of a building 50 to 100 years ago is water under the bridge and has no factor in this decision. Tristan Roberts drives this point home, arguing that resources expended in the past are not relative to the present, stating that, “when it comes to the energy expended in the 19th century to build that structure, that’s not a good reason for saving a building from demolition — it’s water under the bridge. Energy spent 2, 20, or 200 years ago to build a building simply isn’t a resource to us today.”[4]  Rather, they argue that the only two factors that should be considered are the costs of demolition and the potential benefits of more energy efficient construction. If the costs of demolition and its environmental impact cannot be offset quickly by more energy efficient new construction, then it is best to wait and leave the current building present for use. If the costs of demolition can be offset quickly by the more energy efficient new construction, then the demolition should proceed. The problem with this argument is that it stands in a philosophical binary regarding environmental destruction and energy efficiency rather than a larger more nuanced analysis. What does it matter which option is technically more efficient if both methods continue to add carbon-based pollution to the atmosphere and destroy the environment? Even with the recycling of materials, the costs of demolition and new construction both still pollute the environment and add to overall carbon emissions. Is the goal of this binary decision making to take the best of two bad options or is it to solve the problem and work towards an environmentally sustainable future? The National Trust for Historic Preservation argues that,

“A new, high-performance building needs between 10-80 years, depending on the building type and where it is built, to offset the environmental impact of its construction. In comparing new and retrofitted buildings of similar size, function, and performance, energy savings in retrofitted buildings ranged from 4-46 percent higher than new construction. The benefits of retrofitting and reusing existing buildings are even more pronounced in regions powered by coal and that experience wider climate variations.”[5]

Green buildings

The United States Environmental Protection Agency details that, “600 million tons of C&D debris were generated in the United States in 2018, which is more than twice the amount of generated municipal solid waste. Demolition represents more than 90 percent of total C&D debris generation, while construction represents less than 10 percent. Just over 455 million tons of C&D debris were directed to next use and just under 145 million tons were sent to landfills. Aggregate was the main next use for the materials in the C&D debris.”[6] The context for this amount of waste provides a framework in understanding how Construction and Debris waste amounts for twice the amount of debris created from municipal solid waste. While new construction may produce less construction and debris-based waste, the reality that older buildings are demolished to make room for the construction of new buildings makes this problem inherently interconnected.

The sentiment of the environmental turn regarding historic preservation can be summarized best, in the words of Carl Elefante, former president of the American Institute of Architects, who said, “The greenest building is the one that already exists”[7] Simply put, the importance of preserving buildings for the purpose of environmental conservation serves both goals of the environmental movement as well as the historic preservation movement. Architect Steward Brand took this concept and developed it extensively in presenting how architects should not be confined to the realm of mastering space but to becoming artists of time.[8] Brand argues that buildings should be constantly updated and refined and utilized by humans to ensure their potential and utility. In this regard, Brand also believes that buildings should be constantly updated by their occupants rather than destroyed for the purposes of new construction. Following Brand’s deeper points, he argues that all buildings are made up of six shearing layers Site, Structure, Skin, Services, Space Plan & Stuff. The organization Restore Oregon provides supplementary evidence to this premise regarding environmental impact. Restore Oregon utilizes the Eco-Northwest study which detailed that,

“Renovating a 1,500 SF older home reduces embedded CO2 emissions by 126 metric tons, versus tearing down the same structure and replacing it with a new 3,000 SF residential building. Such savings may be better understood this way: a savings of 126 metric tons of embedded CO2 is roughly equivalent to the prevention of 44,048 gallons of gasoline emissions being released into the atmosphere. In the case of a 10,000 SF commercial building, which would typically utilize more energy-intensive materials and construction techniques than residential construction, the CO2 emissions savings would be 1,383 metric tons, or the equivalent of 484,127 gallons of gasoline burned.”

Substantially, the ECONorthwest study also presented the reality that preserved buildings have a far greater positive impact on CO2 Emissions than the removal of present combustion engines when accounting for the average annual 474 gallons of gasoline used by American vehicles, arguing that, “renovating an older home, rather than demolishing and replacing it, equates to removing 93 cars from the road for an entire year, while a single commercial renovation equates to removing 1,028 cars from the road for the same period of time.” This stands as significant statistical analysis when considering the broader trends of historic preservation and environmental conservation as united fields.

Reuse and deconstruction movement

A particular bright spot regarding sustainability and the middle ground between preservation and demolition is the recent advancements in the reuse and deconstruction movement. Rather than the current largescale trend of demolition, deconstruction aims to dismantle older buildings for the purpose of reuse and recycling. Deconstruction ordinances such as those in Portland Oregon dictate that older residential buildings must be deconstructed, and their materials reutilized. This revolutionary concept could potentially pave the way for a more circular economy in which waste is recycled and reused rather than discarded for new construction. However, the movement remains in its early stages, “There isn’t a salvage economy in the U.S. for commercial buildings,”[9] said Jason F. McLennan, the chief executive of McLennan Design and the creator of the Living Building Challenge, with most of the projects remaining residential in nature. Reuse at this stage is not necessarily more profitable due to the labor included in deconstruction and the process of storing materials. The most advantageous aspect of reuse remains in the preservation of historic materials as well as the preservation of embodied energy remaining in the materials.

Re: Purpose Savannah led 501(c)3 nonprofit advocates for sustainability through deconstruction, salvage, and reuse of historic buildings.[10] This effort towards deconstruction and recycling provides a viable alternative to the waste and pollution generated from conventional demolition. Upon research and documentation in preserving the history of a structure, Re:Purpose Savannah deconstructs the materials storing them and selling the salvaged material at their own lumberyard in Savannah. Re:Purpose Savannah’s documentation of historic deconstructed buildings includes detailed analysis of the building’s history, history of owners, photos, mapping, and its larger connections to American history all digitized on their website for the purpose of preservation all while the materials are recycled. Another example of reuse of buildings in a potentially viable manner is the development of deconstruction and recycling companies such as The Re Store, Re-Use Consulting, and Unbuilders throughout the country, reselling recycled building materials to builders. These companies originated with the beginning of deconstruction ordinances in the 1990s. Localities which have enacted deconstruction ordinances include Portland Oregon, King County Washington, and Vancouver British Columbia.[11]

The Portland Oregon Deconstruction ordinance of October 31, 2016, dictates that all structures built from 1940 earlier, (Amended from 1916) are subject to the ordinance. This means that all buildings falling within the ordinance must be deconstructed rather than mechanically demolished for the purpose of recycling valuable materials rather than being crushed and landfilled.[12] The city of Portland further regulates this process by determining that the building must be deconstructed by a certified deconstruction contractor rather than any unlicensed and unregulated construction firm or individual. The ordinance does allow for exemptions if the building is deemed unsafe for human life but generally the most valuable reusable material exists in the framing of the house allowing for very little room for exemptions.

Economic benefits

While the marketplace for deconstruction is still in its developing stage, there are certainly economic benefits to its further implementation. The Urban Sustainability Directors Network details the benefits of recycling C&D debris as well as the reusing of material on the project site. Specifically, USDN displays how deconstruction ordinances can significantly reduce waste and the amount of material disposed away in landfills. According to USDN, the Foster Hill California ordinance dictates that 50% of all C&D tonnage to be diverted from landfills to reuse, similarly, Portland’s deconstruction ordinance diverts an estimated 8 million pounds in material to reuse annually.[13] As deconstruction ordinances expand, the amount of materials reused rather than discarded will increase significantly improving overall sustainability, the largest problem stands in implementing ordinances and expanding the market from residential buildings to commercial deconstruction.

The principles of Historic Preservation show that abandonment can be one of the worst things for a building. When a building sits vacant, it becomes vulnerable to the degradation of time, climate-based factors, and wildlife which will utilize the building regardless of humans but may destroy certain aspects of it. The importance of keeping buildings in use stands as a significant goal both between those who are more directed towards the environmental preservation of the built environment as well as those based in concerns of historic preservation. The preservation of buildings in cities throughout the country for the purpose of environmental conservation as the utmost priority can serve multiple goals in maintaining a form of historic preservation, practicing environmental conservation, and in preventing cities from losing their historical character and the effects of the ever-present cultural danger of urban environments hollowing out.

One particular piece of artwork which describes the environmental turn within the historic preservation movement and the larger consideration of embodied energy stands in the gas can building artwork entitled Preservation: Reusing Americas Energy provided by the National Trust for Historic Preservation for Preservation week in 1980.[14] This artwork shows a commercial style building as a gas can to describe the embodied energy present in the building which should be preserved rather than destroyed for the purpose of new construction. In this regard, the building is depicted as having 640,000 gallons of gasoline embodied within the building and should not be preserved to continue utilizing that energy rather than destroyed. The artwork is certainly representative of the times when considering the stagflation and high gas prices of the late 1970s going forward in the 1980s. The importance of preservation for the purpose of utility is on full display as one of the most consequential aspects presented. While the representation of embodied energy as gasoline may feel dated as we continue to transition from fossil fuel-based energy to more sustainable solutions, the importance of conservation and the embodied energy stored in buildings remains an ever-present issue.

Paradigm change

Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances, by Tom Mayes provides another argument directly implicating the current tactics of urban planning and city management which professes to be utilizing environmentally friendly practices yet demolishes buildings without a second thought. Mayes argues that “few cities actively promote the reuse of existing buildings as a green strategy.”[15] With most being discarded and their materials ending up in a landfill with the new materials gained through extractive methods and transported using fossil fuels. This process of demolition and construction continues the process of environmental destruction all while cities pretend to be solving the issue with new ultra-modern style sleek energy efficient construction. This process does not help the issue of environmental conservation in any meaningful way but continues the process of disposability which continues to destroy the environment. Nigel Whiteley describes this process of disposability and hyper consumerism which became established in the 1950s and the 1960s, displaying how products became designed with an explicit understanding that they would soon become obsolete for other products to take their place in demand.[16] This process of disposability moved from fashion to automobiles, to construction. Logically the development of a throw away disposable culture eventually leads to the disposal of buildings for the consumption of newer and more developed buildings with no concern for the energy expended in their previous historic construction. This also has a significant impact of historic preservation as the continuity of urban environments is broken for newer construction rather than the continuance of previous historic structures which grounded the identity of the area.

The present issues faced by both the historic preservation and environmentalist movements can be best summarized by the words of John Muir, “People need Beauty as well as Bread” The importance of maintaining the pragmatism of a working economy and environment cannot be overlooked. The world of human interaction and commerce cannot stop to ensure that the environment can recover, however, new and innovative practices can be put into place which will ensure that the environment can be conserved for future use. Much like the preservation of the human identity through the environment which has shaped human history, the preservation of the built environment is inexplicably unified with this purpose. Whether in the reduction of CO2 emissions by the preservation and retrofitting of older buildings or in the protection of vast swathes of landscapes to protect both the environmental and cultural identity, both movements are linked together. The importance of adaptation and innovation in accomplishing these goals remains significant in addressing the current challenges and problems both fields face.[17]

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

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Lindlaw, Scott. “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns.” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008. https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.

Secondary Sources

Journal Articles

Adam, Robert. “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists.’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021. https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.

“Deconstruction Requirements.” Portland.gov. October 31, 2016. https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.

“Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction.” Urban Sustainability Directors Network. https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.

MAYES, TOM. “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances.” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.

McMahon, Edward T., and A. Elizabeth Watson. “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement.” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.

Meryman, Helena. “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies.” APT Bulletin: The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.

National Park Service. “Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings.” Last Modified October 6, 2023. https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.

  “Our Mission.” Re:Purpose Savannah. 2023. https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.

Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.

Prevost, Lisa. “Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct? New York Times.September 1, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.

Roberts, Tristan. “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy.” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011. https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.

“Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World.” Re-Store.org. July 25, 2019. https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.

“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials.” United States Environmental Protection Agency. Accessed November 7, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.

Tyrrell, Ian. “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era.” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.

Whiteley, Nigel. “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s.” Oxford Art Journal 10. no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.

Books

Miller, Marla R., and Max Page. Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States. UPCC Book Collections on Project MUSE. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,shib&db=nlebk&AN=1425207&site=eds-live&scope=site.

Brand, Stewart. How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built. United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.

[1] Ian Tyrell, “America’s National Parks: The Transnational Creation of National Space in the Progressive Era,” Journal of American Studies 46, no. 1 (2012): 1–21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41427306.

[2] Helena Meryman, “Structural Materials in Historic Restoration: Environmental Issues and Greener Strategies,” The Journal of Preservation Technology 36, no. 4 (2005): 31–38. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40003161.

[3]“Evaluating Substitute Materials in Historic Buildings,” National Park Service, Last Modified October 6, 2023, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/taxincentives/evaluating-substitute-materials.htm.

[4] Tristan Roberts, “Does Saving Historic Buildings Save Energy,” Green Building Advisor, May 2, 2011, https://www.greenbuildingadvisor.com/article/does-saving-historic-buildings-save-energy.

[5] Preservation Green Lab, “The Greenest Building: Quantifying the Environmental Value of Building Reuse,” National Trust for Historic Preservation, 2011.

[6]“Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials,” United States Environmental Protection Agency, Accessed November 7, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-management-construction-and-demolition-materials#:~:text=Demolition%20represents%20more%20than%2090,materials%20in%20the%20C%26D%20debris.

[7]Robert Adam, “‘The Greenest Building Is the One That Already Exists,’” The Architects’ Journal, August 13, 2021, https://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/opinion/the-greenest-building-is-the-one-that-already-exists#:~:text=Carl%20Elefante%2C%20former%20president%20of,the%20one%20that%20already%20exists’.

[8] Stewart Brand, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They're Built, United States: Penguin Publishing Group, 1995.

[9]Lisa Prevost, Sustainability Advocates Ask: Why Demolish When You Can Deconstruct?” New York Times, September 1, 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/01/business/waste-salvage-deconstruction-sustainability.html.

[10] “Our Mission,” Re:Purpose Savannah, 2023, https://www.repurposesavannah.org/mission.

[11] “Successes of a Sister City: Deconstruction around the World,” Re-Store.org, July 25, 2019, https://re-store.org/successes-of-a-sister-city-deconstruction-around-the-world/.

[12] “Deconstruction Requirements,” Portland.gov, October 31, 2016, https://www.portland.gov/bps/climate-action/decon/deconstruction-requirements.

[13] “Encouraging and Mandating Building Deconstruction,” Urban Sustainability Directors Network, https://sustainableconsumption.usdn.org/initiatives-list/encouraging-and-mandating-building-deconstruction.

[14] Scott Lindlaw, “Preservations Urge Weighing Environmental Impact of Teardowns,” New Bedford Standard-Times, April 9, 2008, https://www.southcoasttoday.com/story/lifestyle/2008/04/09/preservations-urge-weighing-environmental-impact/52453454007/.

[15] Tom Mayes, “Changing the Paradigm from Demolition to Reuse—Building Reuse Ordinances,” In Bending the Future: Fifty Ideas for the Next Fifty Years of Historic Preservation in the United States, edited by Max Page and Marla R. Miller, 162–65. University of Massachusetts Press, 2016. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1hd19hg.31.

[16]Nigel Whiteley, “Toward a Throw-Away Culture. Consumerism, ‘Style Obsolescence’ and Cultural Theory in the 1950s and 1960s,” Oxford Art Journal 10, no. 2 (1987): 3–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1360444.

[17]Edward T. McMahon, and A. Elizabeth Watson, “In My Opinion: In Search of Collaboration: Historic Preservation and the Environmental Movement,” History News 48, no. 6 (1993): 26–27. http://www.jstor.org/stable/42655670.

The Vanguard of Greek Resistance Against Nazi Occupation – The EDES National Republican Greek League

In the Second World War, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a testament to the indomitable spirit of resistance against Nazi occupation. Formed in the crucible of Greek patriotism and fueled by a fervent desire for liberation, EDES played a pivotal role in challenging the Nazi juggernaut, forging alliances with British intelligence, and laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction.

Terry Bailey explains.

First, if you missed Terry’s article on ELAS’ role in World War 2, read it here.

Napoleon Zervas (the second from the left) with fellow EDES members.

The genesis of EDES can be traced back to the tumultuous years of the 1940s when Greece found itself engulfed in the flames of war and facing the specter of Axis domination. Founded in 1941 by Colonel Napoleon Zervas, EDES emerged as a beacon of hope amidst the darkness of occupation. Zervas, a decorated veteran of the Balkan Wars and the Greco-Turkish War, embodied the ethos of Greek nationalism and staunch anti-communism that would come to define EDES's ideology.

Unlike its communist counterparts such as ELAS (Greek People's Liberation Army), EDES espoused a vision of republican governance and sought to establish a Greece free from both Axis tyranny and the specter of communism. Drawing inspiration from Greece's storied history of resistance against foreign invaders, EDES rallied patriots from diverse backgrounds under its banner, united by a common purpose: to reclaim Greece's sovereignty and dignity.

Resistance efforts

EDES's resistance efforts were characterized by a blend of guerrilla warfare tactics, sabotage operations, and clandestine intelligence gathering. Operating primarily in the mountainous regions of Epirus and western Greece, EDES fighters waged a relentless campaign against Nazi forces, disrupting supply lines, ambushing patrols, and bolstering civilian morale through acts of defiance.

One of EDES's most notable achievements was its collaboration with British Special Operations Executive (SOE), the clandestine organization tasked with supporting and organizing resistance movements across occupied Europe. Through Operation Animals, SOE agents forged alliances with EDES operatives, and their communist counterparts in ELAS, providing crucial logistical support, training, and intelligence to bolster resistance efforts in Greece. Operation Animals was part of the larger strategic deception plan to fool the axis powers into believing that amphibious landing would occur in Greece instead of the real target of Sicily.

EDES's partnership with SOE proved instrumental in several key tactical operations, including the destruction of Axis infrastructure, the liberation of strategic territories, and the rescue of Allied prisoners of war. However, tensions occasionally simmered between EDES and its communist counterparts within the Greek resistance movement, leading to intermittent clashes and rivalries over territory and influence.

As the war progressed

As the tides of war shifted in favor of the Allies, EDES began laying the groundwork for Greece's post-war reconstruction and transition to democratic governance. With the defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, EDES played a pivotal role in facilitating the return of exiled Greek political leaders, advocating for the establishment of a constitutional republic, and demobilizing its forces in accordance with the terms of the Varkiza Agreement.

However, EDES's aspirations for a democratic Greece were soon overshadowed by the turbulent civil conflict and the emerging Cold War rivalry between Western powers and the Soviet Union. The disbandment of EDES's armed forces and the subsequent outbreak of the Greek Civil War in 1946 marked the end of the organization’s active involvement in Greek politics.

In context

Despite its relatively short-lived existence, the legacy of EDES endures as a symbol of Greek resilience and defiance against oppression. Its members, many of whom sacrificed their lives in the struggle for freedom, are remembered as heroes of the recent Greek history. Moreover, EDES's commitment to democratic ideals and its collaboration with Allied forces during the Second World War laid the groundwork for Greece's eventual integration into the community of democratic nations.

Therefore, the story of the EDES National Republican Greek League stands as a poignant chapter in the Second World War’s resistance movements. From its humble beginnings as a fledgling guerrilla force to its pivotal role in challenging Nazi occupation, EDES embodied the spirit of Greek nationalism and defiance against tyranny.

Though its post-war aspirations were overshadowed by the prolonged civil conflict, the legacy of EDES endures as a testament to the enduring power of resistance and the human spirit in the face of adversity and the wish to be free from Nazi dictatorship or the overshadowing specter of communist rule.

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

What was the role of the Greek People's Liberation Army in the 1940s? ELAS - A Legacy of Resistance

In the tumultuous landscape of the Second World War, Greece found itself at the crossroads of history. Amidst the chaos of invasion and occupation by Axis forces, a beacon of hope emerged in the form of the Greek People's Liberation Army (ELAS). Born out of necessity and fueled by the fervor of resistance, ELAS would leave an indelible mark on the nation's history, shaping its destiny for years to come.

Terry Bailey explains.

The ELAS in the Vermio Mountains, with a Soviet military group in 1944.

Formation of ELAS

The origins of ELAS can be traced back to the early years of the Nazi occupation of Greece. Following the Axis invasion in April 1941, the Greek people faced the harsh reality of foreign rule and oppression, something the Greek culture had experienced before, only this time from the Nazis. In the face of this adversity, various resistance groups began to coalesce, driven by a shared desire for liberation and independence.

One of the most significant of these groups was the National Liberation Front (EAM), a broad coalition of leftist and communist organizations. Under the umbrella of EAM, ELAS was established in 1942 as its military wing, tasked with the mission of confronting the Axis occupiers and their collaborators.

Led by a diverse array of leaders, including communist guerrilla fighters and patriotic nationalists, ELAS quickly garnered widespread support among the Greek populace. Drawing upon the rich tradition of Greek resistance throughout history, the organization tapped into a deep well of national pride and defiance, inspiring countless individuals to join its ranks.

Resistance Against the Nazis

ELAS waged a relentless campaign against the Nazi forces occupying Greece, employing guerrilla tactics and unconventional warfare to great effect. Operating primarily in the rugged terrain of the Greek countryside and mountainous region, ELAS fighters carried out ambushes, sabotage missions, and acts of sabotage, striking fear into the hearts of their enemies, while working alongside British SOE operatives.

However, ELAS's impact extended far beyond the battlefield. The organization also played a crucial role in the resistance's efforts to support and protect vulnerable civilians, providing aid, shelter, and medical care to those effected by the horrors of war, in doing so, ELAS earned the respect and admiration of the Greek people, solidifying its status as a symbol of hope and resilience in the face of tyranny, yet the organization had a hidden agenda and it was this reason that support was provided to the Greek people based on future aims and political manifestos.

Post-War Plans and the Civil War

With the end of the Second World War in 1945, Greece stood on the brink of a new era of freedom and democracy. However, the euphoria of victory was short-lived, as the country soon found itself plunged into a bitter civil conflict. At the heart of this conflict was the struggle for control between rival political factions: on one side, the communist-led forces of ELAS and its allies, and on the other, the conservative government backed by Western powers.

What began as a battle for liberation against foreign occupiers quickly escalated into a bloody internal struggle for power and ideology. ELAS, emboldened by its wartime successes and bolstered by popular support, sought to capitalize on its position to shape the future of Greece in line with its socialist vision. However, the conservative government, fearful of communist influence and determined to maintain its grip on power, moved swiftly to suppress ELAS and crush the burgeoning communist movement.

The ensuing conflict, known as the Greek Civil War, raged from 1946 to 1949, tearing the country apart and exacting a heavy toll on its people. Despite their efforts, ELAS and its allies were ultimately unable to overcome the combined might of the government forces and their Western backers, who did not wish communist rule in Greece. With the defeat of the communist backed ELAS in the Greek Civil War it was officially disarmed and disbanded, marking the end of an era of resistance and the beginning of a new chapter in Greek history. Though the communist dream of revolution had been quashed, the legacy of ELAS lived on, serving as a testament to the enduring spirit of resistance and the fight for justice and freedom.

Legacy of Resistance

Despite its ultimate defeat, the legacy of ELAS endures as a symbol of courage, sacrifice, and defiance. For many Greeks, the memory of ELAS and its heroic struggle against fascism remains a source of inspiration and pride, reminding them of the power of unity and solidarity in the face of adversity. In the decades since its dissolution, ELAS has been commemorated through monuments, memorials, and cultural artefacts, ensuring that its contributions to Greek history are never forgotten. Moreover, the values of democracy, equality, and social justice for which ELAS fought continue to resonate with people around the world, serving as a beacon of hope in an uncertain world, however, this continued underlining believe in equality is based upon the organization’s original manifesto which had a heavy left wing flavor.

As Greece navigates the challenges of the 21st century, the spirit of ELAS lives on simmering under the surface, inspiring future generations to stand up against oppression and injustice wherever they may find it. Though the battles may have ended long ago, the fight for a better world continues, fueled by the enduring legacy of the Greek People's Liberation Army and the belief by poor communities that these manifesto ideas are the answer to unequaled living conditions.

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

What were the Most Daring Missions of World War 2’s X-class Miniature Submarines?

During the Second World War a remarkable but often overlooked group of submarines played a crucial role in various operations, including the preparation for the D-Day invasion. These submarines, known as X-Craft, were small, specially designed vessels tasked with daring missions that often carried immense risk. Terry Bailey explains.

An X-Craft 25 in Scotland during World War 2.

The theatre of the Second World War, where naval supremacy often dictated the outcome of battles required innovation that became the key to success. Among the many remarkable developments of the era were the X-craft miniature submarines which stood out for the audacity, effectiveness and bravery of the crews who manned these vessels. The small but mighty vessels played a crucial role in some of the war's most daring and important missions, proving that size was no obstacle to bravery or impact.

The genesis of the X-Craft can trace its pedigree back to the CSS H. L. Hunley, the small Confederate States of America submarine that played a small part in the American Civil War. The Hunley’s mission profile, like the British X-craft of the Second World War was to close with the enemy vessel and deliver an explosive device next to or near the hull of the target vessel then retired from the area.

In the Second World War, the Allied forces faced the daunting task of neutralizing the formidable German battleship Tirpitz. Anchored in the remote fjords of Norway, the Tirpitz posed a significant threat to Allied convoys and naval operations in the North Atlantic. Traditional methods of attack, such as aerial bombing, had proven ineffective against the ship's heavily fortified defenses on the vessel and in the water including surrounding hills.

In response to this challenge, British naval engineers embarked on a daring experiment: the development of miniature submarines capable of infiltrating enemy harbors that could deliver a devastating blow to high-value targets. The result was the X-Craft, a revolutionary vessel measuring just 51 feet in length manned by a crew of four.

Operation Source

The X-Craft's first major mission came in September 1943, with Operation Source—the audacious plan to attack the Tirpitz in its heavily defended anchorage at Altenfjord, Norway.

Although a larger number of X-craft were assigned to Operation Source, however, only six eventually took part the mission, due to a number of unforeseen problems. Each craft was tasked with navigating treacherous waters and evading enemy patrols to reach their target after slipping from the mother submarine that towed the X-craft across the North Sea.

The journey itself was a testament to the courage and skill of the X-Craft crews, who endured cramped conditions and the constant threat of detection as they navigated through hostile waters. Despite facing numerous challenges, including mechanical failures and adverse weather conditions, two X-Craft, named X6 and X7, successfully reached their target and deposited their side charges under the Tirpitz, there is some evidence that indicates that X5 also managed laid their charges.

Although the attack failed to sink the battleship outright, it dealt a significant blow to the ship’s operational capabilities, forcing the Germans to withdraw the Tirpitz from active duty for repairs, providing the Allies precious time. The success of Operation Source demonstrated the potential of the X-Craft as a strategic weapon and paved the way for future missions.

Operation Guidance

Encouraged by the relative success of Operation Source, the X-Craft were subsequently deployed on a series of daring missions throughout the remainder of the war, including Operation Guidance.

In April 1944, Submarines X20 up-to and including X25 were dispatched to Bergen, Norway, as part of Operation Guidance. X24, under the command of a brave crew, attacked the Laksevåg floating dock. Originally, X22 was intended for this mission. However, tragically, it had been accidentally rammed during training and sunk, resulting in the loss of all hands.

Undeterred, X24 proceeded with the mission, although the charges were initially placed under the merchant vessel Bärenfels, causing its sinking, the dock itself sustained only minor damage. Determined to succeed, X24 repeated the operation in September, this time successfully sinking the dock.

Operation Postage able

Additionally, the X-Craft submarines were instrumental in the preparatory work for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. One notable operation, Postage Able, involved X20, commanded by Lieutenant KR Hudspeth.

Spending four days off the French coast, X20 conducted periscope reconnaissance of the shoreline and echo-soundings during the day. Each night, two divers would swim ashore to survey the landing beaches, collecting samples for analysis.

Despite challenges such as fatigue and adverse weather conditions, the operation provided vital intelligence for the upcoming invasion. Lieutenant Hudspeth's leadership during this mission earned him a bar to his Distinguished Service Cross.

Operation Gambit

As part of Operation Gambit, X20 and X23, each manned by a crew of five, acted as navigational beacons to guide the D-Day invasion fleet to the correct beaches. Equipped with radio beacons and echo sounders, these submarines played a crucial role in directing Canadian and British ships to suitable positions on Sword and Juno beaches. The use of oxygen bottles enabled the crews to remain submerged for extended periods, contributing significantly to the success of the operation.

XE class submarines and Far East operations

In August 1945, the new improved XE class miniature submarines were deployed in a daring attack on Japanese warships within Singapore harbor. The mission was meticulously planned, with XE3 assigned to attack the heavy cruiser Takao, while XE1 targeting the heavy cruiser Myōkō.

XE3's journey was fraught with challenges, navigating through the Straits of Johor and evading harbor defenses. It took a total of 11 hours to reach the target area, with an additional 2 hours spent locating the camouflaged Takao. Despite the constant threat of detection by Japanese,  XE3 successfully reached the Takao, deploying limpet mines and dropping two side charges. The withdrawal was executed flawlessly, and XE3 safely returned to HMS Stygian, its towing submarine.

Meanwhile, XE1 encountered delays caused by Japanese patrol craft. Realizing that reaching Myōkō before the explosives laid by XE3 detonated was impossible, the captain made the strategic decision to target the already attacked Takao. Like XE3, XE1 successfully returned to its towing submarine, HMS Spark.

The impact of the attack was profound, the Takao, already in a damaged state, sustained severe damage and was rendered unfit for further use. For their extraordinary bravery and skill, the commanders and crews of both XE1 and XE3 were honored with prestigious awards. Lieutenant Ian Edward Fraser RNR and Leading Seaman James Joseph Magennis of XE3 were awarded the Victoria Cross (VC), the highest military decoration for valor.

Sub-Lieutenant William James Lanyon Smith, RNZNVR, received the Distinguished Service Order (DSO) for his role in commanding XE3. Engine Room Artificer Third Class Charles Alfred Reed, who operated the vessel's controls, was recognized with the Conspicuous Gallantry Medal (CGM).

In recognition of their contributions, Lieutenant John Elliott Smart RNVR and Sub-Lieutenant Harold Edwin Harper, RNVR, commanding officer and crew of XE1 respectively, were awarded the DSO and the Distinguished Service Cross (DSC).

Additionally, ERA Fourth Class Henry James Fishleigh, Leading Seaman Walter Henry Arthur Pomeroy, ERA Fourth Class Albert Nairn, Acting Leading Stoker Jack Gordan Robinson, and Able Seaman Ernest Raymond Dee were all honored for their roles in bringing the midget submarines to the point of attack, receiving various commendations and mentions in dispatches.

Legacy

The X-Craft missions during World War II may have been overshadowed by larger naval engagements, but their impact was profound. These small submarines played a vital role in disrupting enemy operations and weakening Axis forces.

The impact on the outcome of the Second World War is often underestimated, yet should not be dismissed, these diminutive submarines played a crucial role in neutralizing some of the most formidable naval threats of the era, demonstrating the effectiveness of unconventional warfare tactics in an increasingly complex battlefield environment.

Moreover, the legacy of the X-Craft extends far beyond their wartime exploits. The technological innovations pioneered in the development of these vessels laid the groundwork for future advancements in submarine design and underwater warfare.

The lessons learned from their operations continue to form military strategy and tactics to this day, serving as a testament to the enduring legacy of innovation and ingenuity in times of conflict. Moreover, their daring exploits served as an inspiration for today’s generation of naval special forces.

Therefore, it should be clear that the X-Craft miniature submarines represent a remarkable chapter in the history naval warfare. From their humble origins to Second World War experimental prototypes and their pivotal role in some of the most daring missions of the Second World War, these small but mighty vessels exemplify the courage, tenacity, and ingenuity of the men who manned them. Their story serves as a powerful reminder of the indomitable spirit of those who dare to defy the odds in the pursuit of victory.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

This Godless Communism: Cold War as Religious Ideological Struggle

The Cold War pitted the USA against the USSR in all manner of ways – and a key part of that was a religious, Christian America against an atheist Soviet Union. Here, Victor Gamma returns and looks at the Cold War as a religious ideological struggle.

The 1931 demolition of the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour in Moscow.

On September 19, 1965 an episode of the popular science fiction show Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea" called "Jonah and the Whale" was broadcast. In it a Russian scientist teamed up with the Seaview to repair a damaged deep sea station. In the process, the American Admiral Nelson and the Russian end up swallowed by a giant whale while attempting to reach the station. While awaiting rescue, their unusual circumstances led to a discussion of the Biblical account of Jonah and the Whale. The Russian scoffs at the story, dismissing it as “myth.” The American, by contrast, defends the account as reliable. Additionally, throughout the episode a running conflict takes place between the Americans and Russian over the value of life. The Russian Dr Markova persistently places the mission objectives above the safety of crew members and displays a callous disregard for human life. The Americans display the opposite.

This episode was typical of American perceptions of the nature of our Cold War enemy: Soviet Russia. American pop culture often delivered pointed reminders to the American people that we were dealing with an enemy that was cold-hearted, ruthless and above all, godless. In fact, Russian or Slavic villains became staple in cinema and TV as soon as the Cold War “heated up” beginning in the late 1940s. The godless communist narrative became pervasive in the years that followed. The Jonah episode also reflected long-standing American values and self-perception as champions of goodness and virtue, a fundamental aspect of which is respect for traditional religion.

Traditional religion

The conflict between communist statism and Western values of freedom was often seen as reflecting the spiritual and moral truths grounded in traditional religion.

Individual and economic freedom was seen to be based on religious ethics - God -given rights that no government could take away. Communist hostility and threats toward this freedom and religion was a continuous theme in the very anticommunist media of the day.

Popular culture joined in the fight long before the Jonah episode. This was largely the result of an organization keenly feeling the threat of “godless communism; the Catholic Catechetical Guild Educational Society. In 1947 they published a 50-page political pamphlet/comic book warning of the threat faced by all Americans: the ruthless scheming of our own home-grown American Communist Party. The comic book title warned: Is This Tomorrow? The book described a hypothetical future communist coup d’état in America. Its lurid descriptions and imagery  was designed to shock the reader into alarm over how the communists would take power aided by an ill-informed American public. Assisting the communists were a number of gullible “useful idiots” including well-meaning but misguided American officials. One is a Bible-burning politician. The Catholic Educational Society made the point that those who burn or oppose the Bible and Christianity are terrible people, that the communists target not just a political or economic ideology but are the enemy of everything decent and good. In the comic, clergy of all variety suffer severe persecution.  At the back of the book readers could find the “Ten Commandments of Citizenship.” One of these was “Follow your own religion.” Religion is encouraged as an important aspect of citizenship. A best-seller, about 4 million copies were printed and distributed to churches throughout the country. Is this Tomorrow? was not the only attempt to clarify the spiritual struggle. Treasure Chest, a comic book distributed to private, religious schools, contained a regular feature entitled "This Godless Communism."

Deeply embedded values

Although featuring a hysterical tone, these publications reflected values deeply embedded in American culture. Our religious ideology was not forced on our people. The phrase "under God" was not added to the pledge of Allegiance until 1954, but this does not mean that public education was void of any religious sentiment prior to that time. 

Long tradition promoted  decorating the walls of many elementary classrooms with some kind of acknowledgement or faith in God. One such example was a class chalkboard accidentally uncovered by construction crews at an Oklahoma High School in 2015. The crew discovered a chalkboard full of lessons, perfectly preserved, as they were written in 1917. One section of the chalkboard is dedicated to an encouragement to patriotism which reads "I give my head, my heart, and my life to my God and our nation indivisible with Justice for all." A generation later this tradition continued. In a 2nd grade classroom in New Jersey in 1949, the following display was featured next to the classroom entrance; a prominent place where all could see;

A Child’s Grace

Thank you for the world so sweet

Thank you for the food we eat

Thank you for the birds that sing

Thank you God for everything

Additionally, in classrooms across the nation could be heard the refrains of America’s national songs, laced with references to God and Scripture; America, America, God shed His grace on Thee, for instance. Building on this tradition and faced with a mortal challenge from atheistic Marxism, 1950s America underwent a significant spiritual revival in which values were frequently reflected In popular film as well.

For example, in 1951 the film My Son John hit theaters across America sending Cold War shivers down the spines of theater goers. The antagonist, John, comes home after living abroad for a while. His parents & others in the community soon notice his strange behavior. Among other “un-American” behaviors are his strange refusal to attend church with the family. Eventually, it comes out that while abroad he converted to communism.

At roughly the same time the popular television show "Life is worth Living" featured the eloquent Bishop Fulton Sheen. His Excellency dedicated episodes of the TV program to the topic of communism. To an audience of millions the charismatic Bishop articulated a devastating critique of Marxist ideology. He concluded with a thundering denunciation of it as a soulless and deadly threat to civilization.

Leaders

America’s political leaders were also not shy about invoking their nation's spiritual superiority. Congressman Charles J. Kersten believed it was “immoral and unchristian to negotiate a permanent agreement with forces (communism) which by every religious creed and moral precept are evil.”

Kersten was by no means the only public official emphasizing the spiritual and moral aspect of the conflict. In a speech that marked the beginning of “McCarthyism” delivered on February 9, 1950, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy voiced the shocking claim that recent communist gains, such as the “loss” of China to the Reds, could be explained by traitors within the State Department. McCarthy made sure to explain WHY this was such a problem. The nature of communism, he declared, is “not the usual war between nations for land areas or other material gains but a war between two diametrically opposed ideologies. The great difference between our Western Christian world and the atheistic Communist world is not political, it is moral.” 

This championing of Christian values in the face of the world-wide enemy of religion went all the up to the White House. On July 30, 1954 President Eisenhower addressed the nation on the subject of religion; "... we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource in peace and war.”    

The occasion was the passing of Public Law 84-140, concerning “inscriptions on currency and coins.” The law declared that “all United States currency shall bear the inscription "In God We Trust." Soon everyday business transactions would remind millions of Americans of the important place of religion in America. 

What would move the President to deliver an address on such a mundane topic as coin inscriptions - Dwight Eisenhower was not particularly known for his religiosity. In his own words he had "gotten a long way" from his religious upbringing.  But that was soon to change. Even earlier, in 1953, he had reached out to a young, up-and -coming evangelist named Billy Graham. He had met the revivalist on a number of occasions. The two formed a bond that would last to the end of Eisenhower's life.

Besides Graham, other eloquent preachers influenced the President.    On February 2, 1954 Eisenhower attended a service at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Washington DC. The sermon by Reverend George Doherty would prove to be very influential on the President. Doherty declared; "To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life,” He further argued that “an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms,” … “you deny the Christian ethic, you fall short of the American ideal of life.”

In 1952 the Knights of Columbus began petitioning the government that there should be some reference to God in the Pledge recited in classrooms across the country. Specifically, they wanted the words “under God” added. They found a sympathetic ear in Louis Rabaut, Democratic Representative from Michigan. Rabaut was a fervent Catholic with nine children. The Knights movement caught his attention. He introduced a bill on the floor of congress stating that the reference to God was needed to "as a public proclamation of our religious traditions" and a "Bulwark against communism." Rabaut also declared what a majority of Americans believed when he said “Love of country is a devotion to an institution that finds its origin and development in the moral law …Our country was born under God and only under God will it live as a citadel of freedom.”  “To omit the words ‘under God’ in the Pledge of Allegiance is to omit the definitive factor in the American way of life.”

Eisenhower’s backing

When Eisenhower's own pastor championed the cause, Ike threw in his support as well. 

He believed he had a good reason. He had seen first-hand the horrors of totalitarianism as he went into the liberated Nazi death camps in 1945. The Cold War, then raging fiercely, challenged the leader of the free world not only militarily and economically but morally and spiritually as well and Eisenhower was determined to bolster American ability to withstand it.

Besides money, On April 8, 1954 postage stamps appeared for the first time with the words "In God we trust." In the biggest ceremony of its kind in the history of the United States Post Office Department, attended by the highest officials in the country, including President Eisenhower, the stamp was inaugurated with the words. "It will set the stage . . . for the introduction of the nation’s first regular stamp bearing a religious significance.”

In the following year, 1955, American elementary school children recited the Pledge of Allegiance with the new words “Under God" added to the pledge. During the Cold War many organizations eagerly joined in the crusade of defending  religion against the forces of communism. John Swift Knights of Columbus began to petition the government to add the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.

On Flag Day of the same year, President Dwight Eisenhower signed the bill that added the phrase to the pledge schoolchildren recited every morning. The original pledge, written in 1892, had contained no reference to religion. To emphasize the point still further, in 1956 the official motto of the United States became "In God We Trust." 

In 1958 Christianity Today Magazine reported on the low reputation of communists; “The word “communism” suggests all manner of evil. You need but whisper, “He is a Communist,” and, if your neighbor believes you, the alleged Communist could next be charged with almost any crime whatever and your neighbor would not be surprised. The Communist has the role of international villain once held by the Fascist, except that the Communist enjoys an even worse reputation. He would rob his own brother blind; he would betray his own parents to the police; he would delight in desecrating churches, for he is an atheist.”           

How close was this media narrative to reality? The portrayal of Russians as cold-hearted, inhumane and anti-religious were not simply empty platitudes of pop culture. Just before the Jonah episode, the Soviet Union, although not officially atheist, had conducted the “anti-religious campaign” (1958-1964). Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was very hostile towards religion. During his leadership the number of churches declined from 22,000 to 7,873. In his speech at the plenum of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Khrushchev made sure anti-religious propaganda was promoted. June, 1963.

By contrast, at this same time in the Soviet Union and Red China religion suffered from often harsh persecution. Sometimes the anti-religious propaganda and measures rose to the level of the anti-Jewish policies of Nazi Germany. The Soviet National anthem ignores religion and attributes the existence of the nation to “the people's mighty hand.” Events known as “youth anti-religious evenings” were held which included dramatizations and songs characterized as “humorous, show how priests, fortune-tellers and other rogues deceive believers with imperishable relics, holy tales and other rubbish.”

Such policies made it clear to Americans that it was necessary to face down this darkness with even more powerful forces of moral and spiritual strength.  In the 1950s and even into the 1960s the American nation was in a mood to embrace and safeguard its historic spiritual heritage, including government action promoting religion - such as on postage stamps, unfettered by constitutional qualms.

In context

This battle continued up to the end of the Cold War. Ultimately, the Soviet colossus collapsed. The Democratic, free market system was proclaimed the Victor. The Soviet Empire has been replaced by a fragmented shadow of its former self. This does not mean, though, that Russia no longer has dangerous ambitions and only time will tell what role religion will play in any future confrontation.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/nov/10/religion-christianity

How 'One Nation' Didn't Become 'Under God' Until The '50s Religious Revival |

How Dwight Eisenhower Found God in the White House | HISTORY

US Anti-Imperialism in the Middle East: The Suez Crisis

Do you know about the time that the USA went against Israel and the Western powers in the Middle East? Here, Andrew Patterson tells us about the 1956 Suez Crisis, when the US did not support Britain, France, and Israel’s ambitions against Egypt.

A picture of Egyptian military vehicles that have been damaged in the Sinai Peninsula.

The Suez Canal Crisis was like a high-stakes poker game of global power. Imagine Egypt’s leader, Nasser, suddenly nationalizing the Suez Canal, basically a lifeline for world trade. This move freaks out London and Paris, sparking a secret buddy-up with Israel to snatch it back. Then struts in the USA, led by Eisenhower, looking to shake up the global power playlist. It was a showdown that not only reshaped the Middle East’s role in the Cold War but also turned the US into the surprise superhero for Egypt against the old-world colonial vibe. Diving into the Suez Crisis, we see the US playing the role of an unlikely hero, championing Egypt in the epic struggle to shake off colonial chains.

The Suez Canal’s a big deal—key for shipping oil and goods, and in the 1950s a colonial chess piece for way too long. Enter Egypt's bold move to nationalize it. This wasn't just about owning a canal; it was Egypt shouting from the rooftops that they were done being a pawn in the global game of thrones.

During the Cold War's peak, with the world split between capitalism and communism, the U.S. hit a fork in the road. Under Eisenhower, America ditched its old gunboat diplomacy for a surprising new look: anti-imperialism. Suddenly, the U.S. started sounding like it was rooting for the underdog, aligning its playbook with nations tired of colonial hangovers. It was a game-changer, showing the world that the U.S. was ready to mix things up and support countries carving out their own destinies.

The Eisenhower Doctrine

Eisenhower's foreign policy was like walking a tightrope—with the U.S. juggling the need to curb Soviet spread while ditching the old-school, imperialist tactics of its European buddies. The Eisenhower Doctrine of 1957 was his way of saying, "We've got your back" to Middle Eastern countries fighting off communism, but the Suez Crisis was the real litmus test, pushing the U.S. to flex its anti-imperialist muscles sooner.

In 1956 Egypt's President Nasser Declaring the canal as Egypt’s own was a game-changing moment, throwing down the gauntlet against old colonial shadows and ushering in a fresh chapter of independence and self-rule.

Old Powers Collude

Britain, France, and Israel didn't waste any time cooking up a military response. Their plan? Israel would kick off an invasion, with British and French troops jumping in under the guise of keeping the canal open. But let's be real, their eyes were on the bigger prize: knocking Nasser off his pedestal and taking back the canal. This move was straight out of the old colonial playbook—an attempt to turn back the clock to a time when gunboat diplomacy and empire-building were the order of the day.

When Britain, France, and Israel moved on Egypt, the U.S. threw a curveball by condemning the invasion, stunning its usual pals. This was a loud and clear signal from America: the days of imperialist playbooks were done. Eisenhower and crew, sticking to their anti-imperialist guns, viewed the invasion as a potential spark for a much larger fire, possibly drawing the Soviet Union into a broader conflict that could destabilize the Cold War's delicate balance.

New Boss New Rules

Breaking with tradition, the U.S. stood firm against old friends Britain and France, plus Israel, over their joint military move. Eisenhower didn't just talk a big game; he backed it up with the threat of economic sanctions against Britain, who at the time was pretty much banking on U.S. financial aid.

In this era, the U.S. didn't just stand by; it dove into some serious diplomacy to stop the fighting. By defending Egypt's right to manage the Suez Canal, the U.S. was basically broadcasting a new rulebook to the world: national sovereignty was in, and old-school colonial aggression was out. This stance was a global announcement, especially aimed at the Soviet Union, that the U.S. had zero patience for imperialist antics, even from its best buddies.

The U.S. used the United Nations as a stage to rally global opinion. By advocating for a resolution that demanded a ceasefire and the retreat of the invaders, America emerged as a peacemaker, pushing for diplomacy over force. This move not only boosted the U.S.'s rep as a champion of international law and the UN but also showed it as a superpower ready to back smaller nations against colonial leftovers.

The crisis ended with Britain and France yielding to the pressure, mainly from the U.S., and pulling out their troops—a win for Egypt and a face-palm moment for the European duo. The landscape of global politics was forever altered. This wasn't just about who controlled a crucial waterway; it was a turning point, signaling the end of European colonial clout and the beginning of an era dominated by U.S. influence. The retreat of British and French troops, nudged along by the U.S., waved goodbye to the age of empires stretching their borders too far.

The U.S. walked away taller, having stuck to its guns on national sovereignty and a clear no to go-it-alone military moves—a big leap from the days of showing force first and asking questions later. Emerging with a reputation for valuing sovereignty and shunning solo military ventures, the U.S. marked a departure from centuries of Western might-makes-right tactics. For Egypt and Nasser, it was a clear win, boosting Nasser's standing as an anti-colonial hero and igniting nationalist passions beyond the Middle East.

The crisis also reshaped global power balances, underscoring the dwindling might of Britain and France while spotlighting the Middle East as a self-determining region, increasingly important on the world stage, often with superpower support or interference. Reflecting on the Suez Crisis, we're reminded of diplomacy's value, the importance of supporting the underdog, and the dynamic forces that mold our world. It's a narrative of transformation, confrontation, and hope for a fairer international community.

Andrew Patterson is an amateur history enthusiast who writes for https://easternchronicles.me/ , a website dedicated to Middle Eastern history, Travel writing & archeology.