How America Supported the Anti-Soviet Mujahideen Rebels in 1980s Afghanistan

At the end of 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to support the Communist-inspired Afghan government. This led to a decade-long conflict in which the anti-Soviet Islamic Mujahideen rebels were supported by the United States. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about the conflict and some of the negative unintended consequences of American support for the rebels.

A Soviet military offensive against the Mujahideen.

From 1979 to 1989 the Americans supported the Mujahideen Islamic rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union’s invasion. The Americans supported the rebels as a means of inflicting their own “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision in sending weapons to the anti-Communist rebels helped turn the tide of the war in the rebels favor and doomed the Soviet Union - and later the USA. American support for rebels in Afghanistan, was one of a number of Carter and Reagan’s foreign policy blunders that hurt America and Israel. The U.S. decision to support the rebels in Afghanistan was a strategic miscalculation and the wrong way to overcome our defeat in Vietnam. This was known as “Vietnam Syndrome”, which haunts America to this day.

U.S efforts to support the rebels appeared as far back as March 1979 in classified protocols at the Jimmy Carter White House ([1]). This was done because the U.S. was worried about increased Soviet involvement in propping up the weak pro-Communist puppet state in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late December 1979 ([2]). In the very first hours after the Soviet Union invaded, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said “He hoped the Soviets could be punished for invading Afghanistan, that they could be tied down and bloodied the way the United States had been in Vietnam” ([3]). At the start of the conflict the American government started sending the rebels some captured Soviet weapons as a means of getting revenge for the Soviet’s (limited) involvement in the Vietnam War, while keeping their involvement minimal (6). This was a bad decision because the Islamic fundamentalism of the recent Iranian Revolution was also coming to Afghanistan.

Iranian influence

In early spring 1979, in the Shiite Muslim town of Heart, Afghanistan, religious activists started organizing along fundamentalist lines based on the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini’s example ([4]). Even the non-Shia Muslim groups of Afghanistan were beginning to organize along the lines of Khomeini’s religious-political revival (4). 

In late December 1979 an amended top-secret presidential finding was signed by President Jimmy Carter, and it was reauthorized in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan (5). This permitted the CIA to secretly ship weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen rebels ([5]). The CIA would ship these weapons through the help of the Pakistani government‘s secret service, the Inter Services Intelligence or ISI (5). 

In 1983, after a visit to Afghanistan, Congressmen Charles Wilson from Texas, in his role as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, began procuring  billions of dollars of weapons for the Mujahideen (11). Charles Wilson’s weapons would then pass-through Pakistan’s ISI (11). 

As time went on the weapons the rebels received became more sophisticated, so that they could combat the Soviet attack helicopters. The biggest threat to the Mujahideen was the MI-24 D, which was called by the rebels “The Devil’s Chariot” (14). From 1982 to 1984 the Americans sent the Mujahideen the portable surface to air missiles such as Strela-2 and the Redeye (7). The Mujahideen did use the Stela-2 and the Redeye with some notable successes against Soviet attack helicopters, but further success alluded them due to the fact that the Mujahideen lacked the training required for successful use of these weapons (7). The Heat Seeking Strela-2 and the Redeye were not as effective against the Soviet MI-24 Attack Helicopter, because the MI-24 used two flare dispensers and the AVU system, which blocked a direct view of the hot engine exhausts and swirled the exhaust gases in the rotor streams (7). The MI-24’s began using the AVU from 1983 to 1984 (7). The AVU also increased the MI-24’s weight, which resulted in Soviet crews having, in some cases, to remove the MI-24’s armor, and so making the weapon vulnerable to attack (8). The AVU also would not work under extreme high-altitude conditions and high temperatures and thus it could not always be used in combat (8). Furthermore, the heavy weight of the AVU caused minor reductions in maximum speed and the service ceiling, which could present a problem in combat (8). The MI-24 D attack helicopter’s cockpit was vulnerable to small arms fire - which was how some were lost in combat (9).

Later military supplies

The next weapon that was a “game changer” was the FIM-92 Stinger portable surface to air missile (7). The Afghan Mujahideen started acquiring the Stinger Missiles at the end of 1986 (10). Stinger Missiles started appearing in large numbers in the first half of 1987 and the end result was that Soviet attack helicopter units lost more MI-24’s in the first six months of 1987 then they had in all of the previous year (7). The Stinger Missile was so effective that the Soviet helicopter fleet was temporarily paralyzed (7). The Stinger Missiles also had an unpleasant consequence. When the MI-24’s were escorting passenger or transportation aircraft they were forced to put their MI-24’s in front of the passenger or transport aircraft and take the hit from the incoming missile themselves (7). This resulted in MI-24 helicopter crews being able to protect the transport and the passenger aircraft in the vast majority of cases, but not always (7). The Soviet Special Forces soon captured examples of the Stinger Missiles and they discovered weaknesses in the weapon, so allowing them to develop countermeasures (7). The result of this was that the MI-24 was equipped with infrared jammers, which could be tuned in to jam the Stinger’s seeker head almost perfectly (7). This in combination with the AVU System and flares reduced the effectiveness of the FIM-92 Stinger (7). Even this counter measure was not 100% effective though. The L166V Ispanka infrared jammer was not an all-protection system (8) as it was designed to counter missiles with infrared seeker heads. The Stinger Missile’s effect in the Soviet-Afghan war also sowed fear among the Soviet pilots and troops (12). From 1980 to 1989, according to the Russian periodical Mir Aviatsiya, 122 MI-24’s were irretrievably lost, with 42% of all downed MI-24 helicopters lost to “Dushkas” heavy machine gun, 30% by portable surface to air missiles, 25% by light antiaircraft guns, and the remaining 3% by small arms fire (13).

Consequences

The decision to arm Afghan Mujahideen rebels and other non-Afghan rebels during the conflict would have disastrous consequences for Israel and the USA. By the time Taliban had taken Kabul, Afghanistan in 1996, an estimated 600 of the approximately 2,300 Stingers distributed by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war remained missing (15). The Iranians were buying as many Stinger Missiles as they could, and CIA officers roughly estimated that Tehran had acquired about 100 Stingers by 1996 (15). In that same period the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, had possessed 53 Stingers missiles that had been collected by various Pashtun warlords that were loyal to the Taliban (15). By the end of the Soviet-Afghan war the CIA was worried that the Stinger Missiles could fall in the hands of terrorist groups or hostile governments such as Iran for shooting down American civilian passenger planes or military aircraft (12). Many Stinger Missiles went to Mujahideen commanders who were associated with anti-American radical Islamist leaders (12). In my view, the U.S. government should not have sold Stinger Missiles or any weapons to Mujahideen groups. The USA should have also stayed neutral during the Soviet Afghan conflict.

President Carter failed to resolve the Iran Hostage crisis (1979-81). In February 1982 the US government removed Iraq off the list of states, ‘supporting international terrorism’ and reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in December 1984 (16). From December 1984 the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad provided the Iraqi Military much needed military intelligence (16). Conversely, U.S. relations with Israel were especially hurt after the Israeli Air Force’s raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor on June 7, 1981(17). The raid resulted in the delaying of a shipment of American aircraft to Israel that had already been authorized, as well the U.S. voting for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (17).

Conclusion

The American government supported Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Many historians believe that the American government did this as a means of inflicting a “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision to send weapons to the rebels defeated the Soviet Union but created a breeding ground for terrorists in Afghanistan. The decision also made Iran more dangerous to American national security. The U.S. decision to support the Mujahideen was one of a series of foreign policy disasters during the Carter and Reagan years. Support for the rebels was an egregious and ill-advised decision by the American government. 

Now, you can read some World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.

[1] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 42. 

[2] Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2012. 13. 

[3] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 50-51. 

6 Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial. 2009. 210. 

[4] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 40. 

[5] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001.  New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 58-59.

11 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979 -89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012. 49. 

14 Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 176. 

7 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 178-179.

8 Normann, Michael . MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 152-153. 

9 Normann, Michael. MIL  MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present: Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 28. 

10 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2012. 30. 

12 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 11. 

13 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present:Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 179-181. 

15 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 336- 337. 

16 Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 43-44. 

17 Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Nuclear Reactor. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-oprea-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor

References

Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012.

Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004.

Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial, 2009. 

Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 

Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 

“Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Reactor”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-opera-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor. 

Queen Victoria and the First Opium War

Queen Victoria ascended to the throne of the British Empire in 1837. Shortly after, she was at war with China in the First Opium War (1839-1842). Here, Sam Kelly explains the background to the war, the war itself, and the curious drug-taking habits of the Queen and mid-nineteenth century Britain.

Lin Zexu and the destruction of opium.

Who is the most notorious drug kingpin of all time? Most people would say Pablo Escobar, or perhaps El Chapo. But they would be wrong. More than a hundred years before these men were born, there was a powerful woman who controlled a drug empire so vast and so unimaginably lucrative that it made Escobar and El Chapo look like low-level street dealers. Unlike modern drug lords, she didn’t have to live in a remote jungle compound surrounded by thugs toting machine guns because no one was coming after her. She didn’t have to conceal her ill-gotten gains from the tax collectors because the proceeds from her drug operation were funding the entire country. And she didn’t have to worry about being gunned down in the street or locked away in prison because every single person who was empowered to punish drug crimes was already on her payroll. Her name was Queen Victoria and she was running the British Empire.

Her meteoric rise as a drug lord began innocently enough. It happened because British people loved drinking tea. The average London household was spending 5% of its annual income on Chinese tea, which was not a problem as long as Britain could trade something to China in exchange for all the tea. Unfortunately, Britain didn’t have much that the Chinese wanted. China saw British manufactured goods as inferior and unnecessary. Having nothing to trade, Britain was forced to pay for tea with the currency of the realm, which was silver. Britain was almost literally pouring silver into China’s imperial treasury and racking up massive trade deficits in the process. China was getting rich, and Britain grew resentful. The British Empire was determined to find something, anything, that Chinese people craved.

They found opium. It ticked off all the boxes. It grew natively in India, which the British Empire controlled. It was an amazingly effective painkiller, which meant the Chinese were willing to pay outrageously high prices for it. And most importantly, it was obscenely addictive. People who used opium got hooked almost immediately, which allowed Britain to increase the price as demand grew.

Thanks to opium, the trade imbalance was reversed almost overnight. China was forced to return all of the silver the British had spent on tea, plus a great deal more. Now it was China, not Britain, that was racking up ruinous trade deficits. And millions of Chinese citizens were being transformed into hopeless opium addicts.

China Fights Back

China tried to put a stop to it. It declared opium illegal and banned it throughout the country. However, the British Empire wasn’t ready to give up its lucrative drug operation. If they could not sell opium legally, they would hire drug mules and third parties, pay off corrupt officials, or just plain smuggle it in, whatever it took to keep the money coming in. They even offered free samples of opium to Chinese citizens in a craven attempt to get as many people addicted as possible. From their point of view, it wasn’t personal; it was business, and business was extremely good. Opium sales were now responsible for some 15% - 20% of the British Empire’s annual revenue.  

The Chinese Emperor was determined to wipe out the opium scourge by any means necessary. His viceroy, a man named Lin Zexu, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, explaining what she was doing was immoral. Opium was illegal in England and punished with the utmost strictness and severity, yet she was flooding China with opium and deliberately getting people hooked. The Queen never saw the letter and when she did not respond to his letter, Lin Wexu decided it was time to take aggressive action. He seized a massive shipment of British opium and ordered his soldiers to trample it under their feet and then dump it into the South China Sea. This time, the Queen responded.

Something you need to understand: Queen Victoria was only 18 years old when she ascended to the throne in 1837. She was new in the job – and under the impression that, as queen, she could do whatever she wanted. So when the Chinese government dumped 2.5 million pounds of British opium into the sea, she reacted like any all-powerful young imperial leader would. She declared war on China in 1839.

It is known as the First Opium War (1839-1842). There was a Second Opium War a few years later (1856-60). British forces laid waste to the Chinese army and slaughtered tens of thousands of Chinese citizens. The Emperor had no choice but to capitulate and sign a one-sided peace treaty that surrendered Hong Kong to the British, opened additional ports for British opium to flood into the country, and granted British citizens who were living in China immunity to Chinese laws. It was an unprecedented blow to the nation’s sovereignty. The esteemed empire of China had been defeated and humbled by a young ruler. China was now perceived as weak by the rest of world, making it ripe for invasion and subjugation by Western powers, Russia, and Japan. And so began China’s tragic “century of humiliation.”  

Queen Victoria Was a Drug User

But why? Why did Queen Victoria choose to bring ruin and shame upon one of the world’s most ancient civilizations simply to preserve her illegal drug smuggling operation? Partly it was due to being given too much power at too young of an age. And partly it was due to the nationalistic impulse to regard British wealth and happiness as more important than the lives of Asian peoples halfway around the world. But it certainly didn’t help matters that she was on drugs. Yes, that is correct. Her Majesty the Queen was not only selling drugs, she was using them.

She used opium every day. Unlike the Chinese citizens who became addicted, she did not smoke it in a pipe. In Britain, the more fashionable way to ingest opium was to drink it in the form of laudanum, comprised of 90% alcohol and 10% opium. Laudanum was available over the counter without a prescription. Doctors recommended it to mothers for their teething children. Queen Victoria drank a glass every night to help her sleep.

Her other drug of choice was cocaine. It was not illegal at the time. Cocaine was brand new on the scene and regarded as a wonder drug. European explorers had witnessed indigenous peoples living on the slopes of the Andes Mountains, who chewed coca leaves regularly and had amazing stamina and were strong and hardy, despite being physically small. European scientists reached the conclusion the same active ingredient from coca leaves would have even greater salutary effects on Europeans who, in their not-so-scientific and racist opinion, were inherently healthier, stronger and more intelligent than their South American counterparts.

Queen Victoria was a particular fan of cocaine chewing gum. It came highly recommended for soothing aches and pains from tooth and gum disease, plus it supplied the chewer with boundless amounts of energy, and for reasons that were unexplainable at the time, it tremendously boosted one’s feeling of self-confidence – just the ticket for a young inexperienced Queen who desired to project a strong assertive image. It was extremely popular with British elites. In fact, Victoria is reported to have shared cocaine chewing gum with a young Winston Churchill. Back in those days, no one knew about the downside of cocaine use. Doctors and scientists genuinely believed it was good for you.

Which brings me to the final twist in this story: Because she believed cocaine was good for you, Queen Victoria refused to sell it to the Chinese. She was happy to sell them all of the opium in the world, despite its devastating effects, but they could not touch her cocaine.

What do you think of Queen Victoria and the First Opium War? Let us know below.

References

Stephen R. Platt, Imperial Twilight: The Opium War and the End of China’s Last Golden Age. Knopf 2018.

Tom de Castella, “100 Years of the War on Drugs,” BBC News Magazine, January 24, 2012, https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/mobile/magazine-16681673

Matt Schiavenza, “How Humiliation Drove Modern Chinese History,” The Atlantic, October 25, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/china/archive/2013/10/how-humiliation-drove-modern-chinese-history/280878/

Ellen Castelow, “Opium in Victorian Britain,” Historic UK, https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofBritain/Opium-in-Victorian-Britain/

“Did This Beloved Queen of Britain Use Drugs,” Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/videos/category/history/did-this-beloved-queen-of-britain-use-drugs/

“The Opium War and Foreign Encroachment,” Asia for Educators, Columbia University, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/special/china_1750_opium.htm

Michael Malloy – The New York Irishman who wouldn’t die

Remember the cartoons you saw as a child, where one character is the oblivious target and survivor of another’s constant scheming? In 1930s New York, that scenario played out in real life. Here, Tom Daly explains the extraordinary story of Michael Malloy.

Tony Marino’s speakeasy. Third Avenue, New York.

On a warm afternoon in July 1932, three New Yorkers cooked up a scheme to make themselves rich. Running a speakeasy in the last year of the prohibition on alcohol in the US, one of them had noticed an Irishman who would regularly visit his bar, drink himself silly and pass out. That afternoon, he and his accomplices observed the man, slouched over his glass and mumbling to himself. He looked old, sick and tired, and it seemed as if he was not far from dying. How hard could it be to give him a little help along the way? With two more accomplices, they took out several life insurance policies on him, plied him with free booze and waited for him to pass. But he would not go so easily – every morning he was back, cheerfully ordering another drink as he settled in for the day. Before long the gang was becoming increasingly desperate, trying to poison him and even running him over with a car, but the insatiable Irishman simply would not die. He rose every morning and carried on as normal, like a cartoon character who keeps accidentally surviving attempts on their life, blissfully unaware that they are the target of a terrible plot. 

The man was an immigrant named Michael Malloy, whose resistance to the murder attempts earned him nicknames such as ‘Iron Mike’ and ‘The Rasputin of the Bronx.’ He was eventually killed by the gang, but the plot had long since lost its guile. Their frustration had got the better of them and by the end it seemed as if they were more concerned with finally killing their man than they were with getting away with it. Swiftly arrested, four of them would be sent to the electric chair, where they would not cheat death in the way their victim had done.

Background

Michael Malloy was born in County Donegal, in the north-west of Ireland, probably in the 1870s. By the early 1920s he had emigrated to New York, where he worked as a firefighter for a while, but by the end of the decade he was homeless and alcoholic. He frequented the speakeasies – venues that served illegal alcohol during prohibition – in the Bronx and by 1932 was a regular in one that was run by 27-year-old Tony Marino. 

Marino had an eye for quick money-making schemes. Already raking in a considerable income from his alcohol operation, earlier that year he had befriended a woman named Mabelle Carson and convinced her to sign a $2,000 life insurance policy that named him as the beneficiary. On a freezing night soon after, he had got her blind drunk, soaked a mattress with icy water and left her lying naked on the mattress by an open window. She died overnight and no questions were asked as Marino picked up his money, leaving him to wonder – how many times could I get away with that?

The Plot

It was in July 1932 that he decided Michael Malloy would be his next target. Standing at the bar with his friends, 24-year-old Francis Pasqua and 29-year-old Daniel Kreisberg, Marino gestured at Malloy and complained that he owed him money. If he can’t pay his debts, Pasqua suggested, couldn’t you do to him what you did to Mabelle Carson? Marino paused, before agreeing that it would be a nice little earner. 

That December, the men presented Malloy with some papers that they said would help get Marino elected to local office, and promised to provide him with free drink for the next few days in return. The thrilled Malloy was unaware that the papers he signed were actually life insurance policies that named Marino, Pasqua, Kreisberg and their friend, Joe Murphy, as the beneficiaries in the case of his accidental death. The men stood to gain $3,500 (over $50,000 in today’s money) between them. 

For the next three days, Malloy was given all the drink he wanted, free of charge, and the gang was sure that it would tip him over the edge. But on the fourth morning, to their shock and annoyance, Malloy breezed back into the bar and ordered some more drink. One has to wonder what Malloy was thinking – how exactly had he gone from being in debt to the bar to being best pals with the landlord and having drinks on the house? But Malloy didn’t consider how suspicious it was: all he cared about was the free booze. As far as he was concerned, he’d already died and gone to heaven.

The gang gets desperate

As the trend continued into the new year, Marino was growing impatient and petulantly suggested it would be easier to shoot Malloy in the head. But, not wanting to attract any attention from the authorities, Joe Murphy instead suggested that they start replacing Malloy’s normal drink with wood alcohol. Wood alcohol could cause death even in small quantities and, in an era when it was not uncommon for people to die from poor quality illegal alcohol, Murphy figured that no foul play would be suspected. The gang agreed to go ahead with the plan and served Malloy with wood alcohol one afternoon, but their target just kept knocking the drinks back and ordering more, carrying on into the next day and the day after. Astonished, the gang was forced to think again. 

This time, Pasqua conceived a plan to feed Malloy rotten sardine sandwiches and raw oysters to compliment the wood alcohol, knowing that the mix of oysters and hard spirits would poison him. When this did not work, they filled Malloy’s sandwiches with broken glass and metal, but still the Irishman simply devoured the sandwiches, washed them down with wood alcohol and happily sat there asking for more. 

After this, the men decided that nothing Malloy consumed was going to kill him. The next plan was to carry a passed out Malloy into the freezing January night, cover him with icy water and wait for him to die of exposure. But when the sun rose the next morning, there was Malloy, waiting outside the door for another drink. 

February was now around the corner, which meant the gang would have to pay another monthly installment towards the insurance plans. Hoping to get him before then, they let another friend of theirs, 23-year-old Hershey Green, in on the plan and promised him a cut of $150 to run Malloy over with his car. One afternoon, Pasqua and Murphy held a drunk Malloy upright in a side road while Green raced towards them. Just before Green reached the men, Pasqua and Murphy jumped out of the way and got up to see if the deed had finally been done. Unbelievably, the man who had been too drunk to stand just a few seconds previously had managed to jump out of the way as well. The men immediately repeated the process, but Malloy managed to jump out of the way again. It was a case of third time lucky for the gang as Green finally hit Malloy at 45 miles an hour, but the noise alerted some passers by and the men were not able to make sure he was dead. For a few weeks they heard nothing from the Irishman and were busy trying to find which morgue his body was in so they could collect their money, but they were absolutely stunned in mid-February when a heavily bandaged Michael Malloy turned up at the bar declaring that he was desperate for a drink. He had no memory of the incident.

Getting more than they bargained for

By now the murder plot was not even going to make the gang a profit – they had already spent too much money on paying for the insurance plan, on buying wood alcohol and on giving Malloy free booze, and any money they did receive was going to have to be split five ways. Still, Malloy’s ability to cheat death had infuriated them, and he was going to have to die if only so they could salvage some pride from the whole venture. On the night of February 21, 1933, the gang waited for Malloy to pass out and carried him to a rented room near the bar, where they finally killed him by sticking a gas pipe down his throat. They then paid off a coroner to list his cause of death as pneumonia and set about collecting the insurance money. 

Francis Pasqua collected $800 from the first insurance company, but was shocked when an employee at the second company asked to see the body. Pasqua sheepishly replied that the body had already been buried, which aroused enough suspicion to get the police involved. The New York police had been hearing rumors about ‘Iron Mike’ for the previous few weeks and swiftly added the story up, exhuming Malloy’s body for proper testing. The tests showed that Malloy had been murdered, and Marino, Pasqua, Kriesberg, Murphy and Green were all arrested. They were dubbed ‘The Murder Trust’ by a fascinated press. 

Hershey Green was convicted of the attempted murder of Michael Malloy and sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison. The other four men, who all pointed the finger at each other during their trial, were each convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Marino, Pasqua and Kriesberg were all executed in the electric chair on the same day, June 7, 1934. All three of them were married, while Marino and Kriesberg were both fathers to young children. Joe Murphy was executed by the same method the following month.

Not much is known about Michael Malloy. Nothing is known about his family, his exact age when he died is not known, and he would have just been another anonymous alcoholic in New York if it hadn’t been for a murder plot against him and his bizarre ability to survive it. All that is known about him is that he used to be a fireman, he was very fond of a drink, and he absolutely earned his nickname, ‘Iron Mike.’

Now, you can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here, 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here, and why Tom loves history here.

Finally, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.

19th Century War Tourism: After the 1815 Battle of Waterloo

Some people visit the battlefields of the world as tourists; however, such war tourism has a long history. Here, Erica Olson explains how battlefield tourism took place after the 1815 Battle of Waterloo – and how items for sale even included soldiers’ teeth.

Waterloo by Denis Dighton. British 10th Hussars of Vivian's Brigade attacking mixed French troops.

Many history lovers are familiar with Napoleon's Hundred Days leading up to Waterloo and the events of the battle itself, but what happened after is less well known. The battlefield was far from the hallowed mass grave we may expect. An astonishing number of people from various nations, especially England, treated Waterloo as a tourist attraction, treading over the bodies of dead soldiers.

English writer John Scott (1784-1821), traveling only three months after Waterloo, was in a unique position to comment upon the chaotic movement of people throughout Europe at the end of the Napoleonic wars. His 1815 account, Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo, gives us a glimpse into the booming new tourism industry.

According to Scott, English travel to Europe exploded immediately after Waterloo. When asked to sign the guest list for a hotel in Bruges, Scott saw “a host of my countryfolks [sic], of each sex, and every age, profession, residence, and condition, all on the swarm for Brussels.” Some had listed the more precise destination, Field of battle, near Waterloo. Scott was excited to see a list full of familiar English middle-class names such as Johnson, Roberts, Davis, and Jackson, names which “will remain in the archives of the police at Bruges, as the memorials of a most extraordinary time.” What Scott observed was quite a new phenomenon, one that arose after the end of Napoleon’s campaigns: war tourism, on a massive scale.

While tourists recorded “picking objects up” at Waterloo, they probably bought most of their souvenirs from locals, who would have stripped the battlefield of everything valuable within hours [2]. Pistols, swords, and musket balls were especially popular. One notable tourist, Sir Walter Scott, brought back a plethora of such items.

“Waterloo ivory”

A more sinister trade emerged as well. By the early 1800s, Europeans were consuming massive amounts of sugar courtesy of the transatlantic slave trade [3]. Many people had rotting or missing teeth, leading them to seek out individual replacements or full sets of dentures. Historically, dentures were made of elephant, walrus, or hippopotamus ivory, but ivory rotted even more quickly than human teeth. So after Waterloo, scavengers set out for the battlefield armed with pliers, ready to pry out teeth from the mouths of dead soldiers.

Some of the newly arrived English tourists got in on the game. Back in England, the trade in teeth was lucrative, with dentists boasting that they sold genuine “Waterloo ivory”, guaranteed to have come from young, healthy soldiers [4]. Waterloo was the mother lode: more teeth than anyone knew what to do with, just like the mountains of bones, which were ground into the soil as fertilizer – some of the bones were even transported across the Channel to increase the bounty of English fields.

The author of Paris Revisited, John Scott, was surely aware of these morbid activities, as he walked the battlefield himself, yet they didn't dampen his enthusiasm for war tourism. He proudly visited the towns of Flanders, “the great prize-fighting stage of Europe.” As he passed through Bruges, Liege, Malines, Juliers, Tournay, Mons, and Jemappe, he thought of “ famous campaigns, …able military maneuvers, great battles, important treaties, alliances, discords, and devastations” [1]. Death on a grand scale didn't bother him in the least. In his fantasy of war, everyone was heroic and battles belonged in glorious history books.

Scott depicts the mood in Brussels after Waterloo as one of great merriment, where the wounded soldiers coming in for treatment and the tourists coming to see the battlefield “seemed all animated by the influence of a vast holiday.” The joy of being an English war tourist lay in seeing soldiers, just recently come from “the heart of the battle, black with gun-powder and sweat…bleeding, groaning, and dying,” now “out in a pleasurable promenade.” Now that the terror of Napoleon was gone, the British could rejoice. Scott reports that when he went to buy a hat, a British doctor standing nearby told him, “Hats are of no use now but to throw up in the air when we shout!” The influx of tourists were free to view battle as a spectator sport as they turned their eyes away from death and despair. What better place than Waterloo to celebrate?

What do you think of battlefield tourism? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Scott, John. Paris revisited, in 1815, by way of Brussels: including a walk over the field of battle at Waterloo. London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, 1816.

2. Plotz, Sophie. “Waterloo: Battlefield Tourism.” National Museums Scotland. Last modified September 20, 2015. https://blog.nms.ac.uk/2015/09/20/waterloo-battlefield-tourism/.

3. Kerley, Paul. “The dentures made from the teeth of dead soldiers at Waterloo.” BBC News Magazine. Last modified June 15, 2015. https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33085031

4. “Waterloo Teeth.” Age of Revolution. Accessed February 11, 2021. https://ageofrevolution.org/200-object/waterloo-teeth-1815-2/

How Facial Injuries were Reconstructed after World War One

World War One resulted in millions of deaths, but millions also returned home. However, many of these returnees had horrific injuries. In this article Paul Coffey explains how some injured people had their faces reconstructed with the help of artists.

Paul’s fictional book on this topic, We Are Broken, is out in March 2021 (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Rifleman Moss - photo courtesy of GilliesArchives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Francis Derwent Wood working with a disfigured Great War veteran - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Rifleman Moss without his mask - photos courtesy of IWM Archives.

Look at this man’s face; do you notice anything unusual? 

His expression is impassive, he looks stern, serious. Maybe you think the dark glasses are a clue; is he blind?

Now take a closer look. The lines around his nose and cheek. Could they be scars? 

This is Rifleman Moss – we don’t know his first name. In fact, there’s not much we know about him at all, other than the glasses he wears are part an elaborate and skillful disguise.

Because his nose, mouth and cheeks are not real.

They’re made of tin and then delicately and painstakingly, painted to match his skin tone and features.

Moss was a ‘patient’ (or maybe that should be model) of an extraordinary group of artists who used their talent to meticulously recreate astonishing lifelike masks for disfigured veterans of the First World War.

The conflict, which claimed the lives of almost one million British and Empire troops, was the first ‘industrial’ war the world had seen. And it was merciless in demonstrating that gallantry, pluck, duty and honor – the attributes of good soldiers right through the ages – were no match for the grisly machinery of war being developed in the early twentieth century.

Both sides were to learn at an enormous cost just how much carnage could be inflicted by two men with a machine gun or a handful of troops firing shells from an artillery cannon.

In many ways, the bloody stalemate that was the Western Front – the subterranean maze of trenches that carved open the land from the English Channel to the Swiss border - was a result of this mechanized warfare.

Tens of thousands of men were flung headlong into a storm of steel that annihilated whole battalions, for little or no gain.

It meant armies on both sides had no choice but to dig down into the earth and take shelter. And so, trench warfare, with all its bloody, rat-infested, muddy slime, became engrained upon our consciousness.

The dead and missing of the Great War are rightly venerated for the sacrifice they made. Even now, more than a century later, the poignancy of Remembrance Day and the simple yet symbolic act of wearing a poppy, are powerful reminders that the nation should never forget the ultimate price that generation paid.

Those who made it home

But what about those who did make it home? Families up and down the country can relate to tales and recollections of grandfathers, great uncles, great great nephews, who simply didn’t talk about the war.

It was almost as if the very act of shutting the subject away was their only way to cope with the appalling sights they’d witnessed.

Thankfully, in recent years, we have become more aware and able to treat the psychological and emotional impact suffered by combat veterans.

But at the end of the Great War, in a country deeply scarred by the conflict and one still wedded to many of the Victorian and Edwardian attitudes towards grief and mourning, these were not things to be talked about, or even confronted.

Keep calm and carry on was to be the slogan used for a conflict still another twenty years in the future. But the ‘carry on’ part encapsulated much about the way people were expected to simply ‘get on with it.’

There was another group of veterans who made it home; but sadly, they didn’t make it through physically unscathed. Tens of thousands of men suffered life-changing injuries – it is thought more than 40,000 soldiers lost a leg in the war.

It became a common sight in the 1920s to see disabled veterans; limbless men on crutches, or without an arm, often struggling to make a living.

Facial injuries

And then there were those who suffered catastrophic facial injuries but incredibly, thanks to a little ‘luck’ and advances in medical treatment, survived. 

For these veterans, they couldn’t simply ‘get on with it.’ They were appalled by their own appearance, many of them victims of truly gruesome injuries which illustrated the frailty of the human body when facing the mechanical instruments of war.

Ward Muir was a writer who became a corporal in the Royal Army Medical Corps (RAMC) during the First World War. In 1918 he published a detailed account of facial injuries entitled The Happy Hospital. In it, he described with gruesome eloquence, the effect of such wounds.

‘Hideous is the only word for these smashed faces: the socket with some twisted, moist slit, with a lash or two adhering feebly, which is all that is traceable of the forfeited eye; the skewed mouth which sometimes—in spite of brilliant dentistry contrivances—results from the loss of a segment of jaw; and worse, far the worst, the incredibly brutalising effects which are the consequence of wounds in the nose, and which reach a climax of mournful grotesquerie when the nose is missing altogether.’

Post war Britain wasn’t as tolerant of disability as we are today. The country was also exhausted by the conflict and shattered by collective grief. When peace finally came in late 1918, people didn’t want to see reminders of the war; no disabled veterans were allowed to take part in victory parades for example.

The injured often found themselves isolated and shunned.

For those who had suffered facial injuries, there was hope thanks to the pioneering work of Harold Gillies who led the way in the first reconstructive – or plastic – surgery that we know today.

It was an area of medicine that saw huge advances in a short space of time but it was still in its infancy and there were simply too many patients.

Artists

But for a few lucky veterans, there was help from an unlikely source - the world of art.

Artists such as renowned sculptor Sir Francis Derwent Wood – who would go on to design part of the memorial to the Machine Gun Corps in London’s Hyde Park – played a unique and astonishing role in helping these unfortunate men.

Derwent Wood was too old to enlist when war broke out in 1914 and instead volunteered to help in hospitals treating the wounded. It was there he was confronted by the appalling facial injuries soldiers were suffering and decided to do something to help.

Using his skill as surgeon, Derwent Wood – and other artists who followed his lead – spent hours working from photographs recreating the broken faces of disfigured men.

The process was long, uncomfortable and painstakingly slow. Injured veterans would ‘sit’ for Derwent Wood while he covered their faces with a plaster of Paris. Using that as a mold he would then use tin to recreate the ‘missing’ part of the face before meticulously painting on features, careful to match the man’s skin tone.

The result, as seen in the photograph of Rifleman Moss, was extraordinary.

To give you an idea just how skillful these craftsmen (and women) were, look at the pictures of Moss, the same man in the picture, but without his mask.

How the poor man even survived those dreadful injuries is astonishing in itself. But seeing him wear his mask is equally incredible.

Remembering

Sadly, little if any testimony remains of the men who wore these masks. What was it like? How long did they and their masks survive?

It was that which inspired me to write my new novel We Are Broken. For Rifleman Moss, read Charlie Hobbs – the main character in my book and someone who has survived the Great War but at huge personal cost.

Hobbs’ face is appallingly disfigured and he turns to Derwent Wood who creates him a mask so he can ‘hold his head high’ and, ironically, ‘face the world’ again. It imagines how he would have coped, the anxiety and struggles he faced and explores the difficulties and prejudices a disfigured veteran, who gave so much for his country, was confronted with.

Derwent Wood wrote of his work: … ‘It begins where the work of the surgeon is completed. When the surgeon has done all he can to restore functions ... I endeavour by means of the skill I happen to possess as a sculptor to make a man's face as near as possible to what it looked like before he was wounded.'

He went on to say that he believed wearing a mask enabled his patients to acquire their ‘old self-respect.’

‘Self-assurance, self-reliance, and, discarding his induced despondency,’ he wrote, ‘takes once more to a pride in his personal appearance. His presence is no longer a source of melancholy to himself or of sadness to his relatives and friends.’

We can only try and imagine what it must have been like for these men to walk the streets wearing a tin mask. Maybe, as we wear our own masks to combat the pandemic, we can imagine and empathize just that little bit more.

We Are Broken (ISBN: 9781800493742) by Paul Coffey is out on 23 March and available in both paperback and Kindle versions (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

© Paul Coffey

Contact: Paulcoffeyauthor@gmail.com

www.paul-coffey.com

The text in this article published by permission of Paul Coffey.

The Battle for the Border States in the American Civil War

In the American Civil War, the border states were those between Union and Confederate territory - Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia. They were key for both Unionist and Confederate war aims. By controlling them, it would make victory that much more possible. Victor Gamma explains how these states took sides in the US Civil War.

The 1862 Battle of Perryville between Unionists and Confederates in Kentucky. Picture from Harper’s Weekly.

“I hope to have God on my side but I must have Kentucky.” The quote illustrates more than Lincoln’s legendary wit. It also underlines the vital importance of the border states during the American Civil War. By late May 1861 all the states that would form the Confederacy had severed their ties with the union. But the curious fact remained that not every slave state seceded. The states of Missouri, Kentucky, Maryland, and West Virginia, although slaveholding, did not see fit to join their rebellious sisters to the South. That did not mean, however, that these states solidly supported Lincoln. Divided loyalties, in fact, plagued each of them. It was anybody's guess whether they would cast their lot for North or South. 

Why were the border states so important? For the South, with the yawning gap between their war-making capacity and that of the North, it was critical to add the strength of the border states to their pitifully weak resources. The white population of the border states equaled almost half as much as the entire Confederacy. For the North, their loss would make the already daunting task of subduing the South insurmountable. The region contained enormous mineral and agricultural resources as well as vital communication and transportation links. These last were especially critical to the Union effort. The Ohio River, for example, ran along the northern boundary of Kentucky and West Virginia. This waterway alone would be essential for supplies and communications in the coming conflict. Its loss would have been a fatal blow to Northern efforts. Additionally, in terms of geography, the border states occupied too central a position to ignore.

Lincoln knew he had to tread carefully; none of the border states supported him in the election of 1860. Abolitionists were pressuring him to end slavery without delay, but Lincoln had a different set of priorities; make sure you can win the war first and then free the slaves. And to win the war he needed the border states.  Slavery was still an important part of the border state economy. Kentucky counted more slave owners than Mississippi, for example. The Lincoln administration decided early, though, to apply both political and military measures to reduce inter-state conflicts and suppress disloyalty, even if these measures came under attack as assaults on civil liberties. 

Maryland

The first place his policy was tested was in Maryland. Due to its location surrounding the nation's capital, control of Maryland was a number one priority for Lincoln. Its loss would force the government to abandon Washington - a possibly fatal blow to Union prestige. Hostility toward Lincoln’s efforts to suppress the southern rebellion and outright secessionism was strong in the state. A violent outbreak by southern sympathizers demonstrated this fact early on. On April 19, 1861 troops from northern states began passing through Baltimore on their way to Washington. A riot broke out between pro-southern residents and the 6th Massachusetts Regiment. In the resulting ruckus, several citizens and soldiers were killed or injured. These would be the first casualties of the Civil War except for the accidental deaths at Fort Sumter's surrender. Was this "Coercion" by a “Black Republican" Massachusetts regiment? Secessionists thought so and burned bridges and other places to stop more troop arrivals. Lincoln countered with a military buildup along the railroads. Martial law was declared and the writ of habeas corpus was suspended. Some of the more violent and outspoken secessionists were imprisoned. Supreme court Chief Justice Roger Taney demanded the release of the political prisoners and ruled the suspension of the writ unconstitutional. Lincoln ignored him. Lincoln’s firm response worked; secession fever subsided. At length, Maryland Governor Hicks issued a call in May to support the government’s requisition for troops, with the provision that they be assigned for duty in the state. Growing union sentiment showed itself when all six of Maryland’s seats in Congress went to unionists. Despite quite a number of Marylanders heading South to fight for the Stars and Bars, the state stayed firmly in the union.          

West Virginia

The next border state to fall to the North was West Virginia, at that time not a separate state. In 1861 those living west of the Shenandoah Valley and north of the Kanawha River brought long-standing statehood sentiment into full force with a Convention at Wheeling on May 13, 1861. Ultimately, a wait-and-see approach was taken as delegates watched to see how Virginia voted on the proposed Ordinance of Secession coming up on May 23. When Virginia duly voted to exit the union a second convention was called, which made the momentous decision to separate from eastern Virginia. In the meantime, Union forces moved in to secure the region. Strategically, the North could not afford to lose West Virginia anymore than it could Maryland. Two major railroads intersected there. It would also be difficult to control the critically strategic Shenandoah Valley without it. The main objective of the initial Union move was the Baltimore & Ohio junction at Grafton. On June 21 General George McClellan arrived. His victories allowed Wheeling to adopt a statehood ordinance. In August Richmond gave General Robert E. Lee took overall command of forces in West Virginia. Lee had more troops, but failed due to several reasons: General William S. Rosecrans’ leadership, rain, sickness and difficult terrain. Rosecrans ended up driving rebels from West Virginia. Firm Union control allowed a statehood referendum. By late 1861, West Virginia was lost to the Confederacy for good. The region joined the union officially as West Virginia on June 20, 1863 as the 35th state.

Kentucky

Lincoln’s attitude toward Kentucky was expressed in a letter of September 1861 in which he declared, “I think to lose Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game.” Kentucky declared that it would stay out of the conflict entirely by enacting a Declaration of Neutrality, promulgated on May 16, 1861. 'Neutrality' was actually secession because it declared the state sovereign to do what it wanted to. In fact, Kentucky governor Beriah Magoffin had already defied Washington by refusing Lincoln’s call for troops to put down the secession movement. Lincoln, though, eager to avoid alienating Kentucky, carried out a policy to the effect that if Kentucky "made no demonstration of force against the U.S. he would do nothing to molest her." He allowed trade to continue. Despite the fact that many supplies headed south to aid the Confederacy, Lincoln’s policy paid off. Legislative elections went pro-Union and finally military activity along borders forced Kentucky to take sides by September. Nonetheless, Kentucky became the last state to be admitted to the Confederacy on December 11, 1861, adding a 13th star to the Confederate battle flag. Pro secessionist Kentuckians established a shadow government, which was ineffective in projecting any real power in the state. The battle for Kentucky, though, was just beginning.

Missouri

In the case of Missouri, strong-willed leaders helped to polarize the state more than it needed to be; on behalf of the South, Governor Claiborne Jackson, and for that of the North, Frances Blair and Generals Nathaniel Lyon and John C. Fremont. After a brief period of neutrality, the actions of these men triggered a struggle that would last for the entire war. After failing to bring the state into the Confederacy legally, Jackson worked secretly to take over the state with a coup. The alert Lyon thwarted him, eventually capturing the state capital of Jefferson City. The Union-controlled state government then duly ousted Jackson from office and he fled to Arkansas in exile. Yet, despite the persistence of Union political control, Jackson called a pro-southern legislature into session at Neosho near the Arkansas border. 

Pro-Union men could cause difficulties for Lincoln as well, though. Fremont was a political general but his years in the topographical corps gave him a military reputation. Thus it was that the famed “Pathfinder” was appointed to major general of Union troops in Missouri soon after Fort Sumter. Meanwhile, Confederate General Sterling Price moved into the south west of Missouri that summer. Fremont sent Lyon to meet him. Lyon divided his force and sent a flanking column to the south of the Confederate camp. The resulting Battle of Wilson's Creek on August 10 was a rebel victory. Price followed this up with the capture of Lexington on September 20. This led to an increase of guerrilla activity which would plague the state throughout the Civil War. To reverse the tide Fremont took a bold step: he took over the state government, declared martial law, included the death penalty for guerrillas, confiscated property and freed the slaves of any Confederates active in the state. The alarmed Lincoln ordered Fremont to modify this order. Fremont refused. Instead, Fremont, with 38,000 men, went on the offensive. Price retreated towards the southwest. Despite this success Lincoln revoked Fremont's emancipation order and removed him to the Virginia Theater where he could keep his eye on him. Meantime, the Missouri secessionists passed an ordinance of secession on October 28, 1861 and Missouri was accepted as the 12th state of the Confederacy. Military events, however, especially the Battle of Pea Ridge in March 1862, prevented the Confederate government of Missouri from exercising much authority. Pro-Union men controlled the state for the remainder of the war.

Back to Kentucky

By the summer of 1862 Union control included all of Kentucky, most of Tennessee, and a portion of northern Alabama. Confederate Generals Braxton Bragg and Kirby Smith invaded Kentucky in the hope of turning the tide in the West, gaining recruits and persuading Kentucky to join the Confederacy. Bragg and Kirby Smith would potentially have a combined force of 50,000 men. Bragg was confident that their numbers would be swelled by Kentucky volunteers. A stirring broadside was printed and distributed which read, “KENTUCKIANS! The time for hesitation has passed! You have now to fight, either for the Yankees, who will press you into their service, or YOUR HOMES! YOUR FIRESIDES! Your property and your liberty.”  As his forces moved north, though, few men joined the Confederates. They were waiting for Bragg to show that he could win. Unfortunately for the South, Bragg did not have enough resources to overcome Union resistance and occupy the state. His move into Kentucky was more a large-scale raid. Smith took the state capital of Frankfort and waited for Bragg. On October 4, a Confederate Governor for Kentucky was inaugurated, a move designed to sway fence sitters. The supreme test for the southern cause, however, was on the field of battle. Outflanking Don Carlos Buell’s forces in Tennessee, Bragg and Smith had moved far into the state, but they failed to win a decisive victory which could have persuaded Kentuckians to side with the South. Although winning a tactical victory at the Battle of Perryville, Bragg, over Smith’s forceful protests, decided to withdraw instead of linking the two forces and pressing the offensive towards Louisville. Bragg’s retreat spelled the end of Confederate hopes for Kentucky, which remained firmly in Union hands for the rest of the war.

In retrospect

Despite initial high hopes, each of the border states was irretrievably lost to the South by the middle of the war. The reasons are several. First, decisive action by key unionists, such as Nathaniel Lyon in Missouri, helped to halt secessionist schemes.  Additionally, the Lincoln administration’s wise policy, which combined firmness with sensitivity to the political realities in the states, allowed events to work in their favor. Lack of Confederate military success was another factor. Many did not want to back a “losing horse.” The fact was, by the summer of 1862 the South was clearly losing territory to Federal troops, especially in the West. The erosion of the slave-interest was another factor. Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of January 1, 1863 put slavery in the border states in an awkward predicament, surrounded by free territory, into which their remaining slaves often escaped. West Virginia, Maryland and Missouri had all abolished slavery by war’s end. And so it can be seen that as the war went on, Confederate war aims steadily eroded, and with them, support from the border states. Finally, union support was generally stronger than secessionism in these states. The numbers speak for themselves: a total of 275,000 enlisted for the North as opposed to 71,000 for the South.

What do you think of the battle for the border states in the American Civil War? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Victor’s series on whether it was right to topple President William McKinley’s statue here.

References 

McPherson, James, Battle Cry of Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).

Amy Murrell Taylor, “The Border States,” National Park Service, https://www.nps.gov/articles/the-border -states.htm

“To Lose Kentucky is to Lose the Whole Game,” Americans Teaching History, https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/to-lose-kentucky-is-to-lose-the-whole-game/

Garry Adelman and Mary Bays Woodside, “A House Divided: Civil War Kentucky,” Hallowed Ground Magazine, April 16, 2010, https://www.battlefields.org/learn/articles/house-divided-civil-war-kentucky

“A State of Convenience; The Creation of West Virginia, West Virginia Department of Arts, Culture and History 2021. http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood05.html and http://www.wvculture.org/history/statehood/statehood07.html

Consensus Historiography in 20th Century America: A Celebration of the Nation

Historiography is composed of the principles, theories, or methodology of scholarly historical research and presentation. Here, James Zills looks at the consensus school in mid-20th century American historiography. He also considers the differences between the consensus and progressive schools of thought.

Daniel J. Boorstin, one of the leading figures in Consensus historiography.

The 20th century saw four schools of historical thought that impacted historiography, with some giving conflicting viewpoints and a desire to achieve opposing goals. In the United States, similar to some other countries, those opposing viewpoints come in the form of the New Left historians (progressive) and traditional viewpoints. Focusing on what has gone right as a viewpoint in historical writing serves to instill national pride, lifts a country up as one people, and unifies citizens to progress as a whole. The consensus school of history from the 1940s through the mid-1970s stressed that the shared ideas of Americans far outweighed the internal discourse of Americans. Consensus history made an impact on American values in the 20th century and played a crucial role in the developmental success of the nation, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. 

By the end of 1945, the United States had cemented its status as a superpower by defeating the Axis Powers in World War II. With American servicemen on their way home, national pride was high, and the country was well on its way to an economic boom. Nationalism as a school of thought is not a new concept, as it existed in the works of Europeans historians of the 19thcentury. Prior to the consensus school of thought, American historians established the nation’s identity through national pride.[1] American nationhood was alive and well at the beginning of the 20th century when historians were celebrating national pride through the success of American expansionism. The assertion of power through the acquisition of Hawaii, establishing dominance over the Spanish Empire, and control of the Panama Canal renewed enthusiasm for Manifest Destiny.[2]

UNITY OF VALUES

Despite the many accomplishments Americans enjoyed as a whole, Progressive historians would dominate the first half of the 20th century. Their focus on class and sectional conflict brought about divisiveness in America through racial and social class ideologies. Instead of riding the achievements of America as one people, the Progressive historians broke the population down into categories of race, gender, class, and what they perceived as privileges from certain members of society. Progressives borrowed from the fields of sociology, economics, and psychology to interpret their version of history and advocate for reform. The resurgence of traditional history is credited to Richard Hofstadter and, with the joining of other prominent historians of the time, the consensus school of history brought with it a renewed sense of populism.[3]

The impact of historical research presented to the public plays a pivotal role in the way the population views itself, much like any other field of study. Consensus historians believed that the social progress of subjects was of far greater value than the internal conflicts of America.[4] This school of history brought about nearly two decades of uncomplicated patriotism and gave Americans a sense of pride, and political figures they could look up to. Racism, corruption, sexism, and America’s other internal problems, while not addressed, were not ignored as if they didn’t exist. People lived those experiences on a daily basis in the two decades of consensus history. The population needed something uplifting, something to give them a sense of pride, and something to work for. The constant reminder delivered by Progressives only served to drive the nation further apart, by destroying the one thing that could unite America - the country itself.

The absence of social problems brought strong criticism to consensus history from progressives. The disdain progressives have for consensus history can best be summed up by Ribuffo, where in his journal article “What is still living in “consensus” history and pluralist social theory, he says, “…the ghostly echoes are nearly drowned out by louder sounds in contemporary intellectual life.”[5] In this particular article the author questions what is dead and what aspects of consensus history still survive. Ribuffo, in his celebration of the death of consensus history, he asserts that this type of history is “extreme” as well as deluded and dangerous.[6] The approach Ribuffo takes to express disdain for consensus history was by making his criticism a personal attack, an all too familiar theme with progressive viewpoints. It was never the intent of consensus history to solve the social issues of the country, but only to bring us together under nationhood.

Consensus historiography aided in educating two generations of patriotic citizens who were proud Americans - and to some extent united. The school of consensus history was inclusive with historians holding both liberal and conservative political ideologies. Consensus historians describe the world as an operative whole with its shaping credited to the ideals and shared life experiences of its peoples.[7] According to the viewpoint of consensus history every individual within the confines of the borders of the United States plays a unique role in the shaping and the history regardless of their social classification. The contrasting differences in consensus and progressive history are astounding. Consensus history, with its sense of national purpose, showed the uniqueness of the country and its differences with Europe.[8] While consensus history faded away in the mid-1970s, it left a lasting effect, and a large portion of the population still subscribe to the notion of nationalism, thanks to consensus history.           

STILL RELEVANT

Consensus history still resonates with historians and citizens today. A perfect example of the impact consensus had on America is the story about the aftermath of a series of violent storms that killed seventy-seven people and caused $300 million in damage to the city of Johnstown, Pennsylvania. At the time of the floods Johnstown was no longer the steel-town it once was, with steel workers who once filled the restaurants on Main Street being replaced by bankers, nurses, and retail workers.[9]  Long gone were the days when big steel companies like Bethlehem Steel invested in the town. There was an overbearing sense of nostalgia, a longing for the past where people knew one another and cared. The citizens knew that the key to survival was image, one that would give us an image of the past with a view of the future.[10] By celebrating their past through museums, refusing to be a town of shuttered factories, and sharing a unity for pride in their city, the people of Jonestown were able to hold onto their past while attracting future economic opportunities.

Consensus history as a school of thought and viewpoint on what was relevant made a major impact on society in America in the 1940s to the mid-1970s. It was a revival of 19th century institutional history through national pride. Consensus (traditional) history and historiography’s impact on American values in the 20th century played a crucial role in the developmental success of America, celebrating America’s rise as a national power, and advocated for the continuation of success. Without nationhood there would be no motivation to better ourselves as a society. Dismissing the great achievements made by the people as a whole in the country and saying that all is wrong serves to divide the nation and poses a threat to the positive progress and survivability as a nation.

What do you think of 20th century American historiography? Let us know below.

Now you can read James’ article on Ancient Greek historiography here.

[1] Ernst Breisach, Historiography: Ancient, Medieval, and Modern, 3rd ed (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 309.

[2] Ibid, 310.

[3] Robert D. Johnston, "The Age of Reform: A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2, (April 2007), 129. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

[4] Michael Bentley, Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998, 100.

[5] Leo P. Ribuffo, "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (February 2000), 42.Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

[6] Ibid, 43.

[7] Breisach, Historiography, 385.

[8] Ibid, 389.

[9] Don Mitchell, "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania," Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (July 1992), 200. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

[10]Ibid

Bibliography

Bentley, Michael. Modern Historiography: An Introduction. London: Routledge, 1998.

Breisach, Ernst. Historiography: Ancient, Medieval & Modern. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994

Johnston, Robert D. ""The Age of Reform": A Defense of Richard Hofstadter Fifty Years On." The Journal of the Gilded Age and Progressive Era 6, no. 2 (2007): 127-37. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/25144472.

Mitchell, Don. "Heritage, Landscape, and the Production of Community: Consensus History and Its 

Alternatives in Johnstown, Pennsylvania." Pennsylvania History: A Journal of Mid-Atlantic Studies 59, no. 3 (1992): 198-226. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/27773545.

Ribuffo, Leo P. "What Is Still Living In "Consensus" History and Pluralist Social Theory." American Studies International 38, no. 1 (2000): 42-60. Accessed December 17, 2020. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41279737.

19th Century Chinese-American Exclusion

The Chinese-American population started to grow significantly in the western United States from the mid-19th century following the California gold rush. However, over time this led to a backlash against Chinese-Americans, especially when the economic situation worsened. James Hernandez explains.

An image depicting Chinese gold miners in California.

The 1840s fostered a promising era of growth both in population and economic success as the American west began to rapidly develop and become a destination for those seeking new ventures in agriculture and industry. By 1849, San Francisco had established itself as a prime economic center and as a main port of entry for Chinese immigrants seeking to escape instability in China. Rather than being composed of families, the wave of Chinese immigrants mostly consisted of men seeking jobs and a chance to strike gold in the California hinterlands following the Sierra County gold strike in 1848. Chinese style restaurants, small businesses, apartments, and other services soon became a part of western urban identity as “Chinatowns” were founded in San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles. By 1852 San Francisco’s Chinese community had rapidly grown; approximately 20,000 immigrants resided in the area in comparison to only about 450 in 1850. The unprecedented growth in population reflected a stark shift in the area’s demography but also the beginning of resistance towards Chinese influence on western America.

Board of Health investigations

San Francisco public officials and health inspectors began to fear the obscene living conditions found in the Chinese community as they worried white citizens would become victims of the alleged health hazards within the area. A report conducted by the San Francisco Board of Health described the community with, “Each cellar [was] ankle-deep with loathsome slush, with ceilings dripping with percolations of other nastiness above, [and] with walls slimy with the clamminess of Asiatic diseases.” Crime also became a rampant issue within the community as the area became densely populated and poverty ran deep. The San Francisco Real Estate Circular documented that, “Their women are all suffering slaves and prostitutes, for which possession murderous feuds and high-handed cruelty are constantly occurring. To compare the Chinese with even the lowest white laborers is, therefore, absurd.”

Five government-sponsored health investigations led by the Board of Health took place between 1854 and 1885. These investigations were viewed as solutions to improve the “nuisance” illustrated as Chinatown; but each report depicted a “dense” and “enclosed” living environment and continued to fuel the popular rumor of a potential epidemic. Due to the inadequate living conditions found in the community, San Francisco Public Health Officials later attributed the smallpox breakouts between 1868 and 1887 to Chinese immigrants. The harsh accusations against Chinese communities in San Francisco essentially depicted a larger conflict within the context of nativism that lead to the isolation and racial discrimination of the Chinese population.

Many Chinese workers began to seek other employment opportunities as the California Gold Rush came to an end but were limited to harsh labor as Chinese immigrants were excluded from San Francisco public schools in 1859. Laborers soon found refuge working for railroad companies, most notably the First Transcontinental Railroad, but were faced with unfair working conditions and were forced to pay for food, tools, and other accommodations while white workers were fully supplied without further compensation. In an attempt to further discourage immigration and to lower job competition, the Chinese Police Tax of 1862 was passed in California and placed a $2.50 tax on every documented Chinese immigrant living in the state. AlthoughLin Sing V. Washburn soon overturned the tax as it was found “unconstitutional”, this wasn’t the first time Chinese immigrants were subject to unreasonable taxation as they previously faced a capitation tax of $50 for every Chinese immigrant in California in 1855 (overturned in 1857) and other licensing fees and taxes to work in the mining industry that weren’t abolished until 1870.

Violence

The Panic of 1873 circumstantially led to the formation of anti-Chinese groups in California as the nation faced its first “Great Depression”. The crisis was believed to be caused by a crash in major railroad companies-who happened to be major employers of Chinese immigrants. The San Francisco Workingmen’s Party, fronted by Irish immigrant Denis Kearney, began to lead many violent protests and riots aimed towards harming Chinese communities. Kearney began the party’s “Chinese must go!” campaign and threatened the city to implement job systems that would blatantly exclude Chinese workers from employment with the promise of further violence if demands were not met. On July 24, 1877, over 20 Chinese laundries, a plumbing business, and a Chinese Methodist Mission, were destroyed as hundreds flooded the streets of San Francisco to participate in the brutal riot inspired by Kearny’s Workingmen’s Party. Over $100,000 was tolled in property damage to the Chinese community, and four lives were lost. 

As Anti-Chinese sentiment rapidly grew during the late 1870s, President Rutherford B. Hayes called for a revision of the Burlingame Treaty of 1868 which formerly recognized diplomatic and trade relations between China and the US and eased immigration regulations. The revision, the Angell Treaty of 1880, acknowledged and protected US power to restrict Chinese immigration of laborers while allowing Chinese professionals to still settle in the country. Despite the new revision’s attempt to also provide security to Chinese-American rights, the changes were subsequently reversed as the treaty shed light on America’s struggle to control immigration; resulting in the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and even more scrutiny against the population. 

Introduced by California representative Horace Page, who previously introduced the Page Act of 1875 which barred the entry of Chinese women in an effort to end Chinese prostitution, the Chinese Exclusion Act was the first and only law in the United States that completely prohibited immigration of a specific nationality. The new law halted all Chinese labor immigration for 10 years, formed new restrictions and requirements such as certifications to re-enter the US, and denied naturalization. The law was later renewed by the Geary Act of 1892 and was finally made permanent in 1902 until finally being abolished in 1943.

Chinese exclusion in context

While 19th century Chinese Exclusion laid the foundation for heavier immigration laws during and after World War I, it is no secret that the United States has since struggled to unite the country under a cohesive immigration policy that provides a secure path to naturalization for immigrants in congruency with citizens who express concern for the nation’s security and economic well-being. The continuity of the issue ultimately gives notion to the idea that the US has never been able to formulate a successful immigration policy. So does this mean the nation is hopeless in its current struggle with immigration? Possibly, but if there is anything to be learned from Chinese Exclusion, it is that the clash between nativism and egalitarianism will unfortunately prevail past any form of federal immigration policy and is a problem that seeps farther than the issue of immigration. One thing for certain is that a majority of Americans will never fully comprehend the nation’s long and unsparing history with failed immigration policies and in this case in particular, the perseverance of Chinese-Americans.

Now you can read James’ article on the importance of the 1957 Civil Rights Act here.

The Final Meeting of Sir Winston Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King

Below is an excerpt from the book "The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII” by Neville Thompson. The excerpt focuses on the last meeting between Sir Winston Churchill and Canadian Prime Minister Mackenzie King.

The book is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Quebec Conference, 1943. In the back row are Mackenzie King and Sir Winston Churchill. In the front sit US President Roosevelt and the Earl of Athlone, Governor General of Canada.

In late 1948, three years after the end of the war and close to half a century after their first encounter, Mackenzie King and Winston Churchill met for the last time. King was no longer the leader of the Liberal party, having care­fully engineered Louis St. Laurent into that position at the convention to choose a successor in August 1948. But he remained as prime minister in order to rep­resent Canada at a Commonwealth prime ministers conference in October. King looked forward to his farewell appearance after quarter of a century of being the crucial figure at such events. He was unquestionably the senior figure in the British dominions.

On his way to London, King stopped in Paris for a session of the United Nations. Eleanor Roosevelt was there as a member of the US delegation and Chair of the Commission on Human Rights which produced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the UN in December. She was stay­ing in the same hotel, in a room close to King’s. They did not spend much time together, but they did reminisce about the past and Eleanor repeated her husband’s affection for King and the many confidences he had shared. At a dinner of dominion representatives, British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs Ernest Bevin gave a toast to King on his retirement. Not having been forewarned, King had no reply prepared but he spontaneously pronounced a benediction on the Commonwealth. During his long years as prime minister, he said that he had tried to keep before him:

The best traditions of British public life. That I realized what the nations of the Commonwealth had derived in that way. Real bonds between nations of the Commonwealth were love of freedom, of liberty which had been inherited from the struggles of Britain, and the example of public men.

In Paris, King had been far more tired than usual, unable to breathe or sleep easily, and perspiring freely, all of which suggests blocked arteries. Shortly after his arrival in London, he felt too unwell to leave the Dorchester Hotel. Lord Moran, Churchill’s personal doctor, diag­nosed heart strain for which he prescribed digitalis, sleeping pills, and morphine, and arranged for a night nurse. He went with King to a heart specialist, Sir John Parkinson, who took an x-ray and a cardiograph and detected edema (swelling) in one leg owing to poor circulation. Moran banned salt and recommended bed rest for two weeks. In fact, King remained there for three. Moran came practi­cally every day, although there was nothing further he could provide other than encouragement. He did not charge for his services but a few months later King sent him £150.8. King was characteristically proud that his illness, indeed his whole stay in London, cost Canadian taxpayers nothing since the expense of the conference was covered by the British government. Since he could not attend the sessions, St. Laurent came by air to represent Canada after all.

Lord Moran’s concern in attending King was not his fee but his literary ambi­tion. He was a prominent practitioner and medical politician (as president of the Royal College of Physicians he was known to general practitioners as “Corkscrew Charlie” for concentrating on the interests of specialists in negotiations over the National Health Scheme) who knew that his real fame depended on producing an account of his association with Churchill. He was reviewing and reworking his diaries to present an attention-catching account to be published after his great patient’s death, which he had no reason to think would be long delayed. King’s confinement was a heaven-sent opportunity to sharpen and increase his knowledge by adding the experience of someone who had been, as Moran had not, at many private meetings and informal discussions with Churchill and also Roosevelt.

On the very first day, they talked about Churchill for over an hour and found themselves in substantial agreement. Moran observed, and King did not dissent, that Churchill had achieved great things despite his faults. He was very strong willed, thought in big terms, and his knowledge of military history was so exten­sive that he could dominate any situation and not leave others much chance to say anything. Churchill recognized the value of experts but did not allow them to control. King was not so indiscreet as to tell Moran that Field Marshall Montgomery had said that he did not want Churchill around during the fighting, and that Field Marshall Harold Alexander (now governor general of Canada) had said that he had to stand up to prevent Churchill’s interference. But King did confirm that Churchill did most of the talking in cabinet and was inconsiderate of others: even Labour’s Attlee and the Liberal leader, Sir Archibald Sinclair, members of the War Cabinet, were treated almost with contempt, and most col­leagues feared to say anything. To get his way, Churchill would work himself into an emotional state.

On the other hand, King attested that Churchill was loyal to his friends, stuck to his word in getting things done, and had great courage, “no fear in the world. In that way gave a powerful example to others.” King also pointed out that many were attracted by the desire to associate with such a towering figure. He claimed not to have liked what Churchill told him about the effectiveness of flattery, although King was both susceptible and not sparing in his own use of it. While no one could say if the war would have been won if anything had hap­pened to Churchill and Roosevelt, King considered that a change of leadership might have shortened the European conflict since the Germans were terrified of Churchill. Both he and Moran considered that unconditional surrender (which was Roosevelt’s and not Churchill’s insistence) had been a mistake since it had closed every door and made the fighting more intense.

Moran also wanted to discuss relations between Churchill and Roosevelt, about which King knew a great deal. He said that Churchill had repeatedly insisted that they must meet the president in every way possible and never forget that he was Britain’s greatest friend. On the difference between them over sharing research on the atomic bomb with the Soviets, King, whose opinion had changed with the Cold War, now thought Churchill had been right that it should be with­held. A couple of days later, Moran told King that he had noticed that Roosevelt was failing at the 1944 Quebec conference and by Yalta was completely used up. This was not surprising for a detached physician and was no revelation to King, but it would have been to the public if it had been publicized on such authority, just three and a half years after Roosevelt’s death.

In addition to Moran, Mackenzie King received a stream of other visitors at his bedside: Louis St. Laurent, of course, Attlee, Jawaharlal Nehru, the prime minister of India, Ernest Bevin and future British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan, who wanted to inquire about King’s memoirs which it was assumed the Macmillan company, his family firm, would publish. It must have been a great encouragement that Bevin, who managed to carry on in one of the most demanding jobs in the government, said that his symptoms were exactly like King’s; and more people that Moran implied Bevin’s condition was the result of excessive drinking. This held out the expectation that King’s abste­mious lifestyle would speed his recovery. King George VI paid his Canadian prime minister the great compliment of going to see him at the hotel. So did his uncle, Lord Athlone, who came as chancellor of the University of London with an academic delegation and an honorary degree, for which King got out of bed and dressed. There were also personal friends, notably the social reformer Violet Markham, and three sessions with spiritualists, one of whom contacted Franklin Roosevelt as well as Lord Tweedsmuir. But the highlight, on the second to last day, was Winston Churchill, still leader of the British Conservative Party, whom King would have been sorry to miss.

Churchill arrived with a copy of the British edition of The Gathering Storm. He was sorry to find his old friend in such poor condition but not greatly concerned since he had recovered from worse himself (the next summer he would quickly recuperate from a stroke). King was amazed at how well his contemporary looked—“quite young and strong”—and the quantity of work he was able to do. Churchill said that he relaxed a lot, sometimes painting for three hours a day. He was also buoyed by having just denounced the Labour government’s handling of world affairs in parliament in the same hard terms that he had used at the Conservative annual conference a couple of weeks earlier.  (Prime Minister Attlee, who arrived later, told King that he had been hurt by the accusations of timidity towards the Soviet Union, responsibility for the slaughter following Indian independence, the chaos in Palestine, and the charge that his government would force Northern Ireland into joining Eire which was becoming an independent republic with no ties to the United Kingdom.)

King agreed with Attlee that Churchill’s speech was extreme, even alarming in his claim that Conservative governments would come to power in Britain and all the old dominions and take proper command of the Commonwealth. Many British Conservatives were offended by their leader’s belligerence but kept their heads down and deferred to the international hero who they hoped would carry them back to office in the election that was sched­uled for 1950. This mutinous feeling was expressed to King three months later by the still exasperated Anthony Eden, Churchill’s former deputy, who said that while the great man was mellowing, he still refused to surrender the party leadership.

In their bedside conversation at the Dorchester, King and Churchill did not touch on contemporary controversies but stuck to the tranquilizing triumphs of the past. Churchill declared, although it is not clear how he could have known, that King had been much missed at the Commonwealth conference. He also cheered the invalid by assuring him again of his great services during the war: “You have never failed. You were helpful always. There was nothing that you did not do, that could be done.” He mentioned, in particular, the Commonwealth air training plan and King’s refusal to support Australian Prime Minister Robert Menzies’ desire for the dominions to play a larger part in the direction of the war in order to undermine Churchill. He reiterated that King had been a bridge between Britain and the United States, specifying his help in the possible move of the Royal Navy to the United States. He recalled King’s encouraging telephone call after Churchill’s famous “Iron Curtain” speech two years earlier, and could not resist adding that every point in the address had since been borne out. The two parted with emotion, Churchill’s eyes filling with tears, yet King was annoyed that on his way out he asked the high commissioner (Norman Robertson) to ensure that the press was informed of his visit.

There was no sense that this was their last meeting. Once he recovered his health, King expected to continue visiting Britain, as he had when out of office in the early 1930s. Churchill hoped to go to Toronto in the spring to receive an honorary degree and wanted King to attend. King in turn invited Churchill to Ottawa. But King would not recover, and they would never meet again.

You can buy The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

About the Author 

Neville Thompson is a professor emeritus of history at the University of Western Ontario, where he taught modern British and European history. He is the author of The Anti-Appeasers: Opposition to Appeasement in the 1930s, Wellington After Waterloo, and Canada and the End of the Imperial Dream. His latest book The Third Man: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII is released in hardcover in February 2021 with Sutherland House Books. He lives in Ottawa.

Copyright line

From "THE THIRD MAN: Churchill, Roosevelt, Mackenzie King, and the Untold Friendships That Won WWII" by Neville Thompson. Copyright © 2021 by Neville Thompson. Reprinted by permission of Sutherland House Books.

The Legendary African-American World War II Pilots: The Tuskegee Airmen

The Tuskegee Airmen were a group of primarily African-American pilots who fought in World War II, with their exploits during the war becoming legendary. The origins and founding of the group came from a response to segregation in both the military and general society. The group’s pilots who fought in Europe and North Africa achieved an impressive combat record, while several myths surroundings the Tuskegee Airmen will be explored here.

Daniel Boustead explains.

Tuskegee Airmen during World War II.

The beginnings of the Tuskegee Airmen came as a direct response from a 1925 study conducted by the American Military which concluded that “Blacks didn’t have the intelligence, ability, or coordination to fly airplanes”([1]). In 1939, Congress ordered the Army Air Corp to accept Blacks into the Civilian Pilot Training Program to provide a cadre of trained pilots should the country be plunged into war ([2]). In 1939 this Civilian Pilot Training Program was granted to the Black segregated college of Tuskegee Institute (now Tuskegee University) ([3]). In the years from 1939 to 1940 almost 100 Black pilots completed the training of the Civilian Pilot Training Program, but the Army Air Corps refused to let them in (2). In September 1940, when President Franklin Roosevelt announced that the Army Air Corps would soon begin training Black pilots ([4]), the War Department choose the Tuskegee Army Airfield as a training site (4).  F.D.R was persuaded by his decision by the N.A.A.C.P and by Black newspapers like the Pittsburgh Courier and the Chicago Defender  (4). In 1940 Black pilot Charles Alfred Anderson came to head up the training program at Tuskegee (2). On January 16, 1941 the War Department announced that a Black flying unit would be formed within the Army Air Corps (9). In March 1941, (as a result of Anderson’s flight with First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt), she gave a $175,000.00 loan to build Moton Field, where the men could take their initial training (2). Moton Field was located at Tuskegee Institute (9). 

In March 1941 the U.S. War Department created the 99th Pursuit Squadron, which was the first unit made up of Black pilots and would become in time a famous Tuskegee Airmen unit (2). This unit soon became the 99th Fighter Squadron (1). By 1943 the 99th had become a combat unit ([5]). The other famous Tuskegee Airmen units were formed in the period from 1942 to 1943: the 100th Squadron, 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron with the 332nd Fighter Group (5). 

In conflict

The Tuskegee Airmen units fought in the North African Theatre of war as well as Europe during the conflict. The 99th Fighter Squadron left Tuskegee and arrived in Morocco on April 2, 1943 under the command of African American officer Lt. Colonel Benjamin O. Davis Jr. (5). The 99th Squadron’s initial combat debut in North Africa resulted in heavy losses against the German Luftwaffe (5). This Squadron redeemed itself in May 1943 when they attacked the Italian Island of Pantelleria in preparation for the invasion of Sicily, which resulted in the entire Island garrison of 11,000 Italians troops surrendering (5). This was very first time in history that an entire Island had surrendered by air attack alone (5). This earned the 99th Fighter Squadron a Distinguished Unit Citation for this effort (5).

In February 1944 a new Black unit called the 332nd Fighter Group left Tuskegee, which consisted of the 100th Squadron, the 301st Squadron, and the 302nd Squadron (5). The 332nd Fighter Group went to Italy where they joined the 99th Fighter Squadron, which was operating at Ramitelli Airfield on the Adriatic Sea (4). The 332nd Fighter Group began operations on February 14, 1944 and they began patrolling the area from Naples Harbor to the Isle of Capri, as well as doing costal patrols (5). The 332nd Fighter Group moved to a new air base at Capodichino, Italy on March 4, 1944 (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron earned a Second Distinguished Unit Citation for their efforts during the Battle of Monte Cassino in May 1944 (5). On May 23, 1944 the 332nd Fighter Group was assigned bomber escort duty for the 15th Army Air Force, making sure the bombers made it safely from Ramitelli to their targets in southeastern Europe and southern Germany (5). The 99th Fighter Squadron won a Third Distinguished Unit Citation for protecting the bombers of the 15th Army Air Force during a bombing mission on March 24, 1945 ([6]). The 332nd was subsequently awarded this Distinguished Unit Citation for the March 24, 1945 mission (7). The 332nd Fighter Group flew its last mission on April 26, 1945 (4).  In the period from 1941 to 1946, 992 Black pilots were trained at Tuskegee, of which 355 pilots flew in combat over the skies of Southern Europe (7). The Tuskegee Airmen flew 1,578 combat missions, 1,267 for the Twelfth Army Air Force, and 311 for the Fifteenth Army Air Force, destroyed 262 enemy aircraft (112 in the air, 150 on the ground), 950 rail cars, trucks, and other motor vehicles, and 40 boats and barges (7). The 99thFighter Squadron even set an Army Air Corps record for shooting down five German planes in less than four minutes (6). 

Myths

There were various myths written about the Tuskegee Airmen that increased the group’s “God-Like” standing in the annals of Military History. The first big myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen never lost a bomber. This myth existed for many years after the war and was even mentioned on a Family Matters TV episode in 1992 when Estelle Winslow talked about the Tuskegee Airmen (8). In the period of June 9, 1944 to March 24, 1945, 27 Heavy Bombers from the 15th Army Air Force were shot down while under escort from the 332nd Fighter Group (9). In contrast the 15th Army Air Force lost an average of 46 Heavy Bombers when being escorted by other fighter groups (9). During the period from June 1944 to May 1945 the 15th Army Air Force lost a total of 303 Heavy Bombers that were shot down by enemy aircraft (9) over 7 escort periods. 

Another important myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen were the first to implement a “Stick to the Bomber” policy.  The “Stick to the Bomber” policy had been instituted by Major General Ira Eaker while he was commander of the Eighth Army Air Force, long before the Tuskegee Airmen ever escorted a bomber (9). In January 1944, General Eaker moved to the Mediterranean Theatre of Operations to serve as commander of Mediterranean Allied Air Forces and he took his “Stick to the Bomber” policy with him(9). Eaker’s “Stick to the Bomber” policy found a home in the 15th Army Air Force where they were followed by the 332nd Fighter Group (9). 

A further myth about the Tuskegee Airmen was that they were the first to bring down the legendary ME-262 Jet. The first German ME-262 Jet Fighter was actually shot down by five Royal Canadian Air Force Fighter pilots belonging to Squadron 401 on October 5, 1944 (10).  The Tuskegee Airmen did shoot down at least 3 Me-262 Jets on March 24, 1945 while escorting the 15th Army Air Force bombing mission to Berlin, Germany (9). The three aircraft destroyed on this mission were attributed to Tuskegee Airmen 1st Lieutenant Roscoe Brown, 1st Lieutenant Earl R. Lane, and 2nd Lieutenant Charles V. Brantley (9).

Another myth was that the Tuskegee Airmen units were all Black men. The misconception is that the Tuskegee Airmen were virtually all Black by the time they deployed overseas and remained Black until the Air Force was desegregated in 1949 (9). The reality is that the first three commanders of the 99th Fighter Squadron (originally called the 99th Pursuit Squadron) were White men (9), and that the first two commanders of the 332nd Fighter Group where White men (9). The vast majority of Tuskegee Airmen were Black though (9). The Tuskegee Airmen also had some Haitian Airmen (11).  However, Eugene Smith, a member of the Tuskegee Airmen was of a mixture of European and Native American Ancestry, yet he was listed as “colored” on his birth certificate (9). The Army Air Forces would only accept Eugene Smith if he went to Tuskegee and so he did (9).

The final myth was that the outstanding Tuskegee Airmen’s war record was alone responsible for President Harry S. Truman efforts to desegregate the military. The Tuskegee Airmen’s record played a small pat in this (9). The combination of Truman wanting to appeal to Black voters in the 1948 Presidential Election and the June 28, 1948 threat by A. Philip Randolph’s “League for Non-Violent Civil Disobedience against Military Segregation” for Blacks to resist the draft, also had a huge impact on President Truman’s decision to desegregate the military in 1948 (9). The President’s Civil Rights report of October 29, 1947 called “To Secure These Rights” had African American leaders telling Secretary of Defense Forrestal to desegregate the military, also played a part in President’s Truman’s decision (9). It was these factors that caused President Truman to sign Executive Order 9981 to desegregate the military on July 26, 1948 (9).

Conclusion

The Tuskegee Airmen’s prowess became the stuff of legend. The group compiled an excellent combat record which helped quell prejudice against Black people. Many myths exist about the Tuskegee Airmen, but several have been exposed and negated here. However, the Tuskegee Airmen hold an important and much revered place in the annals of Military History. 

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.

[1] Rivers, Charles Editors. “Far-Reaching Changes- A Portrait of a McGee as a Tuskegee airmen”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.2. 

[2] River, Charles Editors. “Air Corps Policy Remained as Before”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020, Ch.1. 

[3] “Training, CAF Rise Above”.  Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafrisebove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training . 

[4] Tuskegee Airmen”. HistoryChannel.com . Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskgee-airmen.

[5] River, Charles Editors. “Combat-Ready Status”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II”. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.4. 

[6] River, Charles Editors. “More Time to Prove Itself”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.5. 

7 River, Charles Editors. “Unique Military Record”. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II. Edited by Charles River Editors, 2020. Ch.7. 

8 “Family Matters-Brown Bombshell  (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

9 Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency.( 17th, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

10 Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

11 “Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”. Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

References

“Family Matters-Brown Bombshell”. (TV Episode 1992)”. IMDB.  Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0577080/

“Haitian Tuskegee Airmen, CAF RISE Above”.  Accessed on January 3rd, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskegee-airmen-history/haitian-tuskgee-airmen/

Haulman, Daniel L. “Tuskegee Airmen Myths and Realities”. Air Force Historical Research Agency. (17, March, 2014). https://www.afhra.af.mil/Portals/16/documents/Studies/AFD-141119-026.pdf

Montgomery, Marc. “History Canada: Oct. 5, 1944-RCAF down the first German Jet”. Last Updated October 9th, 2018. Accessed on January 20th, 2021. https://www.rcinet.ca/en/2018/10/05/history-canada-oct-5-1944-rcaf-downs-the-first-german-jet/

River, Charles Editors. The Tuskegee Airmen: The History and Legacy of America’s First Black Fighter Pilots in World War II.  Edited by Charles Rivers Editors, 2020.

“Training, CAF Rise Above” Accessed on January 18th, 2021. https://cafriseabove.org/the-tuskgee-airmen/tuskgee-airmen-history/training. 

“Tuskegee Airmen”.HistoryChannel.com.Last Updated January 16th, 2020. Accessed on December 13th, 2020.https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/tuskegee-airmen