The Secret Lie that Ended World War One: The Bulgarian Contract

As hard as it may be to believe, not everything is yet known about World War One. Even some major events have remained hidden for more than a century. Here, Graeme Sheppard, author of a new book, tells us about the extraordinary Bulgarian Contract.

Over a hundred years on, and after the production of so many detailed studies, anyone might reasonably assume that there can be nothing new, surely, to discover about the events of World War I. That is, nothing surely of major consequence. A new aspect or angle to a campaign or battle maybe, or perhaps a fresh insight into some familiar ground. But the discovery of new and previously unseen evidence of how and why the war ended when it did in 1918, rather than continue in to 1919? Surely not? And yet a few years ago that was precisely what a visit to the UK National Archives in Kew presented me with.

Why the war ended?

I hadn’t been looking for it or anything like it. In fact, I was searching for unrelated material pertaining to British diplomats in China. But while doing so, I came across a very slim Foreign Office file from 1931. It came in a box with the unpromising title of “Miscellaneous”. It contained a mere few pages: an internal letter from a junior diplomat, one D.J. Cowan, explaining how, while a prisoner-of-war in Bulgaria in 1918, he had encountered among its peasant population word of an extraordinary act of political propaganda and misinformation, one so effective that it had succeeded in propelling Bulgaria out of the war. It was this act, he believed, rather than the Allied offensive of that September, that had been the true cause of the collapse of Macedonian front - a collapse that foreshadowed the November armistice six weeks later. Cowan was clearly making an important claim, and yet, by the look of the file, at the time the letter had elicited little interest.

I was still trying to make sense of this find when a few weeks later I came into possession of the unpublished memoirs of another Foreign Office diplomat and fellow Balkan prisoner, Robert Howe. Howe wrote in the 1970s in his retirement. Quite independently, and with greater detail, he described being a witness to the same Balkan deception. But Howe went further: a few years after the war, in Belgrade, he had actually met the political architect behind the plot. He had discussed the matter with him in the royal palace.

An extraordinary tale

Quite apart from the startling information the pair provided, junior officers Cowan and Howe had an extraordinary story of their own to relate.

In late September 1918, Cowan and Howe, prisoners since 1915 and twice before failed escapees, walked out of their Bulgarian prison camp deep behind enemy lines. Having heard rumors that the Macedonian front had collapsed, on this third occasion they simply announced to their resigned captors that they were leaving. No one stopped them. They then spent several days travelling a hundred miles over chaotic roads and rail lines jammed with an enemy army in a rebellious retreat. Largely ignored on their way, they headed not toward the advancing Allied forces to the south, but instead west toward Sofia, the enemy’s capital, and a city now engulfed in political turmoil. Arriving at the main rail station, which they found in a state of frenzy, they caught a horse-drawn cab to the nearly deserted Ministry of War building. There, despite their less than orderly attire, they brazenly announced to staff there that they were British officers and were taking control of the city in the name of His Majesty the King. No one raised an objection. With their authority established, a ministry car and driver were summoned to take the pair to the city’s Grand Hotel, where they demanded and were provided with the best rooms the establishment had to offer. An hour later, having washed and shaved, they entered the hotel restaurant, only to find it full of senior German officers gloomily eating their dinner. The hotel, it transpired, happened to serve as the German regional headquarters. Undeterred, they informed the maître d' that they required the head table and would the two gentlemen seated there kindly vacate it, at which point the German officers concerned rose wordlessly from their seats. Rubbing salt into the remaining diners’ wounds, one of the chums then raised a toast to the victorious Allies.

“It was a great moment,” remembered Howe. “One of the greatest moments of my life - perhaps never again one like it. One of those moments when you know there is nothing you cannot do, when no obstacles exist, when no one can touch you.”

Contract

A great moment, indeed. And yet, though they did not realize it fully at the time, the two men had so much more to relate. They had experienced a very peculiar captivity in Bulgaria, one of extremes, ranging from internment in the worst of punishment death-camps to that of living in virtual freedom among its peasant folk. Their survival tale, however, provides only the backdrop to their unique eye-witness accounts of a secret act of Balkan propaganda, known as the Contract, one that triggered not only rebellion in Bulgaria and the collapse of the Macedonian front, but also acted as the catalyst for German defeat and the road to the armistice of November 11.

A new book, The Bulgarian Contract, provides readers with two new strands of evidence that together change our understanding of how and why the Great War reached its conclusion. Firstly, recently discovered eye-witness accounts of a clandestine deception that was crucial in bringing about the dramatic collapse of the Macedonian front. Secondly, the direct influence this fraud had on Germany’s High Command (Oberste Heeresleitung) in occupied Belgium, and on de facto dictator, Erich Ludendorff, and his crucial meeting with the Kaiser of September 29, resulting in the road to German surrender six weeks later. Describing politics, revolution, treason, assassination, and deceit, the book explains how without the hitherto unknown Contract, the Great War was destined to continue through the coming winter and into 1919, resulting in many thousands of further deaths.    

You can order The Bulgarian Contract here: http://thebulgariancontract.com/

Image provided to the site and used with permission.

The Third Indian Mughal Emperor: The Early Years of Akbar

The Mughals have left an undeniable imprint upon the Indian landscape; their legacy is seen in the form of culture, architecture and art. Their rule lasted for more than 300 years, from 1526 to 1857. There have been a whole brood of Mughal emperors, but none stood out as much as the first six, the creators of the Mughal legacy. Many of their descendants would take advantage of the riches and power that they had inherited. However, infighting among them paved the way for other princes and ultimately the British to take control.

In part 3, we look at the third Mughal Emperor, Akbar. He reigned from 1556 when he was 13, and was possibly the greatest of the Indian Mughal Emperors. Here, Khadija Tauseef considers his early years and the struggles he had in establishing himself on the throne.

If you missed them, you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here and the second article on Emperor Humayun here.

Mughal Emperor Akbar with an elephant.

Early life

Akbar was born in Umarkot on October 15, 1542, to Emperor Humayun and his young wife, Hamida. Humayun had been on the run, therefore it seems likely that Akbar had a very unsettled early life. In 1553, at the age of ten, Akbar accompanied his father into battle, where he had been given the leadership of his dead uncle Hindal’s followers. In 1555, Akbar was with the advanced guard. However, perhaps Akbar’s early exposure to this violent side of royal life may have had a great impact upon his personality, making him stronger to face the numerous challenges that he would face in life. 

Akbar’s world was shaken when in February 1556, Humayun slipped on the stairs and died. Two months prior to his death, Humayun had appointed Bairam Khan as the guardian of his twelve-year-old son, Akbar. Not yet thirteen, Akbar was thrust into the limelight and quickly proclaimed as the next Emperor of the Mughal throne. As a child emperor, Akbar faced many threats not just from three Afghan rulers but also from a Hindu named Hemu. Akbar found protection in the form of Bairam Khan, who guided him during this difficult time - especially when in October 1556, Hemu marched upon Delhi defeating the Mughal forces that had been stationed there. Despite Hemu’s superior forces, Akbar and Bairam Khan didn’t run; instead they decided to face off against their enemy.

Power

Both armies met on the field of Panipat, where years earlier Babur had won a victory against the Indian princes. 1556 would prove auspicious for the Mughal forces because they won when an arrow pierced Hemu’s eye causing him to faint bringing the battle to an end. Within eighteen months of his accession, the three most serious threats to his throne – Hemu, Sikander Shah and Adil Shah - had all been removed. A result of these constant fights was that he became someone who neglected his studies. Therefore, in a royal family which prized learning more than most, Akbar remained illiterate. 

Bamber Gascoigne believes that the truth may have been different. He claims that “Akbar as a boy had learnt the rudiments of reading and writing, but preferred not to use them—perhaps originally from choice, and later because to read and write badly was worse than not doing so at all”. 

As Akbar grew older, Bairam Khan had continued to run the affairs of state very efficiently. He kept firm control of the center and continually sent out expeditions to enlarge the frontiers of the kingdom. However, Bairam’s rule came to a halt in 1560 when Maham Anga (Akbar’s wet-nurse) and her son, Adham Khan, tricked Akbar into travelling to Delhi without his guardian, Bairam Khan. They took this opportunity to turn Akbar against his guardian. Akbar, who was now seventeen, felt he was ready to take more personal control of the empire’s affairs. Therefore, Akbar suggested Bairam Khan take a pilgrimage to Mecca — this was the Mughal way of ostracism. 

Bairam could have gathered his forces and marched against the young ruler, but loyalty prevented him from taking any sort of action. Unfortunately, on the way, Bairam was murdered by an Afghan, who wanted to take revenge for the death of his father. Akbar believed that he had the power now, but the power held by Bairam had been passed to Maham Anga, who tried to manipulate the young monarch. She soon discovered that she couldn’t have the same amount of absolute control because Akbar now wanted to come into his own.

Betrayal

With Bairam Khan gone, Akbar needed another general to lead his army. He gave command to Adham Khan, who was sent to invade and capture Malwa, ruled by Baz Bahadur. The ruler of Malwa had a reputation as a musician and had a harem filled with beautiful women. Unfortunately, he proved to be less impressive as a general when he lost to the Mughal Army. Adham won a grand victory against the enemy; however, it was during this expedition that his behavior changed. It was tradition that the victorious general had to send the captives and treasures to the Emperor, but Adham only sent a few elephants while keeping the rest of the goods for himself. 

Other offences were committed by Adham Khan and his fellow commander when they gathered the older women of Baz Bahadur’s harem and butchered them. When other Muslim companions protested their actions they too were massacred. When news of Adham’s actions reached Agra, Akbar was outraged. Taking matters into his own hands, he marched to Malwa with a small entourage. Akbar spent a few days clearing all the matters that had taken place, but the ultimate result was that Adham Khan was forgiven. This would prove to be troublesome later. 

Upon returning to Agra, Akbar wanted to ensure that the power that was being held by Maham Anga and her party would be reduced. Thus, in 1561 Akbar appointed Atkah Khan, who had been summoned from Kabul, as chief minister. This change did not sit well with the opposition, who saw their power slipping through their fingers. Therefore, after a few months, Adham Khan burst into the offices of the chief minister, which were next to the harem. Adham and his men assassinated Atkah Khan and then set their sights on the harem. Fortunately, the eunuch guarding the harem locked the door. 

As this was happening, Akbar made his way into the office of the minister, where he was met by the gruesome scene. Gascoigne writes: “… Akbar emerged from another door to confront the assassin. Adham laid his hand on Akbar’s arm in an ambiguous gesture, which might have been either supplication or assault, whereupon Akbar punched him in the face. It was boasted later that the mark looked as though it had been a blow from a mace; at any rate it knocked him unconscious.”

Akbar then ordered the unconscious Adham to be thrown off the parapet. He barely survived from the fall, so Akbar ordered that he be taken back up the stairs and dropped again. This time the fall proved to be fatal. Akbar took it upon himself to inform Maham Anga that her son was dead. Even though Akbar had pardoned Maham Anga, she died several weeks later from grief. Akbar was finally free of all influences, free of all the people who wanted to use him as a stepping-stone to power. Now nineteen years old, Akbar was coming into his own. In his rule he will prove why he was the greatest of the Mughal rulers. 

What do you think of Akbar’s early life? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Khadija’s article on “The Fascinating History of Lahore Fort in Pakistan” here.

Was Romania Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War 2?

Officially Romania started World War II as neutral, but was it really neutral throughout the whole war? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this question by looking at Romania in the 1920s, the rise of authoritarianism in the country in the 1930s, the role of Romania during the war in the USSR and the Holocaust, and finally how it changed position towards the end of the war.

Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler. Munich, June 1941. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B03212 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Looking back on the belligerent nations of the Second World War, Romania is often counted as part of the Axis nations. Romania’s Fascist leader, Ion Antonescu, was close with Hitler, the country had officially joined the Axis in 1941, and Romanian troops fought alongside the Germans on the Eastern Front.

If one was to judge Romania simply by these factors alone, then the county can be consigned to the realm of yet another Axis collaborator. However, Romania’s situation during the Second World War was more complex than meets the eye, and an assessment of neutrality requires an examination of what led to its position in the conflict.

A Political Problem

Following the conclusion of the First World War in 1918, Romania was one of the few countries to end up better off than it had been before the war; it received generous awards of territory that allowed the country to nearly double in size, with its population reaching up to 16 million. [1] 

In addition to managing all its new peoples and territory, a major issue in Romania following the conclusion of the First World War was the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Romania had a solid foundation of democracy, given that its two strongest political parties throughout the 1920s, the Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party, were both recognized for their staunch democratic viewpoints. The National Peasant Party even won the 1928 election, and, at the time, the future seemed to bode well for democracy in Romania.

However, things changed in the 1930s with two major events that would shape Romania’s future turn towards authoritarianism. The first major change was the Great Depression, which crippled Romania’s economy and shook the people’s faith in their democratic government, led by Iuliu Maniu. This left people free to look for solutions to the country’s problems in more extreme political movements, a familiar narrative in Europe at the time. The second major change came with the accession of King Carol II to the throne, who would push democracy aside in favor of his own self-centered reign.

A Controversial Figure 

Carol was born on October 15, 1893 and was the first Romanian monarch to be born in the country; previous monarchs were of German descent. [2] Carol was raised by his aunt and uncle, King Carol I and Queen Elisabeth, who felt that his parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Marie, were unable to raise their son properly because they were too young. His uncle tried to raise Carol in his own militaristic image, but quickly found out the boy preferred a hedonistic lifestyle of party and drink, caring little for military pomp and ceremony. Carol was extremely adventurous; he joined the Prussian Guards military unit and fought in both the Second Balkan War of 1913 and the First World War.

Carol renounced his claim to the throne twice - first in 1918 and again in 1925 - and gave birth to his son Mihail, future king of Romania, in 1921 with his second wife Helen of Greece (his first marriage was a messy affair, conducted without the approval of Parliament and was swiftly dissolved). 

In 1927, Carol’s father died, and the throne went to his infant son, with a regency ruling on his behalf while Carol lived in France in exile. Although he had been officially excluded from the throne by his father’s will and by a law passed in 1926, he returned to Romania in 1930 with the goal of reclaiming his position on the throne. [3] Following a coup that took place on June 7, 1930, Carol took his place as Romania’s king over his infant son.

Upon usurping the throne, Carol immediately tried to increase his own power, disregarding the oath he had sworn upon taking the throne to uphold the 1923 Constitution, and began to fashion himself as a dictator. During his reign, and as a consequence of his growing admiration of the Fascist policies of Benito Mussolini in Italy, he began to dismantle Romanian democracy. His attempts came to a head in 1938, when he dissolved all political parties and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. This was done following his discovery of a plan that attempted to bring the anti-Semitic and Fascist Iron Guard into power.

As Europe once again drew closer to war, Carol tried to appease both sides - he appealed to Britain for help while also trying to improve relations with Germany by visiting Hitler. When the Second World War officially broke out in September 1939, Carol declared neutrality. However, in May 1940, seeing the shocking fall of France and the Allies back-pedaling, he decided to officially join the Axis.

Unfortunately, Carol’s reign did not last much longer. In June 1940, under threat from the Soviet Union and knowing his army was no match for the Red Army, Carol was forced to surrender pieces of Romanian territory to appease Stalin. In August, further territory in Transylvania (which had been awarded after World War One) was ceded to Hungary as a result of the Second Vienna Award. This was a set of territorial disputes arbitrated by the Fascist powers of Italy and Germany with the goal of drawing Hungary into their alliance. [4] This resulted in Carol losing support from the people, and the army refused to follow his orders. Out of desperation, Carol named General Ion Antonescu as prime minister, but was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mihail on September 6, 1940. However, Mihail immediately granted Antonescu dictatorial power, further paving the way for the Fascist regime, as Antonescu would later ally himself with the powerful Iron Guard.

Rise of the Iron Guard

Much like other European countries during the tumultuous interwar period, Romania had its own Fascist-style movement that sprang up during the 1930s. Following King Carol’s dissolution of various political parties in 1938, a new party to crop up in Romania was the Legion of the Archangel Michael led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, whose father was the leader of the largest extreme anti-Semitic party in Romania. [5]

For several years, the Legion was just a small organization with little money or support. In 1930, the Legion founded a militia branch called the Iron Guard, which included all Legionnaires (members) between the ages of 18 and 30, and won two local by-elections, thereby gaining parliamentary representation for the first time in 1931. In the national elections of 1932, support for the Legion rose to only 2.37 percent. [5] However, the National Peasant Party, which won the election, showcased interest in obtaining the help of the Iron Guard’s Legionnaires. At the same time, Nazism was rising in Germany and Nazi contacts became more frequent in Romania, even establishing a Romanian Nazi party.

The Legion acknowledged the Romanian monarchy as an important and fundamental institution, and as a result, King Carol actively tried to reign in and exploit the Legion for his own purposes until 1937. However, realizing his efforts were futile, Carol tried to stamp out the organization - a move which also failed.

In the 1937 elections, the party finished third with 15.5% of the vote, its highest total yet. When Carol abolished all parties and declared a royal dictatorship the following year, Codreanu urged his compatriots to accept the new regime, but was arrested by the government and put to death. An internal battle for power followed his death, with the victor being Horia Sima.

Antonescu’s War Contributions

Upon taking power, Antonescu allied himself with the Iron Guard and established Romania as the authoritarian National Legionary State. However, this new state was not to last long - Antonescu and the Guard had opposing ideologies. Antonescu embodied strict order, while the Guard aligned itself with chaos, rejecting Antonescu’s social policies. This led to a rift which erupted in January 1941 when he used the army to destroy the Guard, making himself a military dictator for the remainder of the war.

By this time, the Second World War was in full swing, and Antonescu decided to ally himself with Hitler, who he had no doubt would win the conflict. He committed Romanian troops and resources to aid the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, hoping that he would be granted the territory of Transylvania after the war’s conclusion. [1] In fact, Romanian troops in the invading Axis army numbered the second highest. [6] This proved to be a disastrous move as the Soviets repelled the attack, leading to huge numbers of Romanian casualties, destroying Antonescu’s hope that Germany would win the war.

In 1941, the Iron Guard attempted (and failed) to overthrow Antonescu, forcing its leaders to flee the country. By 1943, the tide of war had turned against the Axis powers, and Romania was subjected to Allied bombings, especially its oil fields, which were vital to the war effort. The Soviets, who had recovered from the previous invasion and were now pushing their way back across Europe towards Berlin, invaded Romanian territory and the army was unable to hold them back.  Seeing his country’s plight and sensing an opportunity, Mihail gathered his supporters and launched a coup, overthrowing Antonescu's government. He proceeded to align Romania with the Allies and the Soviets, declaring war on Germany on August 23, 1944.

Romania would spend the rest of the war fighting alongside the Allies against the Germans, waging bloody battles across Eastern Europe. Although it ended the war on the winning side, Romania lost a lot of territory as a result of the Soviets downplaying the defection of King Mihail, given that, for a majority of the war, Romania had fought against the Soviets. In post-war negotiations, the Soviet Union was given a 90% share of control over the country, which would result in its Cold War Sovietization and the rise of a Communist regime. [6]

The Holocaust

Romania’s role in the Holocaust is often forgotten. Unlike Germany or Italy, Romania was not driven by a desire for conquest, but a desire to do what was best for the national interests of the country. During the period of Antonescu’s leadership, the government ramped up its anti-Semitic laws and authorized many pogroms which killed thousands of Jews within Romanian borders. However, the Romanian government later realized that they could make a large profit from the situation by allowing European Jews transit through Romania to safer lands while charging exit fees. Abroad, Romanian anti-Semitism was showcased by the atrocities of Romanian troops massacring upwards of 260,000 Jews in southern Russia and Ukraine. [7]

One of the most infamous incidents was the Odessa Massacre in 1941, in which approximately 30,000 Jews were murdered by German and Romanian soldiers. [8] On October 16, 1941, the Red Army surrendered the city of Odessa to German and Romanian troops after two and a half months of bloody and bitter fighting. At this point, roughly 250,000 inhabitants remained in the city, including some 90,000 Jews.

Around 6.45 p.m. on October 22, a bomb (probably in place since before the city’s capture) exploded close to the Romanian headquarters, killing 67 people, including 16 Romanian and four German officers. Angered, the invaders announced that for every dead officer, 200 "Bolsheviks" must be executed, and 100 for every dead soldier.  However, there were no longer any “Bolsheviks” left in the city - they had fled long ago. Instead, the city’s Jewish population faced the retaliation of the invading armies. Between October 22 and 23, up to 30,000 people were rounded up and locked in nine empty munitions depots at the edge of the city, which were then doused in gasoline and set on fire. Similar horrifying acts of extermination took place across Ukraine over the following months and weeks.

Figures show that Romania bore responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any other German-allied country other than Germany itself. [7] In the face of such clear destruction and hatred, the Romanian government has steadfastly maintained its innocence, blaming these acts solely on the Germans and Hungarians. As recently as 2003, the government stated that it is “unjust to link Romania to the persecution of the Jews in Europe” and that the numbers of Jews killed in Romanian-perpetrated atrocities were being inflated for the sake of media impact. [7] Romania must face the horrors of its Holocaust past and accept the role it played in one of the worst atrocities in history.

Conclusion

The question of whether Romania can truly be considered neutral is easy to answer. Despite the country’s declaration of strict neutrality at the outset of the war, the political situation within the country forced Romania into the Axis camp. Its politically Fascist ideologies, anti-Semitic policies and actions taken towards Jews, and the contribution of manpower to help the German army in its attempt to crush the Soviets meant that Romania, like Italy, was firmly a wartime ally of the Germans - even if official statements may have indicated otherwise. Romania made more contributions to the Axis war effort, both militarily and ideologically, than it did to the Allied war effort, only fighting alongside the Allies for roughly a year, and only when it was already too late to have an impact.

What do you think of Romania’s role in World War Two? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Stefan’s article on whether Portugal was neutral in World War Two here.

Sources

[1]“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

[2] Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

[3] “Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

[4] “Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

 [5] Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

 [6] Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

 [7] Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

 [8] Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

Bibliography

-“Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

- Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

-“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

- Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

- Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

-“Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

Japanese Attacks on the USA in World War 2: Beyond Pearl Harbor

While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II is well known, most people are less familiar with other Japanese attacks on US soil in World War II. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about attacks on California and Oregon, and the occupation of Alaska.

U.S. soldiers fire mortar shells onto a Japanese position during the Battle of Attu in 1943. Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

The USA decided to join World War II because of two major factors: the well- known attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s war declaration on December 11, 1941. In addition, in 1942, Japan achieved some strategic gains by launching some lesser-known attacks on the continental United States. The Japanese were an effective Axis Power in part as they occupied a U.S. territory. Additionally, their attacks were not only limited to Hawaii. They also attacked California, Oregon, and Alaska.

The Japanese attack on the U.S. military Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was devastating. The attack killed 2,008 Navy personnel, killed 109 U.S Marines, killed 218 U.S. Army Soldiers, and killed 68 civilians, for a total death toll of 2,403 people ([1]). The Japanese military strike also sunk the American Battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, the target ship Utah, and the Destroyers Cassin and Downes (1). The Japanese attack destroyed 96 Army Aircraft, and 92 Navy Planes, for total planes destroyed at 188 (1). The Japanese also lost 29 planes and five submarines during the raid (1). 

Attacks on California and Oregon

In 1942 the Japanese military launched some attacks though while not as successful as Pearl Harbor, did achieve some gains for the Japanese. On February 22, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-17 Submarine shelled the area of  Ellwood City California near Santa Barbara, California ([2]). The attack by the I-17  lasted 20 minutes and only damaged a pier and oil well derrick near Santa Barbara California([3]). The I-17 attack did result in a shell exploding near an oil well causing about $500 in damage to a catwalk, some pumping equipment, and did create ‘invasion fears’ along the West Coast (2). A U.S. army soldier named Captain Bernard Hagen was wounded while trying to deactivate one of the fuses from one of the recovered shells from the Japanese I-17 Submarine attack (2). He was awarded the Purple Heart for this act (2).

On June 21, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-25 took up position off the Oregon side of the mouth of Columbia River, and shelled the military base of Fort Stevens ([4]). The I-25 Submarine’s shells fell harmlessly in the sand and scrub around Battery Russell, damaging only the baseball diamond backstop and a power line(4). On the dates of September 9, 1942 and September 29, 1942, the Japanese Submarine I-25 launched an aircraft which conducted a single bombing raid in Oregon on those respective dates ([5]). The I-25 Submarine Aircraft’s bombing raids only resulted in little damage with only one incendiary bomb exploding to start a small fire on Wheeler Ridge Oregon, approximately four miles southeast of Mount Emily, Oregon (5). Within four hours of the first raid, General John L. DeWitt, commander of the Fourth Army and the Western Defense Command, sent staff officers to Washington D.C to obtain permission, to add a small squadron of P-38 Lightning Fighters to his defense forces (5). The I-25 Submarine aircraft attack on September 9, 1942 forced the U.S. military to divert valuable P-38 Lightning Fighter Aircrafts, which could have been used on other important military fronts.  

Occupation of Alaska

During World War II, the Japanese would occupy Alaska, which in 1959 along with Hawaii would become a U.S. State. The Japanese decided to attack the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, as a means to divert American military resources away from the Japanese attack at Midway in June 1942 ([6]). The Japanese military also decided to occupy the two western Aleutian Islands in order to gain a psychological victory over the Americans by establishing a foothold on North American soil, and also hide their June 1942 Battle of Midway defeat ([7]). The Japanese launched an air attack on Dutch Harbor, Alaska between June 3 and June 4, 1942 which killed 43 Americans ([8]). The Japanese forces invaded and occupied the Aleutian Island of Kiska on June 6, 1942 and the Aleutian Island of Attu on June 7, 1942([9]). Fortunately, Kiska Island was unpopulated, and no civilians suffered under the Japanese occupation of this island ([10]). In contrast on Attu Island, Charles Foster Jones was taken away by the Japanese and never heard from again, while his wife Etta Jones was taken to a Japanese POW Camp in Yokohama, Japan ([11]). Etta Jones would survive World War II and was released on August 31, 1945 (13). In 1942 there were 43 Attu Aleuts, with one of the 43, traditional chief and village elder, John Artumonoff, dying of natural causes at age 56 during the Japanese occupation (12). On September 17, 1942 the Japanese transported 42 Attu Island natives to Japanese POW camps in Japan, of which only 25 Attuans and a surviving baby were repatriated after the war ([12]). The Attuans lost 17 out of the 42 that were transported to Japan, with also four out of five babies that were born in captivity dying at birth (12). The Americans responded to the Aleutian Islands invasion with outrage since this was the first time American soil had been occupied since the War of 1812 (14). Indeed in a nationwide public opinion poll, only 21% of Americans could find Hawaii on a map, while 71% could find Alaska (14). However, there were still some segments of the population who did not know the Aleutians had been invaded (14). More broadly, American war planners were still reeling from the aftermath of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (9). 

Retaking of Alaska

On May 11, 1943 the American military forces began the invasion of Attu to help retake Attu Island (15). The battle officially ended on May 30, 1943, when the Americans declared Attu secured after very fierce fighting (9). The widely accepted U.S. casualties from the Battle of Attu, according to the Army Source The Western Hemisphere, Guarding the United States and its Outposts, listed 549 American soldiers dead, 1,148 wounded and 2,100 suffering non-battle injuries (16). On the Island of Attu there were approximately 2,500 Japanese soldiers on Attu Island when the U.S. forces landed  (17). According to Anchorage attorney, Michael McLaughlin, who visited the Attu battlefield on multiple occasions, used multiple sources from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland, and the records of Camp Tracy, an interrogation center, he came to the following conclusion about the Japanese causalities (16). McLaughlin claimed that 28 Japanese soldiers were captured after the Battle of Attu, and one an officer was killed while trying to escape, which reduces the number of Japanese who went into captivity from 29 to 28 (16).  This means that the Japanese suffered 2,471 died in battle, and one died while trying to escape, which totals to 2,472 men died out of an approximate garrison of 2,500 men during and after the campaign on Attu. This means the Japanese garrison on Attu suffered a 98.88% fatality rate.

The story was completely different on Kiska. On July 28, 1943 the Japanese military, under the cover of fog, evacuated the entire garrison of 5,183 men off of Kiska Island in “Operation Ke” (18). The reason why the Japanese evacuated troops off Kiska Island was as a means of reinforcing other Japanese occupied territories (21). The Americans came to Kiska Island on August 15, 1943 and found the island deserted (9). On August 24, 1943 the Americans declared Kiska Island secured and thus the Aleutian Islands campaign ended (9).

Later attacks on America

In 1944-45 the Japanese military used a secret weapon to attack America. On November 3, 1944 the Japanese military launched fusen bakudan or balloon bombs which were carried to America by the Pacific jet stream (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were armed with four incendiaries and one thirty-pound high explosive bomb (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were designed to cause damage and spread panic in the continental United States of America (19). The weapon achieved its greatest success on May 5, 1945 when an explosion from a Japanese balloon bomb killed six people in Bly, Oregon. Among those was Elsie Mitchel, who was five months pregnant (19). They were the only Americans killed by enemy action on the continental USA during World War II (19). Even though Bly locals knew about the attack they adopted a code of silence by military order and reported that the victims of the tragedy died of “an explosion of undetermined origin” (20). Even though the military did release information about the attack at the end of May 1945, its impact was not widely known (20). The reason for this is because the impact of the Pearl Harbor Attack dominated the history textbooks for decades to come, which caused news of the attack to not be widely known until recently. These various attacks make Imperial Japan the only Axis Power to launch attacks against American territory and the only one to occupy American soil during World War II! 

In conclusion, the closely guarded, secretive and less publicized attacks by the Japanese and their subsequent invasion of the Alaskan Territory have now been revealed. Truly the Japanese were the most effective Axis Power to face the USA! 

What do you think of the World War II Japanese attacks on US soil? Let us know below.

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.

[1] Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 72. 

[2] Hackett, Bob and Kinsepp Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com/I-17.htm

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 68. 

[4] Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005. Last corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011.  History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

[5] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 110. 

[6] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  123.

[7] Cloe, John Haile.  Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service- 2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 23. 

[8] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  124 to 125. 

[9] “Battle of the Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th, 2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

[10] Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mari. “75 years later, ‘forgotten’ WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com . Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

[11] Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Aunt Phil’s Trunk. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

13 “Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POWs”  www.lastlettersfromattu.com Accessed on February 15th 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

[12] Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017.  https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 32 to 33. 

14 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 25.

15 Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1980. 136. 

16 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-The National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf . 113. 

17 “Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st, 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu . 

18 “Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm . 

21 Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming An Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Last Modified July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com . Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-300-dead-wounded/

19 Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanese-baloon-bombs-fu-go . 

20 Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-balooons-70-years-ago . 

Bibliography

“Battle of Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th,2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

“Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st , 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002.

Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming an Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Modified on July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskandpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-left-300-dead-wounded/

Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com//I-17.htm

“Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm

Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-baloons-70-years-ago

“Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POW’s”. www.lastlettersfromattu.com. Accessed on February 15tth, 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified  August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https:/www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanaese-baloon-bombs-fu-go 

Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.

Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mar. “75 years later, “forgotten” WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/vtereans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005.  Last Corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011. History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978.

William Dampier: A Very Important 17th Century Explorer

William Dampier (1651-1715) was an important British explorer in the 17th and into the 18th century. He was arguably the greatest explorer of his own time and introduced many words to the English language. Jan Rose explains.

A portrait of William Dampier. By Thomas Murray.

The poet Samuel Taylor Coleridge said he was a genius and a man of exquisite mind. He has 1,000 entries in the Oxford English Dictionary and introduced barbecue, chopsticks, cashew and kumquat to the language. All were seen or used during his three circumnavigations of the globe, 200,000 miles, in an age when ocean travel was a life and death affair.

William Dampier, adventurer, hydrographer, naturalist - and pirate, was the pre-eminent adventurer of his day. Born in 1651 at East Coker in the western part of England, the second son of a tenant farmer, Dampier put to sea at age 21. Over the next 35 years of travel to five continents his curiosity, analytical mind and acute powers of observation would make lasting contributions in numerous fields. 

He was perhaps the only truly important maritime explorer between Francis Drake of the 16th century and Capt. James Cooke in the 18th. Before piracy Dampier labored in Jamaica on a sugar plantation, harvesting logs in a mangrove swamp before deciding his way to fortune was by joining buccaneers who raided Spanish ships and Spanish-controlled coastal settlements. The life was as adventuresome as it was dangerous. To attack the town of Santa Maria, for example, the pirates had to travel overland across the Isthmus of Panama through snake and insect infested jungles and swamps. Through the years, regardless of location, Dampier always carried pen, ink, paper, and a waterproof tube to protect his notes.

He was the first to deduce that wind determines ocean currents and the first to draw wind maps. In response to an appeal from the Royal Society for sailors to provide information to improve sea travel, he not only furnished new and accurate information but also suggested theories about how his data should be interpreted. The Society summarized his work in a publication and Dampier was invited to address members, an accolade for a man with basic education.

Dampier proved a gifted navigator, pioneering new sea routes, pinpointing new lands with unsurpassed accuracy and giving tips on the best approach to avoid obstacles like shoals and reefs. His A Discourse of Trade Winds, Breezes, Storms, Seasons of the Year, Tides and Currents, written over many years by Dampier, was recommended by Admiral Horatio Nelson to lower officers, and was in use by the Royal Navy well into the 20th century.

Dampier’s travels, from the Caribbean to the Pacific, allowed him to make comparisons and contrasts between various areas of the world. Based on his observations of Brazilian waterfowl he introduced both the word and the concept of sub-species, a term borrowed by Charles Darwin in his Origin of the Species; Darwin referred to Dampier’s books as a mine of information. Possibly the first Briton to set foot in Australia, predating Cook by 80 years, Dampier first visited in 1688, and again in 1699 as captain of the Roebuck. He brought back to England species of flora and fauna sandwiched between book pages, botanical notes and drawings, and descriptions of wildlife.

Three books written in accomplished prose, A New Voyage Round the World, published in 1697, Voyages and Descriptions in 1699, and A Voyage to New Holland, published in two parts in 1703 and 1709, met with rave reviews from critics and public alike. Opening new vistas to his countrymen, his books promised things “wholly new” and they did not disappoint. Their influence led Jonathan Swift to write Gulliver’s Travels and Daniel Defoe to write Robinson Crusoe.

Dampier died in 1715.

What do you think of William Dampier? Let us know below.

Pope Leo XIII: The Pope who Drank Cocaine Wine

There has been a long and varied line of Popes throughout history. But have you heard about the Pope who drank cocaine wine? Sam Kelly explains.

Mariani wine as drank by Pope Leo XIII.

To people who are not devout Catholics, the history of the Popes might seem dull and uninteresting. But it is filled with bizarre and fascinating characters, starting with the first pope, St. Peter, who was crucified upside down because he felt unworthy of dying in the same way as Jesus. And who can forget colorful characters like Pope Stephen VI, who dug up his predecessor’s corpse, put it on trial, found it guilty, hacked off its fingers, and threw it in the Tiber River? Or Pope John XII, who murdered several people in cold blood, gambled with church offerings, and was killed by a man who found him in bed with his wife? Or Pope Urban VI, who complained he didn’t hear enough screaming when the cardinals who conspired against him were being tortured? Or Pope Alexander VI of the notorious Borgia crime family, who bribed his way into the job, engaged in a litany of corruption including nepotism, murder and orgies, went on to father nine illegitimate children, and whose corpse was left unattended for so long that it became so bloated and swollen it couldn’t fit into its coffin?

There have been plenty of good Popes, too, and one of these was Pope Leo XIII. One of the longest-serving Popes, he remained the head of the Catholic Church until he died at age 93. He was a forward-thinking intellectual whose goal was to reinvigorate the Church, at a time when many Europeans felt it had become irrelevant to their lives because it was stuck in the past. Leo sought to emphasize that religion was compatible with modern life. He spoke passionately about workers having a right to fair wages, safe working conditions, and the importance of labor unions. He was a skilled international diplomat who succeeded in improving relations with a host of countries including Russia, Germany, France and the United States, and he wholeheartedly embraced science and technology. He was the first Pope whose voice was recorded on audio, and the first to be filmed by a prototype movie camera (which he blessed while it was filming him).  

The Most Productive Pope of All Time

But what he is best known for is how insanely productive he was. He wrote more encyclicals than any other Pope in history. An encyclical is a letter from the Pope to all of the bishops in the Roman Catholic Church, but more importantly, it is the way the Pope announces his official view on important topics. Encyclicals are deep, thoughtful and expansive, which means they tend to be lengthy. Since the beginning of time, there have been 300 papal encyclicals, and Leo XIII wrote 88 of them. That’s right, this one man wrote 30% of all encyclicals. He wrote on topics big and small – huge concepts such as liberty, marriage and immigration, but he also wrote 11 encyclicals focused wholly on the subject of rosaries. Scholars have always been amazed by his prodigious output, and bear in mind he was an extremely old man, serving as Pope well into his 80s and 90s. Yet he remained a tireless workhorse. Where did he find the energy?

It was probably the cocaine.

Popes have always loved wine. Forward-thinker that he was, Leo XIII brought something new to the mix. He drank wine laced with cocaine. This was not some home-brewed mix he created himself; it was an actual product you could buy in stores – a magical elixir known as Vin Mariani. For Leo, its primary appeal was the energy it gave him. It had a powerful kick that kept the Pope perpetually in the mood to philosophize and pontificate, which is probably what allowed him to write those 88 encyclicals in 25 years.

Leo absolutely loved the stuff and wasn’t shy about saying so. He proclaimed to everyone that he carried the salubrious libation with him at all times in a personal hip flask – “to fortify himself when prayer was insufficient.” Yes, he actually said those words. This being the 19th century, cocaine was neither illegal nor stigmatized. It was viewed with wonder and awe by the European medical establishment. Vin Mariani was seen not only as a health tonic, but as a prestigious and sophisticated beverage on par with a fine vintage wine.  

Many Famous Drinkers of Cocaine Wine

Many famous people were Vin Mariani drinkers. Thomas Edison said it helped him stay awake longer. Ulysses S. Grant drank it while writing his memoirs. Emile Zola wrote testimonials that were reprinted in Vin Mariani advertisements. Even Queen Victoria was a big fan.

Pope Leo loved Mariani-brand cocaine wine so much that he decided he must meet and properly honor the man who invented it. He summoned Angelo Mariani to Rome and presented him with an official Vatican gold medal to congratulate him for his remarkable achievement in the field of cocaine vintnery.

At this point, you are probably thinking I have gone too far. A pope who loved cocaine is a funny idea, and maybe there are some dubious rumors scattered around the Internet that Pope Leo enjoyed the taste of cocaine wine, but there’s no actual proof he did so, right? And he certainly didn’t hand out a gold medal to his drug dealer, did he? After all, it’s not like he appeared in a full-page advertisement touting the benefits of cocaine wine…

No, I’m lying, he totally did.

Angelo Mariani printed up posters advertising the gold medal he received from the Pope. The poster features a huge smiling image of Pope Leo, and next to his picture there is text which reads: “His Holiness the Pope writes that he has fully appreciated the beneficial effects of this Tonic Wine, and has forwarded to Mr. Mariani as a token of his gratitude a gold medal bearing his august effigy.” That’s right, the Pope himself knowingly appeared in a full-page advertisement for cocaine wine.  

Things were simpler back then. 

Now read Sam’s article on Queen Victoria and the First Opium War here.

References

Drew Kann, “Eight of the Worst Popes in Church History,” CNN.com, April 15, 2018, https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/10/europe/catholic-church-most-controversial-popes/index.html

Ishaan Tharoor, “7 Wicked Popes, and the Terrible Things They Did,” The Washington Post, September 24, 2015,https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/09/24/7-wicked-popes-and-the-terrible-things-they-did/

“Leo XIII,” Britannica, updated February 26, 2021, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Leo-XIII

James Hamblin, “Why We Took Cocaine Out of Soda,” The Atlantic, January 31, 2013, https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/01/why-we-took-cocaine-out-of-soda/272694/

Wyatt Redd, “Vin Mariani – The Cocaine-Laced Wine Loved by Popes, Thomas Edison, and Ulysses S. Grant,”Allthatsinteresting.com, January 31, 2018, https://allthatsinteresting.com/vin-mariani

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy - The Modern Role of the First Lady

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy took quite different directions when they were the First Ladies of America. However, they both had a lasting impact on the role. David M. Huff explains.

Jackie Kennedy at the Taj Mahal in 1962.

Jacqueline Kennedy once said, "Everything in the White House must have a reason for being there. It would be sacrilege merely to 'redecorate' it — a word I hate. It must be restored, and that has nothing to do with decoration. That is a question of scholarship."

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "You must do the thing you think you cannot do". 

The modern view of the president's wife in American political life was intrinsically shaped by two extraordinary women: Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy. Astute, engaging, and well-educated, both women left an indelible imprint on the American cultural, social, and political consciousness. Eleanor championed social and humanitarian reform and Jacqueline taught a nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense fashion with a commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities.

Although they were different stylistically, both First Ladies shared similar characteristics. Both Eleanor and Jacqueline were born into wealth and privilege. Each woman experienced an unsettled, turbulent, and lonely childhood. Both loved books, history, and leaned toward introspection. Eleanor's mother died when she was eight and Jacqueline endured the tragic ordeal of divorce. In addition, both emerged as enlightened patricians, whose fundamental aims, motivations, and personal convictions differed from their contemporaries. Moreover, Eleanor and Jacqueline married men who suffered not only from life-threatening illnesses (FDR was stricken with polio and JFK suffered from a failed back and Addison's disease), but whose acts of infidelity served to crystallize a renewed sense of self-awareness and direction within each woman. Each was also private; neither wanted to live initially in the White House. Yet, both women summoned an inner resolve that enabled them to carve out a role, to create a voice, separate and distinct from their husband's.

Differences

Notwithstanding common similarities, differences also existed between these two women. Eleanor displayed an eagerness to embrace Democratic politics and actively engaged with the press. A woman of considerable intelligence, perception, and personal conscience, she traveled throughout the country during the Great Depression delivering speeches and writing her own column, "My Day," which was published five days a week. With insight and understanding, Eleanor wrote about the poor, the dispossessed, those who had been left behind in American society. She was Franklin Roosevelt's "eyes and ears" in regard to the impact that FDR's politics had on the American people.

On the other hand, Jacqueline preferred to avoid the contentious field of politics and the press. Underneath her soft-spoken voice, however, was a woman who possessed a depth of intelligence and a subtle wit along with a passionate conviction for the cultivation of the arts and humanities, particularly among youth. To the role of First Lady, Mrs. Kennedy brought grace, beauty, intelligence, and cultivated taste. Her avid interest in the arts, publicized by press and television, inspired an attention to culture never before evident at a national level. Mrs. Kennedy originally felt the restoration should focus on the White House's early style (it was completed in 1802, then rebuilt in 1817 after being burned to the ground by British troops during the War of 1812). Yet her goals soon expanded to have the restoration reflect the whole history of the presidency.

Art and history

To highlight her artistic and historic accomplishments, Mrs. Kennedy invited artists, writers, Shakespearean actors, ballet groups, musicians, opera singers, and poets to the White House, who spoke with politicians and statesmen. An eclectic, multicultural, and strong-minded individual, Mrs. Kennedy spoke Italian, French, and Spanish fluently. She not only advocated youth concerts to encourage the next generation of musicians, but also felt that the White House rooms were furnished with pieces of furniture that lacked distinction and the history they should, in a place as special as the Executive Mansion. As a result, Mrs. Kennedy created The Fine Arts Committee with Henry Francis du Pont as the chairman.

Furthermore, she requested Congress to declare the White House an historic landmark, founded The White House Historical Association to protect, preserve, and provide public access to the rich history of the White House and wrote and edited the first White House guidebook, which was sold to tourists. The proceeds from the book were used to help finance her restoration of the White House with historic antiques. To that end, on February 14, 1962, Mrs. Kennedy took America on a televised tour of the renovated White House. In addition, working with Rachel Lambert Mellon, Jackie also supervised the redesign and replanting of the Rose Garden and the East Garden, pushed for the creation of a National Cultural Arts Center (now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts), urged President John F. Kennedy to create a national department of culture in America and collaborated with architect John Carl Warnecke for the historic restoration of Lafayette Square and Pennsylvania Avenue.

To that end, shortly after moving into the White House in 1961, Mrs. Kennedy became intensely interested in plans afoot to redevelop Lafayette Square, opposite their new address at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Several architectural firms, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the General Services Administration were the principal players, and talks centered on the style of new office buildings to be built there. Some camps favored a Beaux Arts structure, others, more modernist. Mrs. Kennedy favored the winning plan that would create a seamless facade of nineteenth-century residences on Jackson Place, the western side of the square. The New Executive Office Building, built during the renovation, is set back from the square and rises unobtrusively above the row of town houses.

Perhaps the greatest difference between these two First Ladies, however, came at the end of their husband's administrations: Franklin slipped away from Eleanor as a result of a cerebral hemorrhage, while Jackie endured the horror of her husband's brutal assassination.

Lasting impact

Eleanor and Jackie were movers and shakers who played a critical role in the political, social, and cultural times in which they lived. Their extraordinary, yet turbulent lives, brought forth a determined, intriguing, and passionate curiosity that shaped their public persona and actions. Their lives brought meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and sorrow, these women learned to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron that enabled each woman to bear the burdens that fate dealt them with an uncommon grace. Rather than retreat, they rose to the occasion to create, to summon creative impulses that they saw within themselves and in turn, utilized them to benefit American society.

Eleanor and Jackie also represented an evolving change in the role that women played in politics. Instead of walking in their husband's shadow, both women emerged with strong personalities who played an instrumental role not only in their husband's presidencies, but also in shaping the hearts and minds, hopes and aspirations, of generations of Americans. As a result, the torch they lit provided a beacon for a more visible, independent, and substantive role for future First Ladies, such as Betty Ford, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Michelle Obama.

Such historic figures in a great civilization, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, can help to illuminate, cultivate, and to summon the reservoir of talent and individual ingenuity that resides within our people. In the American experience, we, as a nation, as a people, have shown that we can meet challenges head-on. Brave and passionate, steadfast and undeterred, we are a nation of pioneers, gifted with the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character.

Conclusion

In sum, I believe so strongly the American people should be reminded about pivotal historical figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, who each played a vital role in shaping our history. I think there is a yearning on the part of the American people not only for political change, but also for enterprising individuals who would exert a positive influence on American society. Sometimes we have to look to our past to find individuals who elevated our civilization to new heights. If we do not understand our past, we cannot understand our country's future. Our country's youth, who are America's future, need to understand that Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy believed they could make a positive difference not only in their own personal lives, but also in the social-economic and cultural fabric of American society.  Since Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy made a difference during their generation, why shouldn't we expect those in a position of influence to make a difference in the difficult and turbulent time in which we live?

Finally, Eleanor and Jackie's dedication to personal development and sense of obligation can best be summed up in a poem by Robert Frost, "Choose Something Like A Star."

...It asks a little of us here. It asks of us a certain height, so when at times the mob is swayed to
carry praise or blame too far, we may choose something like a star to stay our minds on and be staid."                                                                        

Let us know your thoughts on the article below.

About the Author

David M. Huff was born in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1968. A violist, he studied with the Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra from 1983-1984. He attended the Interlochen Arts Festival and Interlochen Arts Academy from 1984-1986 and also participated in the Boston University Tanglewood Institute's Youth Program during the summer of 1986. He earned a B.A. in History from West Virginia University and an M.A. in History/Research from West Virginia University. He works in Washington, D.C.

King Henry VIII of England: Did he have trouble trusting people?

King Henry VIII of England (king from 1509 to 1547) is possibly the most well-known British monarch. But how can we see him from a modern perspective? Here, Kerrie Fuller of the The Lost Tapes of History podcast tell us how a modern-day counselor and therapist might evaluate Henry VIII.

Kind Henry VIII of England. Painting by Hans Holbein, 1540.

Much has been written about King Henry VIII and his relationships:  his romantic connections (six marriages and multiple mistresses); his work colleagues (counselors and political advisors such as More, Cromwell and Wolsey); his children (Mary, Elizabeth and Edward as well as the illegitimate ones) and even his family (two brothers, four sisters and parents). But what do they all have in common with him as the central person in all this? I suspect it’s all about trust. Or rather, lack of it.

In my research on Henry for The Lost Tapes of History podcast, I realized that he struggled with relationships of any kind. His psychology was such that he did not fundamentally understand the nature of how healthy relationships work; that is: open and honest communication, mutual respect and affection and most importantly, two-way trust.

I found a checklist online developed by a counselor and therapist to evaluate whether an individual had trust issues and measured Henry against each.

You feel betrayed by people even when there’s no evidence.

His relationship with his first wife, Katherine of Aragon fits the criteria nicely. There was absolutely no evidence that she had done anything that would justify an annulment and the Pope knew that. Henry actually used the word ‘betrayal’ to describe the fact that Katherine had not given him a son. Hardly fair.

You’ve learnt that people can use your feelings against you so you become guarded. 

Thomas Wolsey was a very close friend of Henry for many years, despite the twenty-year age gap. Henry even talks of writing letters to Wolsey ‘in his own hand’ instead of dictating them, showing a closeness between the two. When Wolsey failed to secure the annulment of Henry’s first marriage, he was accused of treason. We can only imagine that Henry was devastated that his friend would not help him when he felt he needed it the most.

Innocent mistakes are blown up out of all proportion. 

Anne Boleyn, Henry’s second wife, made the innocent mistake of being too intelligent and too eager for reform of the church. If you don’t believe the charges of adultery and incest, then her only ‘mistake’ was not giving Henry a son. Henry had several options open to him to remove Anne as his wife but the trial and beheading has a touch of the ‘over-reaction’ about them.

You finally trust someone and then you lose them. You vow never to trust again. 

Jane Seymour, Henry’s third wife, seemed perfect. Quieter and more placatory than Anne, she was always going to seem more suitable as a wife. But she died shortly after childbirth and so Henry was left alone once more. Had she not died, he may have lived with her happily ever after.

You may be seen as self-righteous, impossible to please or unforgiving. 

Thomas Cromwell would agree with this. Cromwell did what Henry asked and Henry still wasn’t happy with the result. His role in securing an ugly wife for Henry’s fourth marriage was a deal breaker.

Because you can’t share your real self with others, you feel lonely and have few close friends.

The Duke of Norfolk said ‘Henry was so troubled in his brain that he didn’t trust anyone alive’. Everyone knew it. One of his closest friends Charles Brandon ruined the friendship by marrying Henry’s sister. You’d think he would have been happy to have him as a brother-in-law but no.

Your lack of trust can evolve at times into full-blown paranoia.

When looking for a new wife, Henry suggested that the potential women parade up and down in front of him so he could look them over. When the French ambassador objected and suggested that someone else interviewed them in private, Henry said ’By God, I trust no one but myself’. I suspect delegation was harder for Henry the older he got.

Your relationships with others are shallow and non-threatening.

Mistresses would fit the bill here but actually his marriage to Katherine Howard, wife number 5 would too. She was a young, pretty thing – it can’t get shallower than that. I don’t think she would agree that it was non-threatening; she lost her head. That’s pretty threatening.

You suffer from depression because you feel isolated and trapped in a world that you don’t want to be in.

I think the older Henry got, the more angry and depressed he became. His physical energy and health got worse and worse, which tends to lead to depression. And you can’t get more trapped than being King 24-7 and not being able to take a holiday from the responsibility. His last wife, Katherine Parr was nurturing and caring towards him, which is what he needed. He also died knowing that his son Edward would become King after him, which would have eased his mind somewhat.

Henry VIII is a fascinating human being to study. His close relationship with his Mother and poor relationship with his Father also shaped him from a young age and as he was never supposed to be King, only becoming heir when his older brother Arthur died, he must have struggled to cope with the eyes of the world suddenly on him and a weight of responsibility on his shoulders. Whilst I have a lot of sympathy for his mental health, I’m not sure I would have wanted to meet him in person. From afar at a jousting match would have done me fine.

Kerrie Fuller is the creator of the Lost Tapes of History podcast where every week a British monarch is put into a modern context in an attempt to understand them in less than 20 minutes. Henry VIII and the Trust Therapist will be released on the May 4, 2021 and is available from all usual podcast directories.

Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?

In 1920 Britain was granted an official Mandate by the League of Nations to administer the country of Iraq - and ultimately allow it to achieve independence.

The whole affair, which lasted from the end of the First World War to independence in 1932, was largely a failure, with few flattering accounts and obligations often unfulfilled. It is from this point in time that the first underlying signs of declining British power are evidenced, while for Iraq it set a path to a fraught and unstable future.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

The British presence had been building up in Iraq since 1914 when her forces had removed the Ottomans from the region with domestic support. As soon as the British had expelled the Turks they were making encouraging noises that raised Iraq’s hopes of independence.  

The British, in the words of General Maude and High Commissioner Percy Cox, implied loudly that they came as liberators.  This was welcomed by Iraq, which already had nationalistic aspirations and expectations were raised.

The Ottomans previously allowed levels of autonomy to many areas of Iraq and the noises from the British were encouraging, but what followed was very different and did little to assuage growing Iraqi concerns as the British occupation continued.

The Post War Mandate

The League of Nations appointed the mandate to Britain in 1920 to run Iraq and lead her on the path to self- determination.  In retrospect it resembled a poorly disguised colonialism. 

Iraq offered a geographically strategic position as a potential overland route from Egypt through the Middle East to South East Asia.  Iraq filled a gap of land in the middle of a long run of British possessions. It would provide a useful alternative to the long and arduous sea lanes that had been threatened by submarine warfare.

There was also an urgent need to offset the cost of the war that Britain bore in the region.  The overland route would be safer, quicker, and - more importantly - cheaper as there would be less demand on oil from the navy. Whether this theory was correct or not, the later revolt and the cost of suppressing it made the economic debate moot. By the end of 1920 Britain could see further lost opportunities as her plans to monopolize the oil reserves also met US resistance and generated a reversal of policy.

Nevertheless, another possession in the oil rich region at the time could enhance Britain’s international leverage, and counter French and Russian influence in the region (in May 1920 the Red Army invaded Northern Persia further fuelling Bolshevik expansionist fears).  

Now Britain had the mandate it was the India Office that provided the administration to mobilize it.  It imposed a very prevalent British presence in all aspects of Iraqi life – that would prove very unpopular. 

The Uprising

The uprising that occurred in Iraq in 1920 was fuelled by an unrelenting nationalism that was growing years before the British presence whilst under Ottoman rule.  The very loud and public promises made by the British during the war now looked like they were going to be unfulfilled. Arnold Wilson and other British high commissioners treated peaceful petitions and representatives in a high-handed and often dismissive manner, which no doubt irked these nationalists.  

The various tribes were treated inconsistently, controversial taxes were established, and a questionable plebiscite was orchestrated that favored a British outcome. Much of the country was resentful, as they felt excluded from political decisions.  The India Office imposed colonial rules on all aspects of life that felt more restrictive than that of the Ottomans.

The British responded to the uprising by deploying the full force of the military, with Royal Air Force (RAF) support.  Despite the belief that Churchill was an advocate of the use of poison gas, this was not deployed but the use of the air-force’s bombing tactics was no less brutal than that used by Italy in Abyssinia against poorly equipped tribes.  It was all over very quickly by the end of the year, but it was not an easily fought campaign for the British.

The British had far superior forces at their disposal with the presence of the RAF. This should have put them at a far greater advantage than the less well-equipped tribes.  The revolt was suppressed in a few short months after a brutal response that cost 10,000 Iraqi lives, the bombing of mosques and the burning of villages. There were also defeats and retreats that bloodied the nose of this huge Imperial force. Humiliating examples were the seizing of HMS Firefly and her artillery by the tribes who turned the arsenal on the British and the retreats from Karbala and Najal (to name but two).  It was a humiliating situation for a Great Power.

After counting the cost of the revolt and the continued strain on the finances, Britain began to urgently push for Iraqi independence. When the final tally was counted the uprising cost the exchequer circa £40m and the continued occupation of Iraq would cost circa £20m per annum.  Policy now had to change.  There was then an interim approach in Iraq in the meantime - and that was in the form of a democratic offering of sorts.

The Veneer of Democracy 

It was clear that military intervention would not be enough to keep a sustained peace.  The British needed a friendly Iraqi government that they could still influence and control in the background, whilst at the same time creating a veneer of a democratic government.  In 1921 that friendly pro-British ruler took the form of King Faisal, a man who was in favor with the British for his support during the war.  After his expulsion by the French for his attempt to establish power in Syria he took an offer by the British to head up a ruling government in Iraq. Faisal was not representative of the varied and diverse population - and it would not satisfy the underlying tensions completely.

Meanwhile, the British, with successive high commissioners over this period, still pulled the political strings. Faisal’s new government was shored up by 300 Ottoman officers who fought for his side in the Great War, but a large proportion of the population was still left ignored and dissatisfied.  This discontentment would still bubble under the surface long after the 1932 independence. Iraq was never going to be the stable state that Britain promised under the auspices of the League of Nations. 

Economic Concessions

There are several views on Britain’s intentions with the oil and petroleum reserves that Iraq had.  David Lloyd George wanted to monopolize the oil and petrol reserves for British interests as there was a dependency on US and Mexican oil that was embarrassing to Britain - despite having an abundant and sufficient source with The Turkish Petroleum Company. 

This stance would soon change from a monopolistic policy to one of an open free market by allowing US investment. There were other ways that the oil could serve British interests and that did not necessitate having a monopoly.

The oil revenues would financially support the objectives of the mandate and offset the economic liability she had undertook. Iraq’s own resources would be used but when it came down to the bare facts the Iraqi nation would have no voice in how their own natural resources would be used.

The Conclusion – An empire in decline and a new nation broken

Before the war Iraq was modernizing and progressing into the Industrial world.  The building of the Suez Canal had opened her grain and wool markets to the world.  There was German and British interest in her vast petrol reserves as early as 1907.  The war and the Mandate era had set her far back.

Although Britain was not the originator of the nationalistic fervor it was her heavy handed and brutal response that did little to help Iraq’s future unity and stability, as King Faisal would later comment in his memoirs.

There were ominous signs for Britain also. The Empire was dangerously over-stretched, and cracks were now appearing in Ireland and India as well as Iraq.  Although the idea of Empire was still something the British were proud, other priorities were becoming more apparent on home shores. 

On paper the revolt should have not been as troublesome to suppress for a Great Power such as Britain, with the power of the RAF and mechanized divisions at her disposal to fight the local tribes. Considering the resources, the British had this was not an easily fought campaign, possibly a sign of waning military strength.

The drain on the British Exchequer was not insignificant and the economic situation was bleak at the time. This was something the public purse could not tolerate as Britain had over one million unemployed, the large majority being de-mobilized servicemen. By 1921 unemployment had risen to over two million with several major strikes taking place.  There was no room for troublesome additions to an already troubled Britain.

All these factors contributed to a less that half-hearted commitment to Iraq. By 1932 a poorly produced independence was handed over. There were no winners or favorable outcomes for Iraq but for Britain that small snippet of history held so many signs of the beginnings of imperial decline. 

What do you think of the British Empire and Iraq? Let us know below.

References

David E Omissi – Air Power and Colonial Controls, Manchester University Press 1990

Dr Toby Lodge – The British Mandate in Iraq 1914-32, Institute for Strategic Studies

Amal Vinograv – The 1920 Revolt in Iraq Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 1972

William Shrivers - International Politic and Iraqi Oil 1918-1928, Business History Review 1981 (Pages 517-540)

Judith Yaphe – War and Occupation in Iraq: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?  Middle Eastern Journal 2003, Middle East Institute

Has American Education been Watered Down?

American education has had significant changes since the 19th century. Here, Daniel L. Smith discusses the role of the Unitarian Church in the move to a more secular education system and modern-day school textbooks in America.

Daniel’s book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

The New England Primer, a key school textbook in 18th century America.

When I investigate societal breaks, I investigate morals, ethics, and presumptions. I also investigate cultural varieties and similarities through behavioral and customary tendencies. With that all being said, I am aware of a break in traditional (what was once known as normal) academic thinking at the break of the 20th century. This thinking spilled over into political discourse. Of course, this started well before that. I wrote about it in an article recently where I mentioned that there was a hairline fracture that split the thinking of American traditionalists and progressive intellectuals.

In the 19th going into the 20th century, the Unitarian Church (a secular "church") was the catalyst. Traditionalists (such as the clergy and church) began to slowly halt providing leadership in our public schools and universities (prior to this was a largely homeschooling education). Harvard was taken over by the Unitarian Church, and as the quality of public education began to decline, Horace Mann (the "father of progressive education") would convince the state of Massachusetts that the best way for education to grow would be to have the government take control, instead of the private sector (such as families and churches). [1]

As traditional American doctrine was neglected, the competing ideology of socialism took off. Karl Marx’s book, which was written in 1844, never had much influence in American society - that was until we had backslid from Christian principles of economics and dabbled even more in greed. Thus, monopolies would form and grow. Wealth was accumulated, instead of employing the extra wealth to meet the needs of the poor and society itself. Self-culture (or individual interest) began to replace the common good of the community. What followed was indoctrination into “self-culture,” a human thought process of “me, myself, and I” which closely follows materialism. To break open a political divide for control and power, there must be a catalyst to enable this cultural shift. Thus, secular humanism was born.

Intercollegiate Socialist Society

Marshall Foster writes that: “in the loft restaurant above Peck’s restaurant at 140 Fulton Street in lower Manhattan, a group of young men met to plan the overthrow of the predominately Christian world-view that still pervaded America. At this first meeting five men were present: Upton Sinclair, a writer and a socialist; Jack London, writer; Thomas Wentworth Higginson, a Unitarian minister; J.G. Phelps Stokes, husband of a socialist leader; and Clarence Darrow, a lawyer.

Their organization was called the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. Their purpose was to ‘promote an intelligent interest in socialism among college men and women.’ These men were ready to become the exponents of an idea passed on to them by an obscure writer named Karl Marx—a man who never tried to be self-supporting but was supported by a wealthy industrialist who believed in his theory of ‘the dictatorship of the proletariat.’ Although a small group in the beginning, these adherents of socialism more than succeeded in their task.

“By using the proven method of gradualism, taken from the Roman general, Quintus Fabius Maximus, these men and others who joined with them slowly infiltrated” the public schools of our nation. By 1912 there were chapters in 44 colleges. By 1917 there were 61 chapters of student study groups of the League of Industrial Democracy. “At that time John Dewey, the godfather of progressive education, was the vice-president of the league. By 1941 Dewey had become president and Reinhold Niebuhr, the liberal socialist theologian, was the treasurer.” [3]

The beginning of the end of traditional America had become entrenched. Dr. Stephen K. McDowell mentions that “the loss of Christian tradition, character, and responsibility led to the failure of many banks in the early 1900’s. To remedy this situation, power was granted to a centralized Federal Reserve Board in 1913. But this unbiblical economic structure and lack of character produced many more problems. Within 20 years, the Stock Market had crashed, and America was in the midst of the Great Depression.” [4] With the propagation of socialism, people were ready for Roosevelt's “New Deal,” such as Social Security and other welfare agencies, which ultimately set up the state as provider, rather than God.

Textbooks

Our history, as of the 1900s, has been manipulated to make certain academic agendas fit the needs of a political end. A great example is the evidence in our academic texts over the course of this time.

Professor Paul C. Vitz conducted a government-funded study the 1980s on whether bias exists in public school textbooks. His study clearly showed bias and censorship exists, and the nature of the bias is clear: “Religion, traditional family values, and conservative political and economic positions have been reliably excluded from children’s textbooks.” [5]

Vitz wrote that while the bias may not be deliberate, a “secular and liberal mindset appears to be responsible.” And he points out that the bias is primarily manifested by exclusion. As an example, “sixty representative social studies textbooks were carefully evaluated” and “none of the books covering grades 1 through 4 contain one word referring to any religious activity in contemporary American life.” While these social studies texts mention the family, “the idea that marriage is the origin and foundation of the family is never presented. The words marriage, wedding, husband, wife, do not occur once in these books.” [6] It is not surprising why so many Americans today reject the biblical view of the world (let alone history and family).

An excerpt from Dr. Stephen K. McDowell, co-founder, and President of the Providence Foundation, mentions: "The social studies texts frequently presented 'role models' but 'not one contemporary role model is conservative and male.” High school U.S. history texts almost completely ignored major religious events of the past 200 years and there was “constant omission of reference to the large role that religion has always played in American life.” This was true for elementary texts as well. In one second grade history book, 30 pages were given to the Pilgrims, but they were “described entirely without any reference to religion.” At the end of the first year they observed a day of Thanksgiving, but no mention is made of the fact that they gave thanks to God.

Christian bias via exclusion continues in current textbooks. For example, one recent history text quotes the Mayflower Compact: 'We whose names are under-written … do by these presents solemnly and mutually in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politick.' What was omitted from this important historical document? Their clear Christian motive: “for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith and honor of our king and country, a voyage to plant the first colonie in the Northern parts of Virginia.”

Bias is not only expressed by exclusion but also by changing the meaning of a text or writing. One U.S. History Advanced Placement textbook summarizes the Second Amendment as, 'The people have the right to keep and bear arms in a state militia,' which is an inaccurate meaning of the amendment which clearly states, 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' This same text says the First Amendment gives us a 'separation of church and state,' failing to explain this amendment does not separate God from government or religious ideas from public life. Rather, it acknowledges a jurisdictional separation between the institution of civil government and the institution of the church.

Misrepresenting motives is another means of bias. Under the heading 'Roots of American Government,' a popular seventh-grade Houghton Mifflin Social Studies textbook expounds: 'Enlightenment thinkers in the American Colonies were excited. Here they were, the first people in history to have the chance to create an entirely new government based on Enlightenment Principles.' However, America was not created by Enlightenment thinkers on Enlightenment ideas, but according to John Adams, the general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were … the general principles of Christianity.'

In conclusion

This is confirmed in a study done on the influence of Enlightenment thinkers on the political ideas of the Founding Fathers. Professor Donald Lutz conducted an exhaustive ten-year research of about 15,000 political documents of the Founders’ Era, recording every reference our Founders made to other sources. By far, the most quoted source of their political ideas was the Bible, 34% of citations, and about 50% of the other citations came from men with a biblical worldview.

“Some texts teach direct lies, like a high school history textbook published by Pearson that teaches Donald Trump is mentally ill and his supporters are racists. In other texts the Founders of America are often presented as atheists, agnostics, or secularists who wanted no religious influence in public life, when in fact, all but a couple of the signers of the Declaration and two or three members of the Constitutional Convention were orthodox Christians who believed the foundation of free nations rests on the Christian faith." [7] 

It is the above-mentioned analysis on education that feeds into the most common misconceptions and errors - of replacing traditional thought and history, which was considered normal prior to 1900. I feel this is by far the most harmful to learning when developing an accurate history and historical interpretation of early American encounters.

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here), and an early European expedition to America (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Beliles, Mark A., and Stephen K. McDowell. America's Providential History: Including Biblical Principles of Education, Government, Politics, Economics, and Family Life, 253. 1989.

[2] Field, Peter S. 2001. ""the Transformation of Genius into Practical Power": Relph Waldo Emerson and the Public Lecture." Journal of the Early Republic 21 (3) (Fall): 467-493.

[3] Foster, Marshall, and Mary-Elaine Swanson. The American Covenant: The Untold Story, xvii. Mayflower Inst, 1983.

[4] Beliles and McDowell, 250-251.

[5] Paul C. Vitz, Censorship, Evidence of Bias in Our Children’s Textbooks, Ann Arbor, Mich.: Servant Books, 1986, p. 1.

[6] Vitz, 1.

[7] McDowell, Stephen K. "A Nation at Risk: Changing Textbooks Reveal the Secularization of American Education." Providence Foundation. Accessed February 13, 2021. https://providencefoundation.com/a-nation-at-risk-changing-textbooks-reveal-the-secularization-of-american-education/