Why was the Nazi’s Luftwaffe Air Force in Terminal Decline by September and October 1944?

The Nazi Luftwaffe air force played a key role in World War II, causing havoc as it rampaged through Europe in the early years of the war. However, by 1944 it was in terminal decline. Here, Matt Whittaker looks at the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s decline by focusing on September and October 1944.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 in September 1943. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-487-3066-04 / Boyer / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Introduction

The Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe, was in a critical spot in September and October 1944. Germany was fighting a three-front war each with demands that put pressure on the economy. The Allied bombing campaign had grown since the start of the year, wreaking havoc with economic and oil industry targets. The D-Day landings in June increased the stresses that wrecked the Luftwaffe in the West.

By September, the Germans got an unexpected gift from the Allies: logistics problems. The Allies could not keep their forces sufficiently supplied. This led to a halt to most pursuit, giving their opponents some space. The air war did not slow, however.

The biggest three issues the Luftwaffe faced were:

1.     The Numbers Game

2.     Fuel Shortages

3.     Training Cuts

The Numbers Game

The battles above Normandy and the attempt to slow the Allied bombing campaign drained the Luftwaffe. Air defense squadrons sent west as reinforcements returned at half strength. Such was the ferocity of the battles from June to August that only 175 operational fighters were available to fight by mid-September (1). 

A big contributor was the change in American fighter tactics. Escort fighters were now freed from the bombers to range ahead, clearing any opposition. Luftwaffe groups were broken up before they organized. Airfields were strafed or fighters lurked, waiting to pounce as their opponents landed. The German pilots tangled with increasingly larger American fighter groups with inexperienced pilots and heavily armed, cumbersome bomber destroyers like FW-190s. Many were shot down before even reaching the bombers. 

On September 11, 1944 the Luftwaffe intercepted an American raid heading for oil refineries. 350 fighters were sent against 700 fighters and 1,100 bombers. 305 made contact with the bombers and escorts; 110 were shot down for a loss rate of 36% (2).  A number of bombers were destroyed, but the Americans could accept such losses. Since early 1944 raids of 1,000 plus bombers and escorts were the norm. Interceptions resulted in high losses with many pilots killed in action (KIA).

September and October were the best wartime production months for Germany, despite strategic bombing. Of 3,821 aircraft that were produced in September, 80% were fighters (3). Despite this increase, the loss rate stayed par with deliveries. Gas and pilot shortages kept many of the planes from being utilized.

Fuel Shortages

The worst predicament facing the Luftwaffe by the fall was the lack of fuel. Since the start of the war, the fuel supply was a great concern. Germany possessed few natural sources. Much of the supply came from the Soviet Union, other Axis governments like Romania or, later, synthetic production. Much has been written about the efforts to protect sites like Ploesti from Allied bombing. 

Beginning in January 1944 the American heavy bombers made a concentrated effort to target Axis refineries and synthetic oil plants. By May, the raids had reduced the output from most sources of aviation gas by 90 percent (4).  These deficiencies could not easily be made up due to the damage. The raids, which had only slowed to support the D-Day campaign, were renewed after August. Flight operations drew on existing fuel supplies which were not replenished quickly. Starting in September, the Luftwaffe grounded many squadrons, leaving mostly fighters because of the shortfalls. Spare ground personnel were formed into infantry units; some were used in the fight at Arnhem. 

The Luftwaffe had to operate with 10% of its fuel requirements for September and October. All manner of methods were undertaken to reduce usage. Pilots had orders not to taxi upon landing or takeoff. Planes were moved with teams of oxen to tow planes into position or hangars.  The shortages cut severely into operations, reducing interceptions and ground attack requests. During Operation Market Garden, more Allied aircraft were downed by flak, rather than in combat. Occasional attacks were made against bridgeheads or supply depots, but the Luftwaffe was seldom seen.

Training Cuts

The double problems of fuel scarcity and rising attrition led to increasing cuts in training hours for novice Luftwaffe pilots. Total hours were cut, starting in 1941. This only grew worse, especially as the war expanded further into Russia, Africa, and the Mediterranean. Losses started to exceed the number of pilots graduating flight schools for service. The increasing clashes with more numerous Allied fighters led to a high death rate. By fall, the average lifespan of a fighter pilot was between 8 and 30 days (5). In an attempt to increase the number of active pilots, bomber squadrons were converted to fighters and flight instructors were transferred to the front lines. The German flight schools reduced hours but even more so with the front-line types that were used. Novice pilots got basic and some advanced instruction but much less in the operational models. German pilots averaged 60 hours of training while British RAF pilots had 225 hours (6).  

As with frontline groups, training fuel allotments were cut, feeding the cycle. Perhaps the greatest hindrance was the introduction of fighters like the P-51, which meant that nowhere in Germany was safe for training. The escorts flew ahead of the bomber streams or in free flights, looking for opportunities. Training flights or their airfields were attacked which meant further reductions.

Conclusion

These two crucial months were when the Luftwaffe’s back was broken. Losses in the first six months of the year led to Allied air supremacy. Still, pressure was building on all fronts but more so in the West. The ramping up of the strategic bombing campaign and the consistent targeting of the fighter arm culminated in this timeframe. Airplane manufacturing reached all-time highs in the fall but increased losses, fewer replacement pilots and a dearth of fuel resulted in an unrecoverable spiral.

Despite the best efforts of its leadership, the Luftwaffe of September and October 1944 was outmatched and outgunned. The short respite while the Allies played logistical catch-up from their advance didn’t last. By the end of October, that spiral was too great.

What do you think of the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s weakening in September and October 1944? Let us know below.

References

1 Zaloga, Steven J., Campaign 270 Operation Market Garden The American Airborne Missions (London: Osprey Publishing 2014), p. 1.

2 Caldwell, Donald and Muller, Richard, The Luftwaffe Over Germany Defense of the Reich (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. 2014), p. 452.

 3 February 22, 2013 MILAVIA Military Aviation Specials - The Luftwaffe's Comeback in Autumn 1944

 4 May 24, 2016 Luftwaffe Lovers: The role of synthetic fuel in World War II Germany - implications for today by Dr. Peter W. Becker

 5 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 302

 6 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 452

The Origins of Sesame Street

Sesame Street is an American cultural institution. It started in 1969 and is produced to this day. Here, Douglas Reid looks at the origins of the show.

Then First Lady Barbara Bush on Sesame Street in October 1989.

Do you recall these lines in a song from 1965? 

Counting flowers on the wall,

That don’t bother me at all.

Playing solitaire ‘til dawn,

With a deck of fifty one

Smokin’ cigarettes and

Watchin’ Captain Kangaroo

So don’t tell me I’ve nothing to do”

It is certainly the case that Captain Kangaroo held sway in 1965 but a little green frog was in the wings and he and his muppet gang were about to sweep the clouds away and with them Mr. Bob Keesham, a.k.a. Captain Kangaroo. The prime sweeper was Jim Henson. His early main assistant was Frank Oznowicz, forever after to be known as Frank O. Early additions included Joe Raposo and Caroll Edwin Spinney, who was a child-like man both on and off the set. It can be no surprise that he was Big Bird. Two other major muppets were Cookie Monster (my favorite) and Grover. And the key non-muppet in those early days was Lloyd Morrisette. The next item to be looked at was a name for the show and here is a tale to tell.

A cluster of eight people who made up the Friday afternoon meeting had only one name considered at the time but nobody but nobody liked it – Sesame Street. It was being used tentatively only. Every one hated it. One board member thought it had too many ‘esses.’ Another found it unimaginative. And so on. Then it was decided that until something was agreeable to all they would go with the interim name. No one did and that begs the question, where did the name come from in the first place? 

The name

Just one week earlier Virginia Schoen, a representative of the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW), asked the children to suggest names for the new show and they submitted seven names for her to consider. One of the choices was Sesame Street. And so it prevailed. Virginia never was able to identify the five-year old name-giver. The group had a name for the production. Now it needed a set.

Earlier In the year the CTW had decided that its home base would not be Los Angeles. The unanimous choice was New York. It was felt that the sorts of people needed for this enterprise were to be more easily found here. First a locum was needed.

The board, when first formed, had decided on a set that was a mirror image of contemporary Harlem. A suitable faux Brownstone was erected; complete with stoop and the address for the Brownstone would be 123 Sesame Street. By now it was time to call on good old Joe Reposo for Sesame’s new theme music.

Theme tune

Joe composed the theme music for Sesame Street. It is melodic and simple enough for a child to recognize and even to sing along to but still revealed a musical sophistication. It underscored the footage of joyful children running and the recurring chorus – “Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?” So do you ever wonder where the Children’s Television Workshop finds its stories, banter, plays, etc.? Here is a typical “Solve” achieved by the muppets themselves:

Muppets are sitting around a coffee table pretending they are suits (executives).

“Alright, all right. How about this for a title. ‘The two and two are five show.’”

Conference Leader Muppet, ‘Are you crazy? This is supposed to be an educational show. Two plus two don’t make five.’

First Muppet: they don’t? Then how about the two plus two ain’t five show? 

Second Muppet: This is a show for kids. Right? How’s about we call it the little Kiddie show?

All: Sounds all right! We like it!

Third Muppet: But we ought to say something about the show telling it like it is. Maybe the Nitty-Gritty, Little kiddie Show! 

All: Not bad! Yeah! We like that! 

Fourth Muppet: Yeah but “Little Kiddie” can mean any child up to the age of seven or eight. I think we should aim the show right at the preschooler. 

First Muppet: Well then, how about the Itty – Bitty, Nitty – Gritty, Little Kiddie Show? 

Fifth Muppet: But we shouldn’t aim at either just the city kids, or just the country kids, so we call it the Itty – Bitty, Farm and City, Witty – Ditty, Nitty –Gritty, Dog and Kitty, Pretty Little Kiddie Show. 

Judy Collins

By the mid-seventies the Muppets were in full stride. If there ever was a perfect guest on Sesame Street it was Judy Collins. On the day in 1975 that Judy Collins recorded “The Fisherman’s Song” for Sesame Street, a gaggle of Muppets formed an “old salt chorus, some bedecked in yellow oil-skin slickers. It was a scene right out of Gloucester harbor, with nets and lobster traps strewn about and a lighthouse in the distance. Strumming an autoharp at tempo that recalled a sea shanty, Collins poured out the melody clear and true as the Muppets harmonized and danced about. The puppeteers were Jane Henson, Frank Oz, Richard Hunt and Jerry Nelson, invisible to the eye of the camera, but palpable in presence. 

It was an enchantment of a performance. There are other highlights of the visits of Judy Collins that I recall. There was the operatic-alphabetic duet she sang with Snuffleupagus. To a mock – Mozart score, Collins and Snuffy flowed around the street dancing a mini-minuet. 

Judy Collins credited Sesame Street for extending the depth and breadth of her fan base. “People would come up to me at concerts and tell me how much they loved the Yes and No song I did with Bert and Ernie. They were little children when it first aired. They grew up and started coming to my shows.” For them, during a critically important time in their childhood, Sesame Street was the best of all television. If there is, or has been, anything more in sync with a happy, wholesome, and funny childhood on television I have yet to meet it.

Conclusion

However, some teachers are not best pleased – not all by any means and seldom high school teachers. The perpetrators claim little kids come to them already familiar with basic arithmetic and quite at home with the alphabet. This is bad? Apparently they find it too difficult to blend with their own lesson plans. Neither am I a fan of “lesson plans” but that is for another essay on another day. They act the part of being at odds with something wondrous.

I loved Sesame Street as a little person and as a big person. Now that I have no choice but to always be thoughtful and acting like a serious big person I will attempt to leave this stage with all proper decorum:

Me Like Cookie

Me eat Cookie

UMM-UM-UM-UM-UM

What do you think of Sesame Street? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

The Third Indian Mughal Emperor: Emperor Akbar in Power

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-and-a-half, we continue our 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 years in power including his military conquests, religious tolerance, his family, his court, and Din-e-Ilahi.

If you missed them, you can read part one in the series on the first Mughal Emperor Babur here, part 2 on Emperor Humayun here, and the start of part 3 on Emperor Akbar here.

Akbar holding a religious assembly of different faiths in the Ibadat Khana in Fatehpur Sikri.

Upon reaching the age of nineteen, Emperor Akbar finally gained sole power over his empire. His reign was filled with constant warfare because he was establishing and consolidating the Mughal Empire. A way to do that was to establish good relations with other powerful communities. Thus in 1562, Akbar married a Rajput princess, which resulted in creating a union with the Rajput community. The Rajputs were a warrior group and they provided Akbar with a strong army. Therefore, marrying into the Rajput tribe made military and political sense. Akbar even began laying the foundations for religious tolerance in his empire, which would make him popular among his non-Muslim subjects.

Religious tolerance

In 1563, Akbar was out hunting near Mathura, a place of pilgrimage of the Hindus. It was on his trip that he discovered that for Hindus to gain access to their holy place they had to pay a tax to his officers, a practice that had been set up by previous Muslim emperors. Akbar felt that it was unfair for his people to pay just to go to a place of worship, so he passed a law which forbid the practice of such taxation. A year later, in 1564, Akbar abolished Jizya (a tax that was supposed to be paid by non-believers). This action made the Hindu community and others happy because the removal of the Jizya tax meant that now everyone was more equal in the Mughal Empire. 

Many Muslim rulers before Akbar had Hindu wives; however, Akbar was the one who allowed them to practice their religion freely in the Harem. As his reign progressed, Akbar made many concessions to Hindu customs, even taking part in their ceremonies. Akbar began changing his routines, as Bamber Gascoigne writes:

“…introducing their festivals at court and having newly washed and painted cows brought into his presence after Diwali, letting his hair grow long in a Hindu fashion and adopting a Rajput style of turban, even on occasions wearing the tilak, the Hindu sectarial or ornamental mark made on the forehead.”

Such changes began to alarm the orthodox Muslim communities, who thought that Akbar was moving away from his faith; however, there was a political reason behind such changes. Akbar understood that he needed the consent of both religious groups to maintain stable rule. Also, in his youth he had been greatly influenced by his teacher Mir Abdul Latif, who would emphasize the principle of sulh-i-kull or religious tolerance. Akbar would keep these teachings in his mind.

Militarized Reign

In the beginning of Akbar’s reign, his battles had been assisted by regents. Once he gained complete independence, in 1564, he conquered the kingdom of Gondwana. Then in 1567, Akbar turned his attention to Chitor and in October he arrived outside the fort. However, this victory was not to be an easy one, the fort was strongly built and after months of siege, it was only in February 1568 that Akbar and his army finally breeched the gate of the Chitor Fort. Even though victorious, Akbar sullied this victory when he massacred all the innocents residing within the fort. 

There was another hindrance to Akbar’s expansion. Bihar and Bengal were causing problems for the young, ambitious king. But, in 1572, Suleiman Karrani (ruler of Bihar and Bengal) made a weak peace with Akbar. When the two cities were no more a threat, Akbar shifted his focus, and a year later conquered Gujarat. In 1575, Suleiman died, and Akbar used this opportunity to bring Bihar and Bengal under his control.

Threats to Akbar’s reign did not only come from the Hindu kings, but he also faced a threat from his half-brother Hakim. In Kabul, there was a struggle between Hakim and his cousins Suleiman and Shahrukh. Akbar remained alert, keeping his armies ready in case there was a need to fight his relatives. In 1580, Akbar’s fears were realized when Hakim marched on the Punjab and besieged Lahore. Ultimately though, Akbar was victorious in putting an end to the uprisings, which had represented the greatest threat to his empire. 

Warfare was not the only method that Akbar used to win over territory. He steadily extended his control over Rajasthan, by marrying into its ruling houses, thus securing alliances with the Hindu Rajputs.

Family

Akbar married 35 times, the first time in 1552 to Princess Ruqaiah Sultan, at the tender age of 9. Out of the 35, 12 women were Rajput princesses. Akbar may have been married to several princesses by the age of 20; however, there was still no heir to the throne. The lack of heirs caused Akbar to worry about the security of the empire that he was creating, and he was disheartened by the absence of a son. He found hope when he heard of the Sufi saint named Sheikh Salim Chishti who lived near the village of Sikri, some twenty miles from Agra. Akbar walked barefoot to Sikri, dressed in simple clothing. He requested the saint to pray on his behalf and to ask God to grant him a son. The saint replied favorably to the king’s request, saying that he would have three sons. 

In 1569, Akbar’s prayers were answered when a Rajput princess gave birth to Prince Salim (the future Emperor Jahangir). A year later, Prince Murad was born, followed by Prince Daniyal two years later. Akbar’s empire was secure; it finally had the heir (and the spare heir) it longed for.

Court life of Akbar

Akbar’s court was graced by many intellectuals and creatives; he is the first and only Mughal that had the Navratna (nine gems). The nine gems consisted of very talented individuals: Abul Fazl, Faizi, Todar Mal, Abdul Rahim Khan, Tansen, Raja Man Singh, Faqir Aziao Din, Mullah Do Piaza, and Birbal. Abdul Fazl chronicled the life of Emperor Akbar, Tanzen was a great musician, but the most famous of the nine gems was Birbal. He had a very close relationship with Akbar, their friendship has become famous through media and books.  

Akbar was influenced by others throughout his life; therefore, although he continued to grant land and titles to his courtiers, he always kept a close eye upon them to ensure that no one would try to usurp power from him.

Din-e-Ilahi

Akbar’s religious tolerance meant that he wanted religious scholars from different communities to come together for dialogue that would help narrow the gap between them. Therefore, he created the Ibadat-khana, a place where religious debate could be held. Unfortunately, he soon became disillusioned by the attitudes of the scholars who would lose their temper upon minor issues and even abused one another, seeing that no matter how much these scholars argued they could not settle their differences. Akbar had hoped to establish a peace between the different communities but when he saw that would be very difficult, he did something unexpected; he created his own religion. 

Din-i-Ilahi means ‘Religion of God’ or ‘Divine Religion.’ Annemarie Schimmel writes:

“There are widely varying interpretations about din-i-Ilahi. Akbar’s opponents considered it to be merely an ersatz religion, and it does appear to have been a kind of esoteric club for select members.”

In contrast Zeenut Ziad argues that it was an order or brotherhood, rather than a new religion. He writes: “For Muslims like Badauni the Din-I Ilahi seemed to mean that the emperor had willingly and wittingly left Islam and now posed as the founder of a new religion; that is, he had assumed, so to speak, a prophetic role.” 

Din-i-Ilahi was not followed by many people, and so it gradually ended after Akbar’s death in 1605. 

Conclusion

Akbar may not have been the first Mughal to enter India, but he was the one who created a strong empire that was secure for several generations after. He tried to ensure that all his subjects were treated more equally, regardless of their religion. And he expanded the borders of the empire, which ensured that his heirs were left with enough wealth so that they could sustain themselves. 

What do you think of Emperor Akbar? Let us know below.

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

Five Amazing Things About King Henry VIII’s ‘Fixer’ - Thomas Cromwell

History has portrayed Thomas Cromwell (circa 1485 to 1540) as the ambitious fixer of King Henry VIII of England. Here, C. M. Schmidlkofer looks at Cromwell’s life, including five interesting aspects.

Thomas Cromwell, 1530s. Painting attributed to Hans Holbein the Younger.

Born a commoner, Cromwell reached unheard of heights of political power under Henry Tudor, who bestowed upon him numerous titles typically reserved for English royalty. By the end of his life in 1540, Cromwell was the most powerful person under the King.

An attorney by trade, Cromwell came into the King’s service after the Lord Chancellor Cardinal Wolsey fell from the King’s grace. Cromwell assisted Wolsey in dissolving numerous monasteries to fund the Cardinal College and The King’s School, Ipswich.

Cromwell was already a member of the Privy Council in 1531 and was subsequently awarded offices starting with Master of the King’s Jewel House in 1932 to Earl of Essex in 1540.

Cromwell worked behind the scenes to pave the way for Lady Anne Boleyn to become Henry’s second wife and queen, to removing her six years later and ultimately to her beheading and arranging Henry’s fourth marriage to Anne of Cleves, which led to his downfall (Henry didn’t like Anne, although he married her anyway, divorcing her not long afterwards). 

But writers such as Hilary Mantel – author of the Wolf Hall trilogy - have dug deep into old letters and documents of the time, resulting in what one may call a “softer” side of this complex and mysterious man.

1.     Cromwell may have had a “thing” for Mary Tudor

There is evidence that Cromwell worked on behalf of King Henry VIII’s displaced first daughter, Mary Tudor, when the King divorced her mother, Queen Catherine of Aragon, after 24 years to marry Anne Boleyn.

Because Mary refused to acknowledge the second marriage and her new status as an illegitimate offspring, displeasing King Henry, she was placed in the service of Boleyn’s aunt as well as her toddler half-sister, Elizabeth, and refused access to her imprisoned mother who refused to accept the divorce. 

Numerous letters between Mary and Cromwell during this time indicate he sometimes acted as an intermediary between Mary and Henry when it came to Catherine’s imprisonment and Mary’s banishment from court. The overall tone indicates a level of compassion and possibly affection.

Once father and daughter reconciled (by Mary finally conceding to Henry’s wishes after Catherine’s death), rumors swirled that Cromwell had an interest in marriage to Lady Mary, which did not please King Henry and concerned Cromwell’s ever-present detractors.

Historians speculate that Lady Mary was godmother to Cromwell’s first child, which would have fit into his plans to secure future postings from the king for his family.

In addition, there is some thought among historians that Lady Mary was godmother to Cromwell’s first grandchild, born in 1537. 

2.     Cromwell was generous 

According to historians, Cromwell was a devoted and loving parent. And he used his powerful positions under King Henry VIII to promote and protect his family, friends and those in service in his enormous household.

Thomas Cranmer was one helped by Cromwell, who engineered Cranmer’s rise to archbishop, thus paving the way for Henry to be created Leader of the Church of England, ultimately leading to Henry’s divorce from Queen Catherine to marry Lady Mary Boleyn. 

When Thomas More, the former Lord Chancellor, was imprisoned in the Tower, it was Cromwell who made sure he had the basic necessities and, according to Mantel, gently tried coaxing his old friend to support the King’s efforts to save his life. More would not abandon his religious leanings, however, and ended up being executed for treason.

It is estimated Cromwell fed from his own kitchen up to 200 people who appeared at his gates daily. He took in the unfortunate and waifs, providing shelter, food and employment and, when not busy with the King’s work, created social and economic reforms to improve conditions for the less fortunate. 

3.     Cromwell’s new laws had some benefits

Cromwell is credited for most of the foundations for England’s departments of state, many of which are still in place today.

His reformations made each parish responsible for its own poor and instituted the practice of registering events such as marriages, deaths and baptisms in parish records. 

His new laws helped cities with sewage and water distribution as well.

While raiding the monasteries, abbeys and nunneries of their wealth to line the King’s pockets, Cromwell also created laws requiring parishes to help the homeless and jobless and new tax laws requiring merchants and noblemen to help fund almshouses.

By founding two courts of Wards and Surveyors, he created a more efficient way for taxation and leasing, and by extending sovereign authority into northern England, Wales and Ireland, he created a politically integrated kingdom.

4.     Cromwell had Protestant Leanings

Despite Cromwell’s devotion to Cardinal Wolsey, he took risks for Protestantism and skillfully promoted Reformers into the Cardinal’s service.

Those promotions consisted of young scholars who were well-paid staff on Wolsey’s Oxford College, now known as Christchurch, and were found to be Protestants to everyone’s surprise.

According to Cromwell’s friend, John Fox, Cromwell was introduced to the Reformation after reading a new translation of the Bible. Erasmus translated the Bible into new Latin from Greek, which created interest in people to look at religion in a new way, and Fox believes that is what started Cromwell on the road to Reformation.

Ultimately, Fox pointed to Cromwell’s final words at the scaffold in 1540, which included no references to the prevailing Catholic beliefs mandated by King Henry.

While he started his speech stating he was dying as a Catholic, he did not request prayers or masses for his soul when he died, which was unusual enough for witnesses to note.

His final prayer indicated Lutheran leanings – which his judgment by God would be by faith alone rather than following the Catholic protocol.

5.     Cromwell was multilingual

In a time when travel outside of the country was highly unusual for the common man, Cromwell spoke fluent French and Italian, and perhaps Greek and Spanish.

Historians credit Cromwell’s stint in the French army and years spent in Italy for learning those languages, but it is unclear how he learned Greek and Spanish, only that he may have thought being able to speak those languages would be useful to him at some point. It is generally agreed Cromwell learned Latin through schooling or reading.

What do you think of Thomas Cromwell? Let us know below.

The Modern Greek State: 1827-1862 – A Bad Start

On March 25, 2021, the modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1827, when Ioannis Capodistrias was appointed governor of the New Greek State, until 1862, the year of the deposition of King Otto I. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

A depiction of King Otto I, leader of Greece from 1832 to 1862.

Introduction

Following the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453, the Greek world did not dissolve. It remained organized around its church, with its own aristocracy in Constantinople, serving in the Ottoman administration, and in local communities, responsible for maintaining order and collecting taxes. It also had its own armed groups of kleftes and armatoloi, men that had served in foreign armies, experienced sailors and war ready navy.

This organization of the Greeks was utilized before and during the War of Independence initiated in 1821, when an internal crisis of the Empire required Ottoman forces to fight against the ambitious Ali Pasha of Ioannina. Despite the Ottoman crisis, the time was not favorable. The turbulent period after the French Revolution and the horror of the Napoleonic Wars that followed, made the European powers hostile against any movement that could reignite the previous turmoil. 

Nevertheless, astonishing Greek victories during the first two years of the war and Ottoman atrocities against civilians caused a wave of support for the Greeks among many Europeans. These Philhellenes collected and disposed money and other resources for the success of the war or even came to Greece to fight side by side with the Greeks. In their eyes the rebels were children of antiquities’ Greats, fighting to free themselves from the Ottoman yoke. (Kakouri, 2019) (Kostis, 2018)

The bad start begins

One would expect that the Greeks would try to build on this favorable turn of events. They did not. After 1823, the leading groups of the war (repatriates, local elites and chieftains) engaged in a civil war, fighting for privileges and power in a state that did not even exist yet. At the same time, the sultan agreed with Muhammad Ali Pasha of Egypt to send the latter’s son Ibrahim to suppress the revolt in Greece. 

The Greeks, preoccupied with their own rivalries, had very little to oppose Ibrahim. The turn of events though is another lesson in the primacy of the dynamics of the international system over the forces at the disposal of one of its lesser members. Conflicting interests between Russia and Great Britain regarding the integrity of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the Protocol of London, co-signed by France, granting autonomy to the Greeks.

The critical issues of the definition of the borders of the autonomous state and obtaining resources for its organization would be tackled by Ioannis Capodistrias, the first governor of the modern Greek State. He was elected by the third National Assembly on April 6, 1827 for a term of seven years. (Evaggelidis T. , 1996) (Divani, 2010)

Ioannis Capodistrias

Ioannis Antonios Capodistrias was born in Corfu in 1776 to a noble family of the island and was a distinguished diplomat at the service of Russia. He arrived in Greece in January 1828 knowing that he had to act fast. The European Powers were proceeding with their plans and French forces were to drive Ibrahim out of the Peloponnese. If Greece wanted to have a say on the definition of its borders, Greek forces had to pursue gains in Central Greece also. Furthermore, law and order had to be restored and basic state functions needed to be established so that Greece could claim (some) self-determination. 

The new Governor worked hard and in a short time managed to reorganize the army, so achieving significant territorial gains in Central Greece. (Malesis, 2018 ) At the same time Great Britain opted for an independent Greece to work as a counterbalance to the Russians who emerged victorious out of a new Russo – Ottoman war (April 1828 to September 1829). Indeed, with another protocol signed on February 3, 1830 Russia, France and Great Britain recognized the independence of the modern Greek State.  

Capodistrias did not only sow the seeds for a national army and navy or deal with foreign policy. In a very short time, he managed to eliminate piracy and improve public safety. He created a national bank and issued national currency, the phoenix. He introduced the farming of maize and potato, products unknown to Greeks at the time, and established an Agricultural School. He also established a Military Academy, monitorial schools and orphanages. He oversaw the imposition of taxes and tariffs. Justice was to be administered by State Courts.

Capodistrias’ was aware of the power games between local elites and anticipated their reaction. In order to restrict their freedom of movement, he succeeded in suspending the force of the constitution voted during the 3rd National Assembly in 1827. The reorganization of the army also aimed at breaking the bonds between the soldiers and local chieftains. At the same time, although Capodistrias made sure that entrusted persons, like his brothers, assumed key positions in the state mechanism, he also appointed some of the elite members to government bodies, like the Senate, or as officers in the army in order to gain their support. 

The Greek notables were seeing ulterior motives in most of the governor’s actions though. He wanted to cut the bonds between the soldiers and their leaders (reorganization of the army). He wanted to keep the people uneducated (Capodistrias considered that, during the first years of the New State, it was more important for the Greeks to learn to read and write and established monitorial schools, but not universities). And finally, he wanted to become a lifelong leader of Greece (suspension of the constitution, appointment of family members to key government positions). Capodistrias’ position was further undermined by the Protocol of 1830, commanding that the independent Greek State would be ruled by a hereditary monarchy. Thus, his rule was temporary. 

 The opposition did not restrain itself to verbal accusations against the government. In fact, it undertook surprisingly harsh actions that were against the interests of Greece - and not only its government. The most striking perhaps was the seizure of principal ships of the Greek fleet by admiral Andreas Miaoulis, a hero of the War of Independence. In order to limit Capodistrias’ abilities for naval operations, in July 1831 Miaoulis blew up the ships bought with the limited resources of the State to guarantee its security. 

Another revolt took place at Mani, in southern Peloponnese, where Petrobey Mavromichalis, another hero of the war was a key figure. Relations between the Mavromichalis clan and Capodistrias were tense because of the attempts to create a centralized state. Mavromichalis was arrested by Capodistrias, found guilty for high treason and put in to jail. The imprisonment of Petrobey brought Konstantinos and Georgios Mavromichalis, the son of Petrobey, to Nafplio, where they were put under police supervision. Nevertheless, they managed to bring their guards to their side and on the morning of September 27, 1831 they assassinated Capodistrias at the entrance of St. Spyridon Church, where he was going to attend Sunday mass.

After the Governor’s assassination the country fell into chaos. The struggle for power intensified as the politico-military factions were antagonizing to better position themselves in view of the arrival of Otto, the second son of King Ludwig of Bavaria, who was appointed by the Great Powers as King of Greece. (Evaggelidis T. , 1894)

King Otto I

What exactly was the state that the Bavarians were called to rule? At the eve of its independence, Greece’s area was 47,500 square kilometers, which is 35% of today’s area. Its population was about 800,000. Out of 30,000,000 hectares of arable land, only 500,000 were cultivated. With the exception of the island of Naxos’ emery, the rest of the country’s mineral wealth (marble, lignite, porphyry, silvery lead etc.) was also not exploited. 

After ten years of war, Greece was also lacking the necessary infrastructure to support its economy (roads, bridges, railways etc.). The merchant fleet was strong but transporting the goods to and from the ports was expensive.  It goes without saying that the country’s industry was also non-existent. However, small investments would suffice to boost sectors like the textile industry, where spinners could be substituted with imported machines.   

Thus, the continuation of Capodistrias’ work was necessary for the country’s potential to be realized. The administration’s mechanisms should set a stable framework to boost domestic and attract foreign investments (organization of the banking system, rationalization of taxation, creation of land registry, restoration of order etc.). The Bavarians, upon arriving in Greece, had a loan of 60,000,000 francs at their disposal, which could help this effort. Their undertakings had poor results though. (About, 2018)    

The struggle between the previous regime and the local elites was known to the Bavarians. King Otto, therefore, distrusted the Greeks. When he arrived, he brought with him his own army of 3,500 German mercenaries and filled the state mechanisms with foreign officials.      

Otto relied on the army for the consolidation of his sovereignty. During the first decade of his reign, military spending made up 50% of total public expenditure. With another 26% going to the repayment of the public debt there was not much left for social policy, e.g., education, or public works to boost the economy. In fact, in 1843 Greece was no longer able to serve the public debt and strict fiscal controls were imposed by the lenders. (Kostis, 2018)

With the army and state mechanism full of foreigners, the Greek chieftains turned to banditry for a living. They often enjoyed the protection of the politicians who used them to embarrass the government on a local scale, portraying their actions as acts of resistance against a repressive monarchy. This kind of political patronage extended to officers of the regular army who were underprivileged compared to their foreign colleagues.

The result was the first major intervention of the army in politics. The Revolution of September 3, 1843 was initiated by units located in Athens. The movement did not aim to overthrow the monarch. The participating military and political elites demanded the removal of the Bavarians from the state institutions and a constitution limiting royal power. Otto had no option but to comply. (Malesis, 2018 )    

The years of constitutional monarchy did not change much though. The Greek elites gained better access to state institutions (Parliament and Senate) and the monarch used the same ‘clientele’ approach against them. All elections after 1844 were won by the government that staged them, an indication that constitutional rights were violated by the parliament majority (e.g., by annulling rivals’ votes) for the promotion of their own interest. There were incidents where state sponsored violence was used by the monarch to promote his preferred candidates, in which case, the opposition often resorted to banditry to ensure their political survival.

To defuse the situation internal problems needed to be ‘exported’ somehow. This is the time of the Great Idea (Megali Idea), when the Greek State portrayed itself as the champion of all still enslaved Greeks with the mission to free them by conquering the territories remaining under Ottoman occupation. Ironically, at the same time, during the meetings of the National Assembly for the adoption of the constitution of 1844, special care was taken to expel and exclude heterocthons (Greeks from abroad settled in the New State) from government positions as their education and distance from local elites made them hard to manipulate. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )

Thus, the King supported uprisings of the Greeks in Thessaly, Epirus and Macedonia during the Crimean War (1853 – 1856). As a result, France and England, now allies of the Ottoman Empire against Russia, identified Greece with the latter and occupied Piraeus and Athens in April 1854. The Greek insurgents eventually withdrew from the Ottoman territories and the humiliating occupation ended in February 1857. The three political parties of the time, carrying the names English, French and Russian, from the corresponding power they relied on for support, were dissolved after 1854.

The opposition against Otto reached its culmination point in 1862. In October, mainly low-ranking non-commissioned officers of the army supported the uprising that led to the overthrow of Otto. The king was touring the country at the time to gather support, as he was aware of the opposition’s movements. He never made it back to the capital. After consulting with the ambassadors of the Great Powers, he was persuaded to leave the country. Doubts were cast regarding the people’s participation in the uprisings of 1843 and 1862 though. Indeed, it would not be surprising if the common people, also systematically abstaining from the national elections, were preoccupied with a much more important issue at that time. Namely, their survival. (Kostis, 2018) (Malesis, 2018 )   

Conclusion

Bad use of available resources, very moderate attempts to develop the country’s economy, oligarchy conflicts, distanced citizens and ‘clientelism’, overweening ambitions and foreign intervention. These are the main characteristics that undermined Greece’s potential during the War of Independence and the first thirty years of the modern Greek State. Their effects remain to this day.

What do you think of the early years of the modern Greek State? Let us know below.

Now read part 2 on the Modern Greek State - 1863-1897, bankruptcy and defeat here.

References

About, Edmond. Otto’s Greece. Athens: Metaixmio (in Greek), 2018.

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

Evaggelidis, Triffon. History of Otto, King of Greece (1832-1862). Athens: Aristidis Galanos (in Greek), 1894.

Evaggelidis, Trifon. Ioannis Capodistrias, The history of the Governor of Greece. Athens: Livanis (in Greek), 1996.

Kakouri, Athina. 1821 The Beginning that Was Not Completed, When and How the State that We Live Today was Created. Athens: Patakis (in Greek), 2019.

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

Malesis, Dimitris. “… let the Revolution Begin”, Great Idea & the Army in 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek), 2018.

The World War Two Japanese Soldiers who Kept Fighting Decades After the War was Over

In the period after World War II the military and the public became aware of Japanese soldiers fighting in the Pacific Islands. These soldiers were later named Japanese holdouts. They did not know that World War II had ended, leading to some intriguing stories. Daniel Boustead explains.

Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda (on the right) offering his sword to Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he surrendered in 1974.

Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code contributed not only to Japan’s soldiers’ “fight to the death” spirit but also their refusal to surrender. In addition, Japanese military orders, training, and regulations further reinforced this attitude. Japanese soldiers believed that all surrender orders were a work of American propaganda. Thus, some Japanese soldiers held out years after World War II was over

In the Japanese religion of Shintoism the Japanese Emperor was a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu ([1]). This made Emperor Hirohito a Demi-God, who Japanese soldiers gave their lives to (1). This belief was further supported by the Imperial Receipt on Education of 1880, which stated that the Emperor of Japan is a “deity incarnate” and “…the climax of harmony is the sacrifice of the life of a subject for the Emperor” (2). The Japanese religion of Shintoism elevated dying for the Emperor of Japan to a state of grace (2). This reason is why so many Japanese Military service personnel died in multiple battles in the Pacific and Asian theatres - they fought to the death.

Bushido Code

The Bushido Code was also an important philosophy that dominated the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy’s way of thinking. Bushido (or the way of the warrior) evolved from the 9th to 12th centuries CE and was a mixture of Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism and was followed by the Japanese Samurai (3). Bushido stressed martial spirit, self-sacrifice, loyalty, justice, a sense of shame if dishonored, refined comportment, modesty, frugality, and honor being more important than life itself (3). The Zen Buddhism aspect of Bushido also stressed an indifference to pain as an essential virtue (4). Bushido also strongly emphasized self-discipline, loyalty to one’s superiors, and fearlessness in the face of death (5). The philosophy of Bushido existed long after the Japanese Samurai went away, and it found a ready acceptance in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces (3). Bushido starting appearing in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during the reign of Emperor Meiji, who ruled from 1868 to 1912 (5). Captain Rikibei Inogichi elaborated on Bushido by saying “We must give our lives to the Emperor and Country, this is an inborn feeling. We Japanese base our lives on obedience to the Emperor and Country. On the other hand, we wish for the best place in death, according to Bushido”(2). The tradition of Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code is also captured in the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Anthem “Umi Yukaba”, which emphasized death in battle and no surrender to the enemy (6). Bushido also motivated some Japanese soldiers to disappear and fight years after the war rather then give themselves up. 

Surrender was not an option

The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces regulations, orders and rules also made death preferable and surrender not an option. The 1928 edition of the document Principles of Strategic Command, deliberately expunged the words defense, retreat, and most importantly surrender, because such words were considered detrimental to the morale and marital spirit of the Japanese soldier (3). The 1908 Imperial Japanese Army’s criminal code contained the following provision: “ A commander who allows his unit to surrender without fighting to the last man or concedes a strategic area to the enemy shall be punishable by death”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code contained an additional injunction: “Do not be taken prisoner alive”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army Field Service Code also stated “In defense, always retain the spirit of the attack and maintain freedom of action. Never give up a position, but rather die”(2). Indeed the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code was not just simple regulations for Japanese soldiers; it was the result of lifelong conditioning in a culture revering honor, loyalty, and obedience to superiors above all else (2). This meant that if a Japanese soldier was to surrender or be captured, according to the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code, it meant failure to the Emperor and dishonor to soldiers’ families (2). 

Special orders - Hiroo Onoda

In some cases Japanese soldiers were given special orders. The longest holdout soldier, Hiroo Onoda, was given such an order. It was right before Hiroo Onoda was sent to Lubang to conduct guerilla operations against the Americans (7).  His commanding officer of the Eighth Division Commander, Lieutenant General Yokoyama, conveyed this fateful order to Hiroo Onoda by telling him: “You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily” (7). Furthermore, while it was Hiroo Onoda’s superiors, Major Taniguchi and Major Takahashi, who instructed him to conduct guerilla operations on Lubang, they had no authority to alter Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order (8). Furthermore, Hiroo Onoda told Japanese adventurer Norio Suzuki in 1974 that he would only give himself up by the orders of his immediate superior Major Taniguchi (11). In addition since Hiroo Onoda was not sure that Norio Suzuki was not an enemy agent and thus he could not give away the officers who were above the rank of Major Taniguchi, who were Lieutenant General Yokoyama and Major Takahashi (11). When Major Taniguchi relieved Hiroo Onoda of his duties in 1974 he bypassed Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order because Lieutenant General Yokoyama could not be found (9). Also, Hiroo Onoda was trained to view enemy surrender leaflets as tricks (10). Lastly because Hiroo Onoda was trained in unconventional guerilla warfare, his home was the battlefield and there was no going home (10). All these factors help explain why Japanese holdouts existed after the war.

Onoda finally surrendered to his “superior” Major Taniguchi at Wakayama Point, Lubang Island, Philippines on March 9, 1974 (18). Onoda fought a guerrilla war for many years on Lubang, which resulted in one of his fellow soldiers named Kozuka being killed in a shootout with Filipino Police in October 1972 (19).  After Major Taniguchi read Hiroo Onoda’s surrender order he was briefly in a state of shock because he could not believe Japan had lost the war and the war was over! (18)

Captain Sakae Oba

An early example of a Japanese holdout was Captain Sakae Oba. Oba and his 46 men formerly surrendered to the Americans on December 1, 1945 on the Island of Saipan (12). Sakae Oba had evaded capture by the U.S. Marines patrols for 512 days and was nicknamed “The Fox” by the U.S. Marines (12).  In the period of the battle, Sakae Oba was going to commit suicide after a failed attack against the Americans (13). He then realized that if every Imperial Japanese soldier killed himself there would be no Imperial Japanese Army left, which prevented him from doing so (13). Near the fall of Saipan, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers decided to kill themselves in a suicide attack on the American position, while a contradictory order was issued by Vice Admiral Nagumo, commander of Japanese naval forces assigned to Saipan, that said don’t participate in Lieutenant General Saito’s suicide attack and keep fighting because reinforcements were coming (14). Sakae Oba learned of these contradictory orders at Matansha, and decided and that he and his group of men would continue fighting using Mount Tapotchau as a base of operations - while the vast majority of men there decided to die in a suicide attack (14). On July 7, 1944, while 4,000 Japanese soldiers died in a suicide attack west of Matansha, Sakae Oba moved his forces south toward Mount Tapotchau (15). Captain Sakae Oba was persuaded to surrender in late November 1945, when Major General Umahachi Amo, the former commander of Japanese forces on Saipan, gave him documents from the defunct Imperial Japanese Army, that the war was over and that his group should surrender (16). Just before Sakae Oba was repatriated to Japan, he was feted by the U.S. Marine Officers Club on Saipan to honor him for his skill, courage, and tenacity (16). Captain Sakae Oba continued fighting because he believed the war was continuing and as he was cut off from his command, and therefore should continue the war until communication was reestablished and new orders received from his superiors (17). This was different from other Japanese holdouts who had the “fight until the end” mentality or persisted in disbelief that Japan had lost the war (17).

Conclusion

The Philippines became a notorious center of Japanese holdouts after World War II. Indeed during late 1940s there was a sign outside the capital Manila that warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills (20). More broadly, the phenomenon known as the Japanese holdouts began in the aftermath of World War II. Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code gave the Japanese holdouts the ideological backbone to continue fighting. Japanese military orders, training, and regulations made surrender not an option. Surrender orders were viewed with much suspicion. The common theme of “fight to the death” and not to surrender permeated the Japanese psyche. This inspired the Japanese holdouts to continue to fight long past the end of the war.

What do you think of the World War II Japanese holdouts? 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 and “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here.

[1] Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 30-31.

2 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005. 32 

3 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. Inc, 2005. 31. 

4 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 32. 

5 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books, Inc., 1980. 40. 

6 Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown and Company. 2003. 38. 

7 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland.  Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 42-44. 

8 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 44-45. 

11 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books; Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 200-202. 

9 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry.  Annapolis; Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 13-14. 

10 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War.  56. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

18 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 11-14. 

19 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books. Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 174-175. 

12 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 13. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

13 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 17. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

14 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 18. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

15 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers  Who Refused  to Surrender After the War. 19. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

16 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 23. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

17 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 22. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com . 

20 “Japanese Holdouts:  Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

References

Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown, and Company. 2003.

“Japanese Holdouts: Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

Onoda, Hiroo.  No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War.  Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999.

Rottman, Gordon.  L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005.

Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 

Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

The Fates of Benito Mussolini, his Wife Rachele, and the Mistress Who Wouldn’t Leave his Side

Benito Mussolini, the Italian Fascist leader during World War Two, is infamous for many reasons. But do you know what happened to his wife Rachele Giudi and his loyal mistress Claretta Petacci as World War Two came to an end? David Lehmann explains.

A colorised image of Benito Mussolini.

One of the most notable characters of the Second World War and, indeed, of the 20th century, Benito Mussolini, or as he was better known, Il Duce rarely needs an introduction. The Fascist leader of Italy captivated the world with his bold promises of restoring the Roman Empire, promising to once again return the Mediterranean Sea to its rightful status as Mare Nostorm or “Our sea.” Il Duce’s meteoric rise to power, culminating in 1922, was fueled by his charisma and his bombastic addresses to the public. Using his imposing oratory skills, Mussolini fed the desperate Italian public the steady diet of instilling confidence in his demoralized countrymen and promising a return to Italian glory - ensuring that he was the man who could singularly heal the wounds that had plagued this once great people.

We all know the well-known trope that “opposites attract” in the world of relationships. But when considering a man of Benito Mussolini’s character type, who regularly consumed approximately 98% of the oxygen in the room in order to fuel his ego and oratory style, it was an absolute necessity. Enter Rachele Mussolini or “Donna Rachele”, as she became known to the world. Born Rachele Giudi in 1890, Rachele was first introduced to Benito after being hired to the Mussolini family-owned tavern in Predappio as a kitchen maid. In 1910 the two were joined in less than holy matrimony due to Benito’s anti-clerical stance - but matrimony nonetheless. The two were not formally wed until 1925, well after Benito’s rise to the position of dictator. Rachele resisted relocating to Rome, preferring life outside the capital and would only relocate seven years later. Even then she sustained her avoidance of the limelight, much preferring the life of a homemaker. This contrast to her husband, in addition to a lot of traditional Fascist propaganda, earned her the love and sympathy of the Italian populace who were eagerly consumed by the trope of Mussolini and his traditional wife. Much of what is known about Rachele is understood through the lens of her husband, but her dedication to her children and her husband and commitment to family cannot be overstated. Rachele lived for family and in turn dedicated herself to their care.

A less than perfect union

The marriage of Benito and Rachele most often unfolded in the privacy of their own home. Unfortunately Il Duce’s indiscretions often did not. A well-known philanderer, Mussolini wantonly disregarded the fidelity tenet of marriage and regularly absconded from his marital bed. The explicit details of Il Duce’s escapades came to light with the publishing of the diary of Ercole Borrato, Benito’s longtime driver. The diary depicts a man wanton in his lust who possessed all the efficacy of a less physically restricted JFK, often having him stop while driving to pursue a beautiful woman he observed. Benito would regularly retreat to his beach resort, Castel Porziano, in order to properly concentrate on his less than sanctimonious trysts. 

Rachele seemingly tried her best to deal with her husband’s nature. Once stating, “My husband had a fascination for women. They all wanted him. Sometimes he showed me their letters – from women who wanted to sleep with him or have a baby with him. It always made me laugh.”[1] This was a surprisingly cheery view of the situation. However Borrato’s diary also contains a small glimpse into the pain Rachele must have experienced. In one instance, Benito returned to their home only to find Rachele waiting for him to confront him, chastising him for his lack of fidelity. One can imagine his car was symbolic of her husband’s infidelities. Despite the pain his cheating caused it seems Rachele had a harsher view of Benito’s other great pastime, politics. She once remarked: “You can't be happy in politics, never, because one day things go well, another day they go badly." [2]

Veni, Vidi, Vici - except the opposite

Mussolini’s bold proclamations of a return to Roman glory were soon exposed as the blustering of an overcompensating tyrant. Fascist Italy’s dreams of conquest quickly came to a sputtering halt. First, Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935 after months of preparation badly exposed the Italian military. Despite modern weaponry and the use of highly controversial gas bombs, the military struggled to defeat the much more poorly armed Ethiopian forces. Next, after the commencement of the world war and Nazi Germany’s rapid success, Mussolini grew impatient and invaded Greece in 1940. Again, the Italian forces fared poorly against less equipped Greek soldiers. The Italian advance soon flagged and then was shockingly forced to retreat, only to be saved by a Nazi intervention, further shaming Mussolini. One embarrassing defeat after another followed as Mussolini’s image shrunk in the minds of the Italian people. So much so that on July 24, 1943, Mussolini was ousted from power by the Fascist Grand Counsel and imprisoned. The once great man and his family were prisoners of his own populace.

The final apple of his wandering eye

Mussolini and his family were soon freed from their captivity after a daring German rescue. Instead of leaving Italy completely under Nazi control, he agreed to lead a newly created puppet state based in northern Italy. Benito was conscious of the inevitability of his impending defeat though, and helpless to affect change as greater powers used his homeland for their battlefield. Benito’s flagging spirits were buoyed by the presence of one Claretta Petacci. A lover of Benito’s since 1936, Claretta was devoted to Benito, sticking by him through his fall from grace. Following him to his new northern base, Claretta transformed into more than just a fling. Claretta attempted to bolster Benito’s confidence, urging him to retake his country and punish his enemies. This was exactly the kind of support a man like Benito Mussolini preferred at the time. So much so, that as the Allies marched north and partisan Italians decided now was the time to do away with their former dictator, it was Claretta who accompanied him via car in his attempted escape. Abandoning his family, Benito, Claretta and a few supporters attempted to make their way north into Switzerland. Unfortunately for the newly formed family unit they did not get far, with Benito’s face being all too familiar to the general Italian population. The pair were captured on April 27, 1945 and after Claretta’s refusal to abandon Benito, both were summarily executed the next day. 

Rachele and her surviving children were soon captured and handed over to the Allies, spared in sharing her husband’s fate. Rachele eventually settled in her native Predappio and never disavowed her husband’s politics and legacy. While her public sentiments to Benito always remained positive we can never truly know what was in her heart. Being abandoned by her husband in his final drive to freedom must have deeply wounded La Donna. After the war, Rachele fought for the proper burial of her husband’s remains and the return of his personal items. However there was one personal item which she refused, a bed which she dismissed with the comment, “Claretta used it.”[3]

What do you think of the fate of Mussolini’s wife and his mistress? Let us know below.

[1] Rubert Colley. “Rachele Mussolini- A Brief Biography.” April 11, 2015 

[2] J. Y. Smith “Rachele Mussolini Dies, Fascist Dictator's Widow.” October 31, 1979

[3] ID.

Sources

Ben Downing, March 24, 2017 https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-bed-with-il-duce-1490382122

Patty Agnew December 9, 2004 https://www.irishtimes.com/news/driver-blows-the-whistle-on-mussolini-s-frantic-love-life-1.1169289

J.Y. Smith October 31, 1979 https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/local/1979/10/31/rachele-mussolini-dies-fascist-dictators-widow/06a5db07-fb20-4cfd-bee1-dd59fb6806c1/

October 31, 1979 https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/31/archives/rachele-guidi-mussolini-widow-of-italian-dictator-is-dead-at-89.html

Rubert Colley https://rupertcolley.com/2015/04/11/rachele-mussolini-a-brief-biography/

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Benito-Mussolini/Role-in-World-War-II

The Story of US Revolutionary War Heroine Sybil Ludington

Sybil Ludington, a sixteen-year-old female, was called into action one rainy night in April 1777 to relay a vital message for the American rebel army in the US Revolutionary War. Here, Tom Daly explains the story of the US Revolutionary War heroine.

Sybil Ludington’s grave (with spelling differences). Source: Anthony22, available here.

A storm was gathering on the evening of April 26, 1777, as a man desperately spurred his horse to the home of Henry Ludington, a colonel in the American rebel army, near the Connecticut-New York border. Dismounting from his horse and struggling for breath, he barely managed to get his words out, but when he did they sparked an extraordinary sequence of events. The man reported to Ludington that British troops had attacked Danbury, a town 15 miles to the south-east that had reserves of food and weapons for the Continental army. He had come to beg for re-enforcements and Ludington quickly agreed, but there was one problem: because it was planting season, he had already sent his men home to their respective farms. Ludington urgently needed to gather his men, but the messenger was unfamiliar with the area and his horse was exhausted. Ludington himself couldn’t go, as he would be needed at his farm to organise the troops when they started arriving. It seemed as if no one would be able to collect the American rebels to defend Danbury anytime soon,  but there was another person present who would rise to the occasion: Henry’s 16-year-old daughter, Sybil Ludington. 

You may have heard of Paul Revere, the man who rode through the night in 1775 to warn American rebels about approaching British troops. But you are less likely to know about Sybil Ludington. She did exactly what Revere did, and then some: she rode twice the distance he did and, unlike him, managed to avoid capture, and her efforts were recognised by George Washington himself. But a combination of gender bias and lack of publicity meant that she faded from the national consciousness, and her heroics were not made the stuff of legend in the way Revere’s actions were.

Upbringing

Sybil Ludington was born in Kent, New York, on April 5, 1761, the eldest of 12 children born to Henry and Abigail Ludington. Henry was a farmer by trade but like many men of the time he also had a military background, serving in the British army in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1763). 

Sybil was brought up in a loving household and had a peaceful childhood, growing into a pretty young woman with dark hair and blue eyes, but events in the world around her would disrupt her tranquil existence. Tensions were rising in colonial America as people began to resent the fact that they were controlled by a far away government in London, with no right to representation in that government. In 1773 Henry Ludington disavowed his loyalty to Britain, telling his family that when the inevitable war broke out he would pledge his allegiance to the rebels. The war started two years later, and Henry was true to his word, rising to the rank of Colonel in the Continental army and organising rebel troops in his part of New York state.

Sybil’s ride through the night

When the messenger arrived at the Ludington family farm that spring evening in 1777, Sybil was infuriated at his account of British troops looting the homes of civilians. It is not clear who decided that she would alert the militia men – some accounts claim she decided herself, while others suggest it was her father who asked her to. In any case, she was more than willing to help her father’s cause. By now it was dark and rain had started lashing down, but Sybil mounted her horse, which she had affectionately named Star, and rode at full speed into the night. 

It was no easy task to reach the nearly 400 men who were under Henry Ludington’s command, but Sybil and Star rode all night long, covering over 30 miles of wood and farmland. Aside from the poor conditions, Sybil faced the added danger of outlaws and British loyalists who were known to roam the area, and she had only a stick for protection. Still, she courageously pressed on, returning to the family farm as dawn broke the following morning to find hundreds of men gathering under the command of her father. Henry Ludington was relieved and immensely proud of his daughter, embracing her before setting off towards Danbury at the head of his men. 

Unfortunately, Sybil’s heroic mission had come too late to save Danbury, and the British troops had already moved to nearby Ridgefield by the time Ludington’s militia found them. Caught by surprise, the British were forced into a retreat back to Long Island, in what was considered a small but important tactical victory for the rebels. It was a victory that would not have been possible without Sybil Ludington.

Did Sybil get the recognition she deserved?

For a short while Sybil Ludington was hailed as a hero by fellow rebels in New York and Connecticut, and she even earned the praise of George Washington, who sent his congratulations and expressed his deep appreciation. However, the war progressed for several more years and Sybil’s actions were overshadowed by other momentous events.

The war officially ended in 1783, and Sybil celebrated the fact that the American colonies had become the United States of America, independent from Britain. The following year she married a young lawyer, Edward Ogden, and the couple settled in New York where Sybil gave birth to their son, Henry. Edward died in 1799, and Sybil used the money he had left for her to buy a tavern, which she ran successfully. She eventually used the profits from this to buy a house for her son and his family. Her son died in 1838, and she followed him a year later, dying on February 26, 1839 at the age of 77. She was buried next to her beloved father. 

Sybil was mostly forgotten about for the next century. Paul Revere, though certainly a noteworthy man in his own right, had his place in history secured by a publicist, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, who wrote a poem about his exploits and turned them into legend. Sybil had no such publicity, and seemed doomed to eternal anonymity. However, in 1961 the Daughters of the American Revolution organisation commissioned a statue in her honour, which now stands proudly on the banks of Lake Glenida in New York, just miles from her old family farm. This surge in publicity led to books being written about her, and in 1975, as part of the US’ celebrations of 200 years as an independent nation, a postage stamp was produced in her honour. It may have been late, but finally Sybil Ludington had some degree of recognition for her valiant efforts on a stormy night in 1777. 

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

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

How Public Opinion Impacts Foreign Policy in America

Throughout the history of foreign policy, arguments have been made that public opinion is ineffective and cannot influence foreign policy, with cogent arguments being made by respected writers, historians, and international relations theorists likeWalter Lippmann, Thomas A. Bailey, and George F. Kennan. However, public opinion can influence foreign policy to a large degree.

Here, Alan Cunningham explains how US military conflicts have been influenced by public opinion.

The sunken USS Maine in Havana harbor, leading to the 1898 Spanish-American War.

By simply looking at military conflicts in the United States, we can find that many of these are sharply influenced by U.S. public opinion. The American Revolution, the First World War, the Second World War, the Vietnam War, and the 2003 Iraq War were all heavily influenced by the public’s desires and the media. Individual operations, such as 1989’s Invasion of Panama, 1916’s Pancho Villa Expedition, and 1980’s Operation Eagle Claw, too suffer from public opinion; if the public and Americans’ at large feel that the operation or the conflict is worthwhile, assists in preserving American security and safety, or stops an extreme crisis (like genocide or crimes against humanity) then the overall foreign policy goal continues, but that public support is integral.

Ole Holsti, a professor of political science at Duke University, writes, “the Vietnam War served as a catalyst for a re-examination of the post-World War II consensus on the nature and effects of public opinion. Although these recent studies continued to show that the public is often poorly informed about international affairs, the evidence nevertheless challenged the thesis that public opinion on foreign policy issues is...without significant impact on policy making”. I agree that while most of the public is largely uninformed on international issues and key political-military affairs (social media posts about a draft for World War III in the aftermath of General Qasem Solemani’s targeted killing exemplifies this in my view), the public’s voice does matter and can significantly shape foreign policy decisions and what actions a state takes. The 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia and the 1898 Spanish-American War are prime examples of this.

1993 Battle of Mogadishu

To first understand the battle, one must look back at the conditions that shaped Somalia into needing outside, global intervention. The country had long been ruled by Mohamed Siad Barre, a ruler who had accepted both U.S. and Soviet aid, and eventually lost hold of his nation due to declining influence, the collapse of the Soviet Union and a major benefactor, and poor economic policies thrusting the country into decline; In 1991, a rebellion overthrew Barre which resulted in a civil warbased upon tribal lines. The UN developed a task force to return order to the country and U.S. Marines invaded and removed the major tribal forces from power in the capital of Mogadishu. Upon completion of the humanitarian mission, however, it became apparent that the strongest warlord, Mohammed Farrah Aidid, would return to power, so the U.S. began planning to return Somalia to a democracy. As most know, the following six weeks of military special operations were successful, but eventually made large scale, international news when Special Operations Forces operators became entrenched in a fifteen-hour firefight defending two crashed helicopters, with nineteen U.S. military personnel and two UN multinational force soldiers being killed throughout the entirety of the mission. While the mission itself (to capture two high level members of Aidid’s clan) was a success and the U.S. military severely crippled the clan’s military capacity, public opinion about the conflict was molded heavily after seeing the bodies of U.S. servicemen being dragged through the streets of Mogadishu. Pressured by their constituents, Congress began making similar statements and eventually the Clinton administration decided to fully remove American forces from Somalia.

Public opinion in this case completely changed the outcome of the entire, two-year mission in Somalia and essentially dictated Bill Clinton’s foreign policy until 1995. Due to the public’s desire to focus on domestic issues and not become embroiled in a foreign war (especially one that many saw as having no clear exit strategy or goals), Clinton’s administration kept out of Darfur, Rwanda, and (at least initially) Bosnia. Public opinion dictated how the U.S. should respond in these incidences and eventually forced the administration to reintegrate themselves into defending against genocides after the Rwandan incident.

1898 Spanish-American War

Another example of this can be seen with the Spanish-American War. The Spanish Empire was largely seen as a nuisance and fear to the U.S., being an imperial force so ingrained and entrenched within the Western Hemisphere. Being that the Cuban Revolution was largely seen as a force for democracy and were portrayed as brothers to the American public, many imperialists began calling for war against the Spanish. This call was bolstered by Pulitzer’s New York World and Hearst’s New York Journal and eventually culminated with the explosion of the U.S.S. Maine in Havana Harbor; with news reports claiming that the Spanish had deliberately sunk the warship, the U.S. made preparations for invasion and launched operations. While the war was short and something of an anomaly in military endeavors (with more personnel dying due to diseases than bullets or wounds), the impact of this was that Cuba’s populace were freed and then immediately put under U.S. rule for a period of time before being handed over to pro-U.S., anti-Communist strongmen like Fulgencio Batista. What this points to is the effect that public opinion and desires have upon foreign policy decisions. While some blame solely Hearst and Pulitzer for beginning the war and single-handedly provoking war, it is important to note that both Pulitzer and Hearst did not have an audience outside of New York and only appealed to the working class, not anyone in politics or white collar workers. As Thomas Kane points out in the journal Contemporary Security Studies, the true decision to invade was because the broad majority of Americans were sick of bloodshed and because many in American politics agreed that trying to contain the situation in Cuba was lost. In the end, public opinion mattered, not how influential newspapermen were.

Conclusion

In both of these, public opinion and support or opposition towards specific policies played a large role in determining how the government would deal with foreign policy matters and how individual administrations would deal with future crises in the globe. Public opinion and outward support of operations, military conflicts, or foreign policy goals has enough coherence to be effective and to seriously change the way that governments operate and go about performing missions and attaining their overall goals.

What do you think of the role of public opinion in influencing foreign policy in the US? Let us know below.

About

Alan Cunningham is a graduate student at Norwich University where he is pursuing an MA in International Relations. He will be joining the United States Armed Forces upon the completion of his degree and aims to gain a PhD in History and a JD from Syracuse University. He has been published in the Jurist, Small Wars Journal, the U.S. Army War College’s War Room, and Eunomia Journal.

What was Britain’s Victorian-era New Poor Law?

The New Poor Law was introduced to Victorian-era Britain in 1834. It replaced the long-standing Old Poor Law as a major piece of social legislation aimed at the poorer people in the country. Here, Chloe Dickinson tells us about the law.

A depiction of poor people coming to a workhouse for food. Source: Wellcome Trust, L0006802. Available here.

The Victorian era seems like a distant memory when we think about the past, but, in fact, it is our close ancestors who lived through the turmoil of the reign of Queen Victoria. Indeed, two key aspects of the life of a pauper were begging and life in the workhouse. In images of the time, the wealthy were shown as cowering away from the paupers who begged, selling the idea that there was a deep divide between the wealthy and the poor. Conversely, in workhouses there were dividing walls to keep inmates separate and large outside walls to prevent life on the outside from creeping in. Cruelty, turmoil, and instability are three words that spring to mind when historians think about the New Poor Law; cruelty because of the deprivation and despair it pushed people into and turmoil and instability because of the strong Anti-Poor Law Movement. So, what was the New Poor Law? How did it come to be? What where the key components? Read on to find out.

The Sampson Kempthorne workhouse design for 300 paupers.

What was the New Poor Law?

To put it plainly, the New Poor Law (Poor Law Amendment Act) is the most important piece of social legislation enacted in Britain. Inaugurated in 1834, the New Poor Law was a radical attempt to overhaul the entire system of poor relief and touched almost every aspect of life and labor from the moment it was implemented.[1] Not only were life and labor affected, but wages, housing, settlement, medicine, and education were all influenced in one way or another. No two counties throughout England and Wales experienced the New Poor Laws components the same. For example, the agricultural South, which had previously used outdoor relief to a great extent felt the cruelty of the New Poor Law more than the industrial North, where there was a high turnover of employment. 

The New Poor Laws key principles were: 

·      The reorganization of local parishes into large Unions 

·      Well-regulated workhouses within each Union

·      A new central body was to be set up to monitor the New Poor Law (Poor Law Commission 1834-1847, then rebranded as the Poor Law Board) 

·      The setting up of Boards of Guardians in each Union and paid officials to administer and grant relief

Something that really brings the New Poor Law to life, is a snippet from a well-loved and famous book – A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens (1843): 

“Are there no prisons?” asked Scrooge.

“Plenty of prisons,” said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

“And the Union workhouses?” demanded Scrooge. “Are they still in operation?”

“They are. Still,” returned the gentleman, “I wish I could say they were not.”[2]

The fact that the ‘gentleman’ states that he wishes that the Union workhouses were not operating displays a sense of contempt for the practice. But, on the other hand, we have Scrooge, who is all for the workhouses. Here, Dickens has cleverly integrated both sides of the New Poor Law debate at the time of its operation. The way in which Dickens illuminates the concerns and support of the New Poor Law really highlights the instability of political and social opinion at the time. 

How did it come to be?

The Old Poor Law, established in 1601, was in place for over two centuries. However, by the time the nineteenth century came, poor rates (a local tax to fund poor relief) were exponentially high, there was tension between social classes and many people of wealth saw there to be abuses of the relief system. Thus, in 1832, a Royal Commission was set up to fully investigate the Old Poor Law and its ‘abuses’ and make recommendations for its amendment. The Poor Law Commissioners, along with their Assistant Commissioners sought out evidence throughout the country on how the Old Poor Law operated. However, it is widely accepted by historians that the Commissioners actually sought out evidence to fit their already preconceived ideas. This can be seen through the fact that the questionnaires that they sent out to towns and parishes mainly went to southern rural parishes. These rural parishes saw high levels of outdoor relief, particularly in the form of child allowances, and the topping up of wages to able-bodied workers. These components of the Old Poor Law, according to the Commissioners, warranted the term abuse. They, and many others, conceived the idea that the giving of outdoor relief to able-bodied paupers to be unjust and an abuse of the relief system in place. Ideally, they wanted able-bodied paupers to be relieved inside the workhouse, where they would ‘earn’ their relief. In 1834, two years after the Commission was set up, the famous Report of the Commissioners was published. Its thousands of pages consisted of the ‘evidence’ that they had collected and included the proposal of the New Poor Law.

What where the key components?

One of the biggest administrative changes that came from the New Poor Laws establishment was the reorganization of parishes into Poor Law Unions. This new formation of boundaries within counties was essential to the running of the New Poor Law, due to the fact that there was to be a well-regulated workhouse within each Union. Each Union was to have their own set of overseers, named the Board of Guardians. These Boards were to be made up of paid officials who would then maintain the workhouses, grant relief and administer relief to those in need. In terms of workhouses, they were made to keep paupers separated in terms of gender and age – this included separating children from their parents.[3] This was based on the Malthusian and Benthamite principles that were popular at the time, particularly amongst those in government. In fact, these ideas had a great influence on the Royal Commission on the Poor Laws and the Report they published.

What do you think about the New Poor Law? Should it have been implemented? Let us know below.

[1] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), p. 1. 

[2] Charles Dickens, A Christmas Carol (USA: Delmarva Publications, 2015 Reprint), p. 7.

[3] David Englander, Poverty and poor law reform in 19th century Britain, 1834-1914: from Chadwick to Booth (London: Routledge, 2013), P. 38.