The Romanovs - The Tsarina’s Daughter

The Roman Dynasty ruled Russia from 1613 to 1917. Here, author Ellen Alpsten tells us of her fascination with Russian history and how she started to write her series on the Tsarinas.

Catherine I, one of the Russian Tsarinas. She was empress from 1725-27.

If ever there was a walk on the wild side, the early Romanovs in the 17th and 18th century took it. The wild and unbridled world of the Russian Baroque gives me the perfect backdrop for my novels of the ‘Tsarina’ series: epics cloaked in ice and snow, personal passions ruthlessly push on in the quest for power, resulting in the birth of the nation we know today.

My family’s stance on Russia is ambivalent – my father grew up in the German Democratic Republic (GDR), or East Germany. Forced to learn Russian he felt free to hate the Soviets. My cousin, however, runs a small, highbrow publishing house, which works with latter-day Russian intellectuals. I myself discovered this geographical behemoth and historical riddle when reading a book called ‘German and Russians’ by author Leo Sievers. It introduced me to the larger-than-life characters of Ivan the Terrible, the ‘Times of Troubles’ and finally the rulers of the young Romanov dynasty, who had been voted into office. I fell in love, head over heels, with these lives, fascinated by their uncompromising fullness.

But how to find out more about the shadowy figures that captured me the most: the women who dared to rise against the oppressing patriarchy in the world’s largest and wealthiest realm? The first century of Romanov rule was largely female-dominated. If the fact had not been ignored, research centered on Russian’s final Tsarina, Catherine the Great, who was not even a Romanov by blood, but a German Princess. Instead, I hoped to surprise and tell something new. Yet where to start? 

Growing fascination

Nikita Romanov said it in 1666: ‘We are as cursed – our men are as meek as maidens, and our women as wild as wolverines.’ Dwelling deeper on such a quote did not allow for half-measures. I read voraciously, and such divers oeuvres ranging from Tolstoy, Pushkin, Gogol, and Dostoyevsky to modern sociological studies such as the deeply disturbing ‘The unwomanly face of war’ by Svetlana Alexeyevich, Biographies like ‘Young Stalin’ by Simon Sebag Montefiore and also the lost, genteel worlds of the few that came at the expense of millions in Vladimir Nabokov’s ‘Speak, Memory’. How else should a foreigner grasp a culture as complex as the Russian? My interest morphed into a passion: I watched Russian films such as ‘Battleship Potemkin’ and the experimental ‘Russian Ark’ movie. And, lucky me, there were fascinating original sources galore, such as the diary of the German merchant Adam Olearius, who visited Tsar Mikhail Romanov’s court, stunned by a people ‘hardly better than animals.’ Invaluable, too, were letters of foreigners at the Russian Court such as the British Mrs Rondeau, and reports by the Dutch ambassadors and his colleagues sent by Princes of German nationality. Rounding off things with Robert Massie’s and Henri Troyat’s biographies about Peter the Great was unavoidable. Last but not least, Professor Lindsey Hughes of the ‘London School of Slavonic Studies’ tome 'Russia in the time of Peter the Great' turned out to be my bible as I dwelled deeper and deeper into the strange, shocking, sensuous world of both Russian history and its soul. It combines seemingly insurmountable contrasts casually, a lack of compromise that is fascinating. Finally, I even read Russian myths and fairy tales, which disclose so much about the imagination of a people.  

It took me a year to dare write the first word of my then debut, ‘Tsarina.’ The series is like threading a loom to weave a story as rich as any tapestry covering the walls of the Winter Palace. The novels attempt an answer to what my heroines’ lives were really like, flying in the face of a brutal patriarchy, and taking Russia from backward nation to beginnings of the modern superpower. Fleshing out those bare bones forced me to consider a myriad of aspects. 

Writing

The Russians are a communal people – the word for happiness -‘shast’ye’- means being part of something bigger. Neither ‘Tsarina’ nor ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’ ever surrendered to fate’s blows but made the best of a given situation. Their minds were not academically trained, they acted with courage, care and cunning, counting on people and rewarding family, friendship, and loyalty. Whatever obstacle there was to overcome, they dusted themselves off and saw another day, ready to be surprised by its gifts. This makes ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’ a very modern book. 

The strict framework of dates, events and details of the Russian Baroque and the Petrine era set of the beauty of my hitherto hidden historical heroines the better. If I was free to construct ‘my’ characters, every aspect had to be correct, from the clothes they wore, to the food they ate, the beliefs they held and how houses, roads, villages, carts etc. looked. As for the dramatic curve, I followed advice that the best-selling French author Benoîte Groult had once given me when I worked as her assistant: ‘To wish our hero well, the reader needs to see her/him sink low.’ Elizabeth, ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’, falls from riches to rags and rises from rags to Romanov! 

After all this research I hope that nobody, who has read ‘Tsarina’ or ‘The Tsarina’s Daughter’, will ever forget my heroines again; and I hope for my writing to be as raw and unafraid as their lives were. Any writer dreams of finding such unspoiled, unexploited characters as the ‘Tsarina’ series. 

If an artist has a central theme to his creation, they are mine.

The Tsarina’s Daughter by Ellen Alpsten (Amazon), published by Bloomsbury, is out in hardback on July 8, and Tsarina, Ellen’s first book, is out in paperback now (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

Politics in the Kitchen during the Cold War

The kitchen is the heart of domesticity; the home of the home where food and warmth are enjoyed by family members. But even the kitchen—this private realm in our life—can be part of everyday politics. Here, Liza Hadiz considers the role of the kitchen in the Cold War, including the famous ‘kitchen debate’.

US Vice-President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev taking part in the ‘kitchen debate’ at the American National Exhibition in Moscow, 1959.

The Chamber

Before modern technologies were developed for the household, the kitchen was the drudgery of domestic labor; labor which was generally associated with women’s role. Not surprisingly, the Soviets once viewed the kitchen as a terrible chamber for women. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the kitchen was part of the house that must be rid of for the full emancipation of women. Public dining spaces replaced the kitchen to free women from the derogatory labor and toil of the kitchen, to give women time for self-growth and development—more time to read as well as explore literature and the arts. 

When these public dining places didn’t take off too well and the growing industry brought more people to the cities, the government set up communal apartments for several families to live in. Called kommunalka, these living spaces had a shared kitchen. The kitchens in these homes were public space, where each family sharing the apartment cooked their meals in. 

Among the pots and pans and laundry of all the families living in the apartment, the kitchen was not the best place to be sitting down to enjoy your coffee. Not just because it was a potential hotbed for occupants to engage in conflict, perhaps over a missing kettle, but it was also a dangerous place to carry out the wrong conversation. In the communal kitchen, you would have to watch what you say, as information can be passed on to the government.

A Kitchen of One’s Own

From the 1950s, in the rush to provide housing for the increasing population, low ceiling two-bedroom apartments were developed for the masses—dubbed the Khrushchyovka, after the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This time, they were built for individual families, with their very own bathroom and kitchen too. As extended families of three generations cramped into these small apartments, there was barely space for family members to eat together. But at least they had their very own kitchen.

With families having their own privacy, the kitchen did not become any safer. Being a private space, the government needed to take an even closer look at the kitchen. Agents were watching and tapping kitchens. 

However threatening, families welcomed guests into their small kitchens, and they were the place where conversations about politics and the arts took place. Between the walls of the kitchen, underground self-published literature (samizdat) was shared and read. It was also a place for family and friends to listen to banned music, such as jazz and rock and roll. When a group of people hung out in the kitchen like this, it was considered a form of dissident activity.

Ironically, while freedom of art and freedom of expression were topics discussed at the kitchen table, the discrimination that Soviet women were facing was left out of the discussion.

While after the revolution, Russian women obtained legal, political, and economic rights, it was not long after Stalin came into power that he brought back the traditional gender division of labor. Women were defined as mother, wife, and communist. Women’s condition eroded. Between the neighboring walls of communal apartments, it was no secret that women were victims of abuse.

In 1979, a group of women (Tatiana Mamonova, Tatiana Goricheva, Natalia Malakhovskaya, and Yuliya Vesnesenskaya) self-published the controversial almanac Woman and Russia that revealed what women really faced in the Soviet Union: the double standard as proletariats and as wives and mothers, unequal pay, domestic violence, poor conditions of maternity clinics, and the state’s poor childcare quality. However, the dissident circles did not care to discuss these issues at their kitchen tables and it was not long after the almanac’s circulation that the KGB were after the authors, forcing them to flee the Soviet Union.

The Dishwasher

Twenty years before Woman and Russia was written, in 1959, during an American exhibition at Sokolniki Park in Moscow, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had a heated debate with US Vice President Richard Nixon about women and kitchen design—one which would be remembered years on as part of Cold War history. Nixon proudly introduced the kitchen model of the “typical American house” and then particularly took the dishwasher as an example which he might have thought would represent women’s liberation in the US.  

While pointing at a dishwasher Nixon goes on to say:

“This is our newest model. This is the kind which is built in thousands of units for direct installations in the houses. In America, we like to make life easier for women.” 

In response, Khrushchev said, “Your capitalistic attitude toward women does not occur under communism.” 

Nixon replied, “I think that this attitude towards women is universal. What we want to do, is make life easier for our housewives.”[i]

The dishwasher conversation between the two leaders—dubbed “the kitchen debate”—is quite telling. Women’s wellbeing was some sort of a benchmark for assessing a political system. 

So if the Soviet Union had wanted to liberate women by getting rid of the kitchen, the US had opted for revolutionizing the kitchen. After World War II, women in America were encouraged to stay at home to make way for the employment of men returning from war. During this time, the old-fashioned American kitchen began experiencing a dramatic change. Listening to what housewives felt about their kitchen, in the late 1940s, architects, engineers, and home economics specialists began building modern kitchens. Using new technology, kitchens were turned into workshops to make cooking and washing convenient, less time consuming, and to give women freedom from drudgery. The architect of the successful suburban houses of the 1950s, Alfred Levitt, was quoted as saying: “Thanks to the number of appliances in our house, the girls will have three hours to kill every afternoon.”[ii]

With the new technologies aimed to boost efficiency and reduce domestic labor time, especially for women, couples could operate independently of extended family members. This was the time of the rise of the postwar nuclear family with the male breadwinner/housewife gender roles, from what advertisers and women’s magazines created the image of the postwar middle-class housewife. 

Although as a housewife a woman toils with unpaid labor daily, in the capitalist system Nixon was promoting, this was not considered demeaning. Her devotion to her family was what makes up the American family values of the time. US Cold War propaganda heavily focused on the family where the values of the ideal Western family were expected to sell democracy and capitalism abroad through the image of prosperity that the ideal family suggested.

Beyond the Kitchen

Interestingly, just four years after the kitchen talk with the Soviet leader—where Nixon attempted to use the domestic sphere to indicate the improvement of women’s life in the US—Betty Friedan’s research revealed the contrary. Her book The Feminine Mystique (1963) exposed what was not communicated over the kitchen table: the unhappy white middle-class housewife’s discontent with domestic life. 

Likewise, in contrast to what Khrushchev may have thought about communism’s attitude towards women, Soviet women faced discrimination in the private and public sphere and this fact was even overlooked by dissident circles. Banned over 40 years ago, the self-published Woman and Russia was in last year’s Leningrad Feminism 1979 exhibition. The exhibition allowed us to hear the once silenced voices of women who criticized the Soviet Union. These were the voices denied at the kitchen table.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

Liza Hadiz is an editor and writer who lives in Jakarta. She writes on topics related to gender and history. Her blog is Some Thoughts from the Cappuccino Girl https://feministpassion.blogspot.com.

[i] Taken from The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union.

[ii] Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream.

Sources

Friedan, Betty (1973) ‘Up from the Kitchen Floor.’ NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/04/archives/up-from-the-kitchen-floor-kitchen-floor.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

GeoHistory (2015) The Evolution and Dissolution of the Soviet Kitchen. https://geohistory.today/soviet-kitchen/ [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Iber, Patrick (2017) ‘Cold War World.’ The New Republic [online] <https://newrepublic.com/article/144998/cold-war-world-new-history-redefines-conflict-true-extent-enduring-costs> [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Krasner, Barbara (2014) ‘The Nuclear Family and Cold War Culture of the 1950s.’ Academia. https://www.academia.edu/9926751/The_Nuclear_Family_and_Cold_War_Culture_of_the_1950s [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream. http://statemuseumpa.org/levittown/three/kitchen.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

NPR (2014) ‘How Soviet Kitchens Became Hotbeds of Dissent and Culture.’ The Salt. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Roache, Madeline (2019) ‘Is Capitalism or Communism Better for Women? How the Kitchen Debate Gave a New Meaning to the Cold War “Home Front”.’ Time. https://time.com/5630567/kitchen-debate-women [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Calvert Journal (2020) The Story Behind the 70s Samizdat that Launched Late Soviet Feminism. https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/11906/woman-and-russia-feminist-zine-samizdat [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1959-07-24.pdf [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Sisters (2020) Communal Kitchens. http://www.kitchensisters.org/hidden-kitchens/communal-kitchens/ [Accessed July 5, 2020]. 

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (n.d.) Step-Saving Kitchens. https://nalgc.nal.usda.gov/step-saving-kitchens [Accessed August 22, 2020].

The Mayflower and the Wampanoag Nation

Wampum: Stories from the Shell of Native America is an exhibition. It’s also part of an on-going quest to find tribal regalia lost as a spoil of war over 350 years ago. This shared history connects England and indigenous America – then and now. Jo Loosemore explains how the exhibition came into being.

The belt in the exhibition. Image courtesy of and printed with permission of the The Box, Plymouth.

In 1676, following the bloodiest war on American soil, a wampum belt was sent to England. It belonged to Metacom (known to the English as King Philip), the leader of the Wampanoag Nation. Destined for King Charles II, the belt never arrived. Why? What happened? Where is it now? Its loss and location remains a mystery, but finding it is an on-going mission for Metacom’s tribal descendants. Accidentally perhaps, I joined their search for the missing belt – and, together, we found so much more.

A quest and questions

Four years ago, The Box Plymouth in the south-west of England, began preparations to mark the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower. That presented some challenges in terms of Mayflower mythology and memory, public perceptions of the passengers and the undeniable impact of the colonial past on indigenous America. Our approach was to work in partnership with the people of the Wampanoag Nation to tell our shared history of conflict and co-existence. The work of shaping a show – the Mayflower 400: Legend and Legacy exhibition – began in March 2017. 

Understandably, the Wampanoag people have a difficult relationship with Mayflower history and its legacy. They are the People of the First Light, who have lived in the American eastern woodlands for 12,000 years. They were also subject to attack from European disease and capture by English adventurers. Yet they enabled the survival of the Mayflower’s colonists, before being subjected to decimation during King Philip’s War in the 1670s and generations of repression. Today the Wampanoag Nation includes the people of Mashpee and Aquinnah, as well as several tribal clans living in modern-day Massachusetts. They didn’t have to work with us, but they decided they would.

Following months of questions and concerns, our exchanges became answers and suggestions. The Wampanoag Advisory Committee to Plymouth 400 recommended we establish a partnership with SmokeSygnals (Wampanoag history and communication specialists) ‘to develop a foundation of a shared history between our people’. The mother and son team of Paula and Steven Peters recognised that we wanted to listen and to learn. My kind of curation is about being open to ideas, ready to create, and committed to getting the story right for contributors and audiences alike. SmokeSygnals transformed my aspirations, understanding and outlook on what the Legend and Legacy exhibition could be, and what The Box’s programme for Mayflower 400 would be. Their contribution also led to the creation of a second, unexpected, exhibition – Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America.

A surprise show

In November 2017, Paula came to England. She was looking for Metacom’s belt.

We began the search at the British Museum. There, in the stores, surrounded by historic wampum belts, she spoke in her ancestral language – a prayer. She touched the pieces of centuries-old shell bead work looking for clues. Were any of these creations Metacom’s missing belt? 

No.

Then, I was unaware of the significance of the search. Now, I recognise what the visit meant and what it inspired. Walking away from the stores, through damp London streets, Paula explained her quest and her ambition. If she couldn’t find the belt in England, she wanted the people of her tribal nation to make a new belt to honour the old.

To be able to pray over those belts in the British Museum was an opportunity for me to be connected with my history and I felt like I was embracing my ancestors. The belt that we make will have an intention and will have stories. It also is going to restore this tradition to our tribal community. Inherent in the wampum bead, inherent in the making of the belt is medicine for us. It’s spiritual healing.

A new belt and a new beginning

We wanted to help - both with search and with the new creation. This was a partnership of possibilities and promise. We committed to finding funding for the making of a new wampum belt and an exhibition showcasing its creation and completion. Historically wampum was used in diplomacy and this project would connect our two peoples through time once more.

In 2019, Arts Council England agreed to support the commissioning of a new wampum belt – made exclusively by tribal members of the Wampanoag Nation, and shown as part of an exhibition touring to English museums along the ‘Mayflower trail’ – Lincoln, Southampton, London, and Plymouth. Paula, and her colleague Linda Coombs (a tribal scholar), returned to England to look again at the historic wampum here, and to teach us about its significance. We learned about the quahog shell, indigenous to the shores of the Wampanoag Nation, and the beadwork which had been created over centuries for treaties, ritual, condolence and adornment. They learned that we wanted to know more about their history and culture, the importance of Metacom’s loss and his legacy. 

Back in America, they began the creation of a new wampum belt. Established artisans worked alongside over 100 community contributors to craft 5000 shell beads into 150cm of symbolic design. Ancestral stories were woven into the imagery and the imaginations of those who created the new piece. Film-makers and photographer followed the process. They documented history being made and restored in Native America. 

On the other side of the Atlantic, we worked alongside our museum partners to develop a touring exhibition, which would welcome Wampanoag culture to England for the first time. Four venues – The Collection Lincoln, SeaCity Southampton, Guildhall Art Gallery London and The Box Plymouth, prepared to present the new wampum belt, its people and their history to English audiences.

The pandemic arrived instead. 

The wampum belt was stuck in transit at a warehouse in Boston. The exhibition was in parts in Cornwall, Plymouth and London. But while the show was delayed, the partnership remained intact and fully committed to seeing the show open – somehow - in England 2020.

An exhibition and an understanding

In August, the new wampum belt arrived. It was unrolled for the first time in Southampton. I opened its box to find that it had travelled with a traditional leather medicine bag. Paula had felt it might be useful and meaningful. It was displayed alongside the belt, and remains with it today. 

Despite Covid19, and colonial history, Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America began its national tour in 2020 and it continues now. Told by Wampanoag voices throughout, the exhibition explores their lives in America today, cultural history and the impact of the colonial past, as well as their creative aspirations for the future.

Wampum is sacred and symbolic. It carries the history, the culture and the name of the Wampanoag people. Wampum belts are a tapestry of art and tribal history. Made from the purple and white shells of the quahog and the whelk, wampum beads embody the Wampanoag connection to the sea and to life itself. This new wampum belt connects the past with the present. It honours Metacom’s historic belt and sustains the search. It also enables us to see and learn about wampum today. 

This belt is uniquely and rightly a way to bring our story to the people of England and remind them of the sacrifices that have been made by our ancestors as a result of their colonisation of our territory. That’s not a pretty story. It’s not a story that a lot of people want to hear, but it’s a truth that has to be told in order to balance the overall history. 

Listening, learning and living the past through Paula, Steven and the Wampanoag artists and artisans they’ve introduced to us, is a privilege. They have made a 17th century moment a meaningful 21st century experience. They are living alongside their ancestors, while reimagining a culture corrupted by colonisation, and living with its consequences today. That’s powerful. Together we realised we could shape a new interpretation of our shared past – and realise a more collaborative future too. We will continue the search for Metacom’s belt – in partnership – and with understanding of what finding it would mean. 

The belt that belonged to Metacom belongs to the Wampanoag people. We don’t know where it is. We don’t know who has it. We don’t know if it remains on one piece or if it’s been divided up amongst many others. But we feel very strongly it is part of our story – it is a document of our history and it is something as important to us as the crown jewels would be to the Queen of England. It belongs at home among the Wampanoag. I don’t think it needs to live in a museum. It needs to live among its people.

Please share any feedback on the exhibition below.

Jo Loosemore is the curator of Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America and Mayflower 400: Legend and Legacy for The Box, Plymouth. More details here.

Notes

This exhibition is the result of a four year partnership between The Box, Plymouth (UK) and the Wampanoag Nation (US) and created to mark the 400th anniversary of the sailing of the Mayflower.

Wampum: Stories from the Shells of Native America is on show at The Box Plymouth until 11 July, and then at Guildhall Art Gallery London from 23 July-5 September

Partners

This exhibition is presented by The Box, Plymouth in partnership with SmokeSygnals, US.

Our museum partners are Saffron Walden Museum and the British Museum.

Our venues are SeaCity (Southampton), Guildhall Art Gallery (London) and The Box (Plymouth). 

Our funders are Arts Council England. 

Our programme partners are Mayflower 400.

Our academic partners are the University of Plymouth and the University of Pennsylvania.  

How the Nazi Soldiers Used Drugs During Fighting in World War 2

During World War II, the Nazi war machine stormed through much of Europe. But did you know that some Nazi troops were taking the drug methamphetamine during the fighting? Jefrey Ramos explains.

An advert for Pervitin, now more commonly known as methamphetamine. Source: Onkel Dittmeyer, available here.

Methamphetamine: An Unlikely Factor in Hitler’s Destructive Blitzkrieg

Most history fanatics have heard the WWII stories. How Germany overwhelmingly invaded its European neighbors - they quickly took over countries using the Blitzkrieg strategy. We know they were ruthless, cruel, and unforgiving. Yes, they were taking orders from a maniac dictator, but they were not super humans. Sure, they were well trained, they had deadly war machines, but what further aided the Third Reich to stomp out its adversaries? You ever been to Hollywood past 10pm? That's right. Speed, or methamphetamine, better known during World War II as Pervitin, was a substance that was issued and used as an enhancer by Hitler’s Nazi regime.

The Commercialization of Meth In Germany and How it was Popularized

After World War I, drug use in Germany boomed. It is not hard to imagine such a thing would happen in a society that was ravaged by war. After all, Germany had lost World War I, and they were severely penalized for it. Many veterans and people felt defeated, punished, and humiliated. Drugs tend to be something that certain groups of people turn to when they experience these sorts of agonies. Germany was defeated, and many veterans began to indulge in drug use. Major pharmaceutical companies in Germany mass-produced various types of drugs such as methamphetamines. Temmler-Werke produced and sold methamphetamine under the brand of Pervitin in the 1930s. Pervitin became prevalent during this time thanks to a massive marketing campaign. People could access it without a prescription, even in the form of chocolates. It was a methamphetamine-based stimulant. German society began to use these drugs more openly. The campaigns even targeted housewives - they would promote the drug as an anti-exhaustion wonder drug, so Germans were no strangers to drugs and their effects.

Human Capabilities were not enough for Hitler’s Plans

Fast forward to World War II. Here we have Hitler trying to invade territory after territory. He’s ruthless and he wants the operations to be done and executed expeditiously. The obstacle that stood in front of Hitler’s conquest was simply human nature - and the limitations that came with it. For a rapid approach, Hitler needed continuous momentum and strength for his lightning war. However, soldiers were human, and they absolutely needed rest and time to heal. This is where meth came in. Pervitin made soldiers awake and in need of less rest. Thus, Germany began to issue Pervitin to its forces. The logic behind it was that it helped troops and personnel stay awake for long periods of time, but most importantly, not feel exhaustion. This would make the soldiers better - until the drugs came down. That's right. We don’t actually believe they became the Red Skull, Captain America’s super-powered nemesis, himself do we? Like any drug of such a nature, it was only logical and natural that meth was going to have catastrophic effects on the troops. 

The Consequences of Pervitin use on the Third Reich

Nazi soldiers did in fact experience withdrawals when there were shortages of the drug. Others suffered accidental overdoses. There was an incident where a group of soldiers surrendered to Allied forces without a fight. They were likely in a meth-influenced state the night before, and their paranoia caused them to exhaust their ammunition. When the real Allied forces came into contact, they turned themselves in. The chain of command became aware – such incidents combined with less funds eventually led to Germany cutting the distribution of Pervitin.

It is now known that Hitler was an avid drug user. His personal physician would administer various types of drugs throughout his life. It is only logical that someone who used drugs for so long would see it as acceptable for his armed forces to use them too.

Pervitin and Hitler’s Policies

It is important to note that Germany was not the only world power in World War II to administer drug stimulants to their forces. The Allies also used amphetamines to stand combat fatigue. It is a practice that was not unknown to other countries.

The reader should also remember that while the effects of Pervitin may have made some Nazi activities worse, it was not the underlying reason why the Nazis committed so many atrocities. Hitler’s ideology came about much earlier than Pervitin’s distribution in the 1930s. Hitler expressed his political and racist views in his book Mein Kampf. While the book was published in 1925, Hitler’s military drug distribution effort unfolded at scale during the fighting in the war.

What do you think of the use of Methamphetamine during World War II?

Finally, Jefrey writes on his personal site here.

A Brief History of the Growth of UFO Mythology Since World War 2

UFOs, or unidentified flying objects, have been seen in the sky for millennia. However, in more recent times there has been a growing interest in UFO sightings – and what exactly UFOs are. Nigel Watson looks at the growing interest in ‘flying saucers’ and UFOs since World War II.

Nigel has published several books, most recently 'Captured by Aliens? A History and Analysis of American Abduction Claims' (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

A Swediah officer searches for a "ghost rocket" in Lake Kölmjärv, Sweden, 1946.

Since ancient times, strange lights, objects and celestial wonders in the sky have warned of impending doom or the dawn of a new era of revelation.

In the early 20th century mystery lights over Great Britain were interpreted as being caused by German Zeppelins spying out the land in preparation for invasion. During WWI any unusual thing in the sky was regarded as an enemy aircraft and as a consequence they produced scares in South Africa, Canada, the USA, and Britain.

In the 1930s, ‘mystery aircraft’ were often reported, but with the coming of WWII strange objects viewed by Allied pilots, which followed their aircraft, were dubbed ‘foo fighters’. After the war there was a huge spate of ghost rocket sightings over Scandinavia, but sightings of odd things in the sky only became perceived as a truly global phenomenon with the arrival of flying saucers in June 1947.

Flying saucers

The term ‘flying saucer’ was coined by newspapers after civilian pilot Kenneth Arnold saw nine glittering craft flying over Mount Rainier, Washington on June 24, 1947. He described them as thin, nickel plated, tailless, pie plate shaped objects with a convex triangular rear section. The objects flew in an unusual fashion like saucers skimming across water, travelling at an estimated 1,200 mph, a speed much faster than any known aircraft of that time.

This story from a reliable witness soon triggered many more sightings throughout the world. Yet, most people described seeing a disc or saucer-shaped craft in-line with what the term flying saucer inspires, rather than bat-shaped or tadpole like craft described by Arnold.

This was ‘coincidentally’ at the beginning of the Cold War. One of Arnold’s first thoughts was that he was seeing US jet planes. Yet, his sighting was so troubling he reported it to the media in an effort to find out what he saw.

When he discussed it with fellow pilots, he said ‘Some of the pilots thought it over and said it was possible. Some of them guessed that I had seen some secret guided missiles. People began asking me if I thought they were missiles sent over the North Pole. I don't know what they were, but I know this - I saw them.’

Sonny Robinson, a former Army Air Forces pilot who was operating dusting operations at Pendleton, Oregon, told Arnold: ‘What you observed, I am convinced, is some type of jet or rocket propelled ship that is in the process of being tested by our government or even it could possibly be by some foreign government.’

However, a Washington, D.C., army spokesman said that guided missiles like the V2 rocket travelled too fast to have been responsible for Arnold’s sighting and in any case no experimental tests were conducted in that area at that time.

In secret the Army Air Force was worried about these sightings, and in July 1947, Army Air Force intelligence officers Lt. Frank Brown and Capt. William Davidson interviewed Arnold and were convinced that he was an honest witness.

Inquiries were made to see if the Soviets had developed a saucer or flying wing aircraft using captured Nazi designs and scientists, but this drew a blank and it was equally clear that it wasn’t a US secret weapon either.

UFO Hysteria

Debunkers soon turned to claiming such sightings as misperceptions or the product of Cold War hysteria; believers soon started thinking the saucers were extraterrestrial craft on a mission to save us from starting an atomic war.

Concerned that UFOs sightings would block essential channels of communication, and be used as a psychological weapon by foreign enemies, the policy of US government agencies soon turned to providing mundane explanations for sightings or covering them up, to prevent the outbreak of UFO hysteria.

The longest running official UFO investigation was Project Blue Book, which was set-up by the USAF on March 25, 1952. It had a policy of demystifying UFO reports.

Blue Book became the public face for official UFO investigations, but it mainly operated as a repository of information and an outlet for debunking cases. After collecting 12,618 sighting reports, of which 701 remained unsolved, it ended on January 30, 1970, based on the view that: “Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

At least 10,000 UFO reports collected by Project Blue Book have been put online and many other governments have released their UFO files. So we have an embarrassment of riches that have been largely ignored by UFO researchers, yet they could provide lots of information about types of sightings and their patterns over time and place.

Government Secrets

The problem is alien saucers and body parts remain as elusive now as they always have been, and it frustrates the hell out of conspiracy mongers and ufologists. To fill this gap there have been numerous whistleblowers about UFO secrets, plus various U.S. agencies have used the belief in UFOs to cover-up other nefarious or top-secret activities.

On the question of government cover-ups and the possibility that various authorities are spreading disinformation UFO researcher Kevin Randle agrees that the USAF has been involved in such activities. However, for him, ‘I think the real problem with tainted information is the UFO community." People can come along with impressive stories backed-up by documents just for the notoriety. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to verify or disprove their claims that could be devoted to more productive areas of investigation. He added,  "I’ve said for some time that those running the cover-up don’t need to do anything. We do it to ourselves all the time.’

Randle complains that: ‘No one inside the UFO community will look at evidence that some of the top 'whistleblowers' were inventing their tales. UFO research will improve if they start vetting the witnesses and making sure that the stories told are credible or that the information is of great importance.

‘Ufology, at least what I consider the scientific aspect, comes at the problem from the point of view that we don’t really know what is causing all these mysterious objects and lights but we believe them to have a physical existence. It is the study moving toward an answer rather than an answer moving toward questions.’

Yet, there is a burning hope that in June 2021 the U.S. government will finally reveal all. There has been a frenzy in the media that U.S. Navy figure pilots and sailors have seen and tracked Unidentified Aerial Objects (UAPs). So far only fuzzy pictures of UAPs and inconclusive radar data has been released but UFO expert Dr Bruce Maccabee believes: ‘The new radar and observational data confirm what has been reported ever since the first UFO sightings in the late spring of 1947, namely that these objects can undergo extreme acceleration and reach very high speeds.’

He thinks, like many other UFO experts and influencers, that the forthcoming disclosures will prove UAPs are vehicles controlled by non-human intelligence (NHIs). He goes as far as to say:

‘The origin(s) of these NHI is (are) unknown but they may come from other planets using transportation technology based on very advanced physical principles. President Joe Biden of the U.S.A. and leaders of other countries may find it necessary to develop a single, uniform, world-wide policy for co-existing and interacting with NHI. The policy should be world-wide because allowing various countries to develop their own policies could result in some form of disaster.’

From a historical perspective, this is nothing new. Countless predictions have been made about the proverbial flying saucer landing on the White House lawn, to prove the existence of aliens from outer space or some other exotic origin.

The subject of flying saucers offers a valuable insight into the impact of social expectations on how we interpret odd things seen in the sky, and it also helps show how it has evolved and changed into the conspiracy led state of ufology today.

What do you think of UFOs in history? Let us know below.

Nigel Watson is the author of the UFO Investigations Manual published by Haynes, and UFOs of the First World War published by the History Press. His latest book is 'Captured by Aliens? A History and Analysis of American Abduction Claims' published by McFarland, 2020 (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

References

A Different Perspective. Kevin Randle blog site: www.KevinRandle.blogspot.com

Dr Bruce Maccabee Research Website: www.brumac.mysite.com/

Sirius Disclosure website: siriusdisclosure.com/

Exopolitics Journal: www.exopoliticsjournal.com

Russia’s 4 Great Resets: From the Romanovs to the End of the Cold War

Russian history has been beset with a number of seismic changes. Here, Daniel McEwen considers four key ‘resets’ in Russian history – the start of the Romanov dynasty, two early 20th century revolutions, and the end of the Cold War.

Vladimir Lenin, a beneficiary of one of Russia’s ‘resets’. A 1920 depiction by artist Isaak Brodsky.

“Reset” was the buzzword on speakers’ lips this past January during [an online version of] the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In words as lofty as the Alps in the background, Klaus Schwab, the event’s impassioned founder hailed the Covid pandemic as “a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world." 

Ironically, his idea was swept overboard by Covid’s next wave and hasn’t returned, perhaps because its advocates have since checked their history books. Resets have a chequered track record at best, with the 1789 French Revolution revered as the most notable, the Russian Revolution as the most execrable. And it was only one of that country’s four attempts to exploit a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset their world ". Their failure explains why journalist Vladimir Pozner arguing Russia has never really been a democracy.

Reset #1 - 1613

Ivan the Terrible is dead. One third of the fledgling nation’s population has been wiped out in the internecine warfare known as “The Time of Troubles”. Weak and leaderless, the country is beset by enemies on all borders. Desperate to end the violence, the Zemsky Sobor, an assembly of the realm’s elites, gather to reset their system of governance. 

This was a mountaintop moment in the country’s history, never to be repeated; a singular chance for Russians to shrug off the yoke of autocracy and rule themselves. But not one of the gathered could spell democracy let alone run one. Self-rule sounded like a lot of work. Had Fyodor Dostoevsky lived then, no doubt he would have been heard telling his countrymen that: “to go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's.” Not that anyone would have listened. Instead of a reset, they rebooted the old system. 

Historian Abraham Pailtsyn listened in on this assembly and was struck by what he didn’t hear – there was nobody speaking up for running the country for the people. Easier to just hand things over to the Romanov clan, the least objectionable of several candidates for the job. It was led by a 16 year-old teenager. His first official act was to hang a rival for the throne and his eight-year-old son, setting the tone for the next three hundred years.

Pailtsyn blamed this fateful lethargy on a deep national apathy.

Indeed it was. The appalling inhumanity of serfdom under the Romanov’s thumb approached can be compared to slavery. Nine tenths of the population lived in squalor, worked like beasts of burden to generate the unconscionable wealth enjoyed by the other one tenth. Little wonder the largest country in the world could do no better than a GDP barely equal to Spain’s! Quaintly embarrassing at first, this state-sponsored feudalism threatened the empire’s very survival when the forces of technological, social and political change began shifting the tectonic plates of world power. 

Had it been the best of times, czarist Russia would still have needed Paladins of Enlightenment to guide it along the perilous path to modernization. But it was the worst of times - disingenuous czars, amply aided and abetted by motley crews of corrupt cabinet ministers, sadistic secret police and a supine nobility used brutality and repression to manipulate modernization to their exclusive benefit.  

Typical of their tactics was the subverting of the abolition of serfdom, often depicted as the country’s ‘Great Leap Forward‘ to social and economic modernity. Some leap. Russia’s Emancipation Act of 1860 improved the quality of life for serfs about as much as the American Emancipation Act three years later improved the quality of life of slaves there. The czar and his minions retroactively limited, diluted and prolonged their people’s emancipation. At least freed American slaves did not have to pay compensation to their owners for the loss of their labor as was required of Russian serfs. In the end, emancipation offered the overwhelming majority of Russians basically two career options: over-worked, underpaid farmer or over-worked, underpaid factory worker.

Reset #2 - 1905

Still considered by many to be the ‘real’ Russian Revolution, this aborted reset was the high-water mark of Romanov duplicity. Japan had sent Czar Nicholas’ grand vision of a Pacific Empire to the bottom of Tsushima Bay in a naval defeat so shameful it nearly cost him his throne. Humiliated, he was forced to agree to a constitutional monarchy. Bells rang throughout the kingdom, people partied in the streets, and newspaper editors rhapsodized about the dawning on a new age of freedom. 

All the man had to do was keep his word and he, his family and some hundred million Russians would have lived happily ever after, never having heard of Vladimir Lenin. But always more a ruler than a leader, Nicholas stayed true to his family colors and cravenly reneged on the deal, dismissing the reformers behind it as deluded dreamers. Egged on by a witless wife in the thrall of a charlatan monk, Nicholas all but dedicated the last twelve years of his reign to giving those dreamers even more reasons to want to him gone – dead or alive!

Reset #3 - 1917

Three years into World War One, two million Russian soldiers are dead and five times that number of peasants have died of starvation or disease. Millions more face the same fate, caught between the scorched earth policy of their own retreating soldiers and the pillaging by the advancing German troops. In the cities, people are starving to death, if they don’t freeze first, awaiting trains of wheat that rarely arrive. Ever bereft of empathy or wisdom, Nicholas felt not the slightest obligation to feed his own people, breaking their three-hundred year near-religious faith in the Czar as an all-knowing, all-caring ‘Little Father’. Not surprisingly, none of them felt the slightest obligation to save him when mutinous troops stopped his train. He went without a whimper. The bang was still to come.

Free at last of their Romanov masters, there was none of the apathy of 1613 and no going back like in 1905. This time rank and file Russians knew exactly what they wanted: participation in power, a fairer share of the nation’s wealth and no more czars! Unlike 1613, this time there was lots of talk. And talk. And talk. And so enters a man author/historian Edward Crankshaw described as “one more bacillus let loose to spread infection in a tottering and exhausted Russia.” 

How Russians ended up with Vladimir Lenin and the tyrannical czars of Bolshevism is a question a library of books have attempted to answer. The most charitable explanation seems to be that a destitute, disillusioned people were simply too cold and too hungry to read the fine print on their deal with the Devil. 

However it happened, Vladimir Lenin played a ghastly game of bait-and-switch, promising ‘Peace, Bread, Land’, but delivering war, terror and death. For this unwitting lapse of judgment, another ten million citizens would perish in the civil war that followed World War One. Its hapless survivors were condemned to seventy years in the gulag of Soviet-style socialism, notorious for short trials and long bread lines. Tellingly, the USSR’s GDP did not rise above a third that of arch-rival America’s.

Reset #4 - 1991

The catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 opened Russians’ eyes to the true magnitude of the corruption and incompetence inherent in the Soviet system. Profoundly shocked, they began publicly questioning their leaders’ fitness for office. Five years later the Berlin Wall fell, burying Leninism in the rubble. At that time, per capita GDP was $23,000 in the United States, $16,000 in Western Europe and $6,800 in the rapidly dissolving ‘workers’ paradise’.

The Soviet Union was formally dissolved on December 26, 1991 but much to their dismay, the long-suffering proletariat were no sooner free of the iron grip of communism than Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to shackle them to unregulated capitalism – and barely escaped with his life for his trouble! When the dust of Glasnost had settled, Vladimir Putin and his oligarch friends had installed themselves in the Kremlin. While he labors mightily to restore the nation to a dubious former glory, its inglorious GDP has now shrunk to one-fifteenth that of United States.

What’s next?

Speculation about when and how Reset #5 will occur keeps pundits’ tongues wagging. Incredibly, the notion persists that Russians actually like strongman rulers. No one likes being bullied, surely the Russians least of all.  

What do you think of Russia’s ‘resets’? Let us know below.

The Fourth Indian Mughal Emperor: Jahangir

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 4, we look at the fourth Mughal Emperor, Jahangir (1569-1627), who reigned from 1605 until 1627. Here, Khadija Tauseef looks at the many problems Jahangir had with his father Akbar before he took power, the key events of his reign, and the importance of Nur Jahan while he was in power.

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, the start of part 3 on Emperor Akbar here, and Emperor Akbar in power here.

Mughal Emperor Jahangir hunting with a falcon.

The fourth Mughal emperor, who ruled the empire for twenty-two years, was Jahangir. He was a prince that was born with a golden spoon in his mouth; the first surviving child of Emperor Akbar had already made him his father’s favorite. Unfortunately, he had a bitter relationship with his father, who he revolted against several times. However, the father and son were able to reconcile their differences during Akbar’s later reign. Jahangir’s life was haunted by vices that would make him unfit to rule though: opium and drink. He was also a patron of the arts, especially of painting.

Golden Beginnings

Emperor Jahangir was born on August 31, 1569, to Akbar and his Rajput wife, Marium-uz-Zamani. His birth was an auspicious event in Akbar’s life; he had several children who had died in different stages of infancy. Jahangir was the first son to survive. Akbar named him Salim, after the Chishti Shaykh. Akbar was so excited about the birth of Salim that he built the city of Fatehpur Sikri. 

Growing up, Salim and his brothers were provided with a comfortable upbringing, which led them to develop habits that would hinder them in the future. Salim had developed a liking for drink, opium, and women. He had a demonic temper coupled with a streak of cruelty, which caused a rift between father and son. 

As Bamber Gascoigne writes:

“Akbar seems to have been intensely irritated by his eldest son, often it must be admitted with good reason—as when Salim executed three offenders with particularly whimsical and sadistic devices, or when he continually declined the command of expeditions to distant parts of the empire, seeming determined to remain near enough the centre to be strongly placed when his father died.”

Akbar soon started to prefer his other sons to Salim. However, Abul Fazl claims that not all the blame lies with the son, as Akbar has a hand in it as well. Abul Fazl recalls:

“…on the journey to Kashmir in 1589, Salim had been told to bring the harem forward to join Akbar, but he decided that the road was too dangerous and so came on alone. Akbar’s response was on the verge of hysterical. He refused to see the prince and laid hectic plans to ride all through the night, almost unaccompanied, over the admittedly perilous path to fetch the ladies himself.”

Revolts

In 1599, Akbar was struck by tragedy, when his son Murad passed away, caused by his addiction to alcohol. Salim began to revolt against Akbar, making trouble by declaring himself emperor.

Gascoigne writes:

“Compared to the rebellions by Moghul princes later in the seventeenth century this was a very low-key affair and can be more accurately described as Salim mooning about the country with a large army and vaguely referring to himself as emperor while disobeying Akbar’s orders to put his troops to any more effective use. Both father and son were careful to avoid any irretrievable step, and even when Salim marched in 1602 from Allahabad towards Agra with the force of thirty thousand men Akbar was able to talk him back into obedience without an open clash.” 

In 1603, Hamida, Akbar’s mother, was able to bring about a reconciliation between the two. She was instrumental in helping them repair the rift. It could not have come at a better time because in March 1605, Akbar’s son Daniyal died as a result of alcoholism. Before his own death, Akbar placed his turban on Salim, confirming his position as successor to the Mughal throne.

Emperor

Prince Salim had inherited a rich and stable empire from his father, and upon ascending the throne he adopted the name Nur-ud-din Jahangir, which means ‘seizer of the world’. Unlike his father, Jahangir wasn’t interested in political and administrative affairs. Although a patron of the arts, he chose to indulge his time and energies in wine, women, songs, and drugs. 

Soon after his ascension, Jahangir faced his first challenge, in the form of his eldest son - Khusrau’s rebellion. The rebellion was put down and Khusrau fled to Delhi, with his father’s forces still in pursuit. After the capture and punishment of his son and allies, Jahangir turned his affections towards another son, Khurram (the future emperor Shah Jahan). During his reign there were regular uprisings that required his attention. Jahangir’s life took a turn in 1611 when he married the widow, Mehr-un-Nisa, upon whom he conferred the title of Nur Jahan. Even though he had 20 wives, Nur Jahan would remain his favorite until the end of his life.

Annemarie Schimmel writes: 

“The fact that Jahangir was able to live a life of luxury and devote himself almost exclusively to art and science, concerning himself very little with matters of government, was thanks to his wife Nur Jahan.”

Nur Jahan was an intelligent woman, who began handling the affairs of the country from the shadows. This brought her into direct conflict with Prince Khurram, who believed that Nur Jahan was using her influence to garner favor for her family members. In the beginning Nur Jahan had supported Shah Jahan’s claim to the throne; however, she shifted her support to Shahriyar. 

As Jahangir became even more dependent upon drugs and drinking, he receded from public life and the functioning of the court was in large part due to Nur Jahan. Jahangir’s health began to deteriorate as time went on. He suffered greatly when Khurram rebelled, becoming disobedient after his victory against Malik Amber. Like Babur, Jahangir used to chronicle all the events of his life and it is in his diary that for the first time he refers to his beloved son, as bi-Daulat (the wretch). Khurram went on the run when his rebellion failed.

Death

As Jahangir’s health deteriorated, he began visiting places like Kashmir and Kabul that were supposed to help restore health. While Jahangir was camped by the River Jhelum, with his wife Nur Jahan by his side, his second son, Parviz surrounded the camp. Nur Jahan fled the camp and organized reinforcements, leading to a successful retrieval of her husband. 

After visiting Kashmir, Jahangir decided to return to Lahore, but unfortunately, he would never complete the journey. Emperor Jahangir passed away on the October 28, 1627, at the age of 57. There had been no really significant political or military developments during his reign. He had not expanded the empire beyond the boundaries established by Akbar.

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

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

How Strong were Britain’s World War Two Alliances with France and the Soviet Union?

Britain had two major alliances in World War Two prior to the USA joining the war. These were with France and the Soviet Union. Here, Steve Prout considers their effectiveness, including how Britain fought with France and also overlooked several aggressive acts committed by the Soviets.

Vichy France leader Petain meeting Hitler in October 1940. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-H25217 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

For people who take the Hollywood pictures as gospel the Second World War was essentially one “set of good guys”, being the allies, versus one “set of bad guys”, being the axis.  The reality was far more interesting. Alliances were not as static as is what has been portrayed in such simplistic Hollywood war film formulae or the stories we all enjoyed in our childhood comics.

Not quite standing alone

At no point was Britain alone in facing the Axis threat from the European continent.  From the beginning the combined forces of the Dominions and Commonwealth were present but Britain also had two other principal allies that joined and left at various stages. These were France and the Soviet Union.  The former was an ally that that became for all intents an adversary and the latter started the war in collaboration with the Nazis to be later courted by the British.

France

By the middle of 1940 the allies were in full retreat.  A month after the Dunkirk evacuation France had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany that would establish a “new order” and new political climate in France and her overseas territories.  This new order saw a shift to an Anglo-phobic attitude and the establishment of pro-German authoritarian regime under Petain.

Britain and France: The pre-war alliance

There was always underlying tension in Franco-British relations. As recent as the 1890s both nations almost come to blows over the Fashoda incident due to colonial rivalry.  However, the Entente Cordiale of 1904 and the World War I alliance managed to put a plaster of sorts over such differences, but there still deep down remained the old suspicions as demonstrated in 1925 in the Treaty of Lausanne and disagreements over the treatment of Weimar Germany.  

However, these differences did not prevent these two nations from collaborating again in the face of a growing and repeat threat from Germany.  Britain and France were to form a military alliance to contain German aggression in 1939 but by June 1940 this came to an end with French defeat and subsequent armistice.

Tensions already existed and were growing even before the allied armies were awaiting evacuation from Dunkirk and considering surrender terms. During the life of the allied alliance, as France saw herself contributing most of the land forces compared to a smaller British contribution who had, by the time of Dunkirk, only contributed less than ten divisions, one tenth of the allied force.  Further reluctance to commit the RAF fighters as events turned even more impossible meant France saw Britain as only looking out for her own interests and not fully committed to the alliance. The actions and the clumsy rhetorical manner of some of the British high command, primarily Lord Gort, did little to persuade the French that the British had no other reasons than self-preservation.

French soldiers were repatriated from British shores back to their home soil less than a week after the mass evacuation, with no commitment of significant British forces. It was very much now seen as a separate battle of France and a separate battle of Britain with France being left to her fate.  Churchill, to restore faith and confidence, offered a union of the two nations but Petain likened it to being “fused with a corpse” and senior ministers considered “better a Nazi province at least we know what that means”.  To say it was a non-starter would be an understatement and so the Vichy Government was formed.

Life after the French Surrender - Vichy

Once the armistice was signed a defeated France adopted an Anglo-phobic stance and established a near fascist state seeking parity with Germany and a part in the New Order. British and French forces would soon clash in various areas of the globe.

The British were concerned that the French Navy and the French colonies would be utilized by the axis against Britain.  Churchill feared the Nazis would demand the surrender of the French Fleet.  Unbeknown to Britain, Germany at the time did not require the surrender of the fleet but German intentions offered no reassurances and so the British warned the French to surrender or face destruction of their fleet as a last resort, which the British navy high command were loathe to do.  The French refused to surrender the fleet and so hostilities commenced.

Fighting with the French – “an old and new adversary”

The first clash in July 1940 was in very limited scale and saw four casualties with three deaths (British) from small arms fire in Devonport, Plymouth as the Royal Navy boarded the destroyer Sarcouf which was docked in British waters.  A wider scale operation named Operation catapult a few weeks later saw the destruction of a large part of the French Fleet and the deaths of 1,300 French sailors at Mers-Al-Kebir, Algeria. The political damage was more severe and the propaganda value to the Nazis was invaluable. The French were in an unforgiving mood.

In September 1940 the loyalty to Vichy and unforgiving attitude to the British had reached the far reaches of the French Empire.  The British and a Free French force were repulsed at the French colony in Dakar, Senegal.  What was apparent was not only hatred for the British but also dislike for the De Gaulle’s Free French movement whom his countrymen seemed to largely view as a traitor.  In retaliation to this attack French bombers flew two sorties over Gibraltar, again causing limited damage.  This was enough to find favor with the Germans but minimal enough not to cause any British reprisals.

Dakar presented many oddities and revelations. It tested the resolve of Vichy and the real level of support of De Gaulle and his Free French movement.  It was set apart from the main theatre in Europe - French fought fellow countrymen and Vichy forces used US planes to fight French and British counterparts.  Nowhere in this were the axis forces, the principal enemies.  The British would fail in this operation.

Britain would find herself in conflict in Syria and the Middle East against significant Vichy French Forces. Admiral Darlan wanted to assist the Germans by offering the territory to oust the British from Iraq and take the Iraqi oil and resources, but the Germans had other ideas and both objectives were nevertheless unsuccessful. Meanwhile, in Europe, Petain, like Darlan would continue to win German favor to achieve equal status with Germany in the European New Order. 

France’s behavior was not helped by British actions like Dakar and Mers-El-Kebir, but on balance was understandable for the time in the face of nefarious Nazi intentions.  Admiral Darlan however alludes to a deep distrust he held to his former ally - in December 1941 he was quoted as saying “I worked with the English for fifteen years, they always lied to me. I’ve negotiated with the Germans for 3 months, and they have never misled me.”  It is said that Darlan was finding excuses retrospectively, however flimsy, to account for his collaboration tendencies. On close inspection of De Gaulle’s Free French army and the domestic resistance forces, several sources say this contribution and effectiveness has been inflated and exaggerated over time to hide the shame of collaboration by Vichy France, who had become effectively a co-operative and willing German vassal.

It is interesting also that twenty thousand servicemen chose to join the SS Charlemagne and were one of the last divisions to hold out tenaciously in 1945 in Berlin.  On top of the forty thousand personnel in Vichy Syria and West Africa, 200 Vichy airmen in Europe, a significant French force, had opposed their former ally.  The numbers even suggest that France was truly a co-operative German Vassal.

There were to be more twists and turns. In another bizarre yet tragic twist of fate, the French themselves in November 1942 scuttled their own fleet in Toulon when the Nazis attempted to take the French feet and hand it over to Italy. At the same time Darlan, conveniently forgetting his Anglophobia, also defected to the allies.

The USSR “Supping with the devil” – the unlikely alliance

In June 1941, a year after the French surrender, Britain entered an alliance with the USSR after the German invasion, Operation Barbarossa. There were pre-war efforts to bring the Soviets on the allied side, but Polish objections and allied deliberations derailed this.

It was a curious pairing when looking at the recent history of the USSR at the time, which was anything but reassuring. There are few who could argue with Churchill’s analogy about “supping with the devil” to achieve victory as the USSR was a totalitarian state equally as barbaric and ruthless as Hitler’s Germany.  The more divisions that were used on the Eastern Front, the fewer there would be on the Western Front.  The strategy for the west was simple - the human cost would be borne by the Soviets. Stalin saw through this, under no illusion and prepared to pay this. It was more an alliance of expediency and it would barely endure the end of the war itself.  Suspicion between the Allies and the USSR was present throughout.

British minds had been wary of Russia since as far back as the Crimean War, with an only a brief respite in World War One.  Despite royal family ties there was still an abhorrence of the “Russian Bear”. The communist revolution in 1917 and the subsequent events did little help this.

During Stalin’s purges in the 1930s Britain managed to ignore the fact that some her own subjects in the Soviet Union had become victims of the purge. On the economic front the USSR’s five-year plans had advanced her industrial capacity, becoming a rival for the Western industrial powers which at the same time inspired international supporters of communism.  The involvement of the USSR in the Spanish Civil War was also interpreted as a Soviet communist regime trying to impose itself on the Western sphere of influence.

Throughout the 1930s the Germans had been broadcasting venomous propaganda against the USSR. Then something very unexpected happened. Stalin in August 1939 signed the infamous Nazi-Soviet pact, which gave Hitler the open door to begin World War Two because he was no longer contained and fearing a war on two fronts.

As the Nazis invaded the West of Poland, Stalin took full advantage of the recent pact and invaded the Eastern Part and imposed a Soviet form of brutality that was not dissimilar to the Nazis’.  Soviet territorial ambition was not limited to Poland. In December 1939, Stalin began a bitter four-month Winter War with Finland where eventually the USSR took 11% of Finnish territory.  After worldwide condemnation, the USSR followed the example of other aggressor states such as Germany, Italy and Japan and left the League of Nations.

Not only had the USSR allowed the war to happen at this stage, they also violated further sovereign states by annexing Bessarabia, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to their territorial gain, thus re-acquiring newly independent territories that she lost after the First World War.

Clearly a deal with the Nazis was more beneficial to the USSR and the excuse that these acquisitions offered a buffer against German strength was a weak one used in hindsight, as the USSR was a co-operative ally in all areas and cut from the same cloth as the axis powers.  There was little threat from the East due to a Neutrality Pact signed in 1941 between Japan and the USSR, freeing Japan to wage her own war. The USSR was in every event an Axis ally.  It is interesting to note that the two very pacts the USSR signed with Japan and Germany were highly instrumental in allowing both a European War and Pacific war to happen.  Was appeasement’s failure the only reason for the start of World War Two?

Curiously the pretext that drove Britain to declare war on Germany, namely the invasion of Poland, was not strong enough to provoke a similar action against Russia who did the same thing.  Interestingly the West at an early point in the war considered the USSR an enemy and considered military action in two arenas. Whilst the Winter War with Finland was in progress Britain and France considered bombing areas of Russia such as the oil fields of Baku. Also, during the Nazi’s Norwegian Campaign in 1940 the motive was not only to deprive Germany of Iron Ore from Scandinavia; it was also to assist the Finns by creating a supply route in their fight against the USSR. 

Katyn and Iran

This alliance, until close to the war’s end, would center only on Europe, with Britain and later America taking on Japan with minimal Soviet help. The benefit in this alliance meant the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Act enabled Stalin to move military resource from the eastern reaches of the USSR to the western theatre of war.  

The British would deliberately overlook Soviet perfidy as displayed with the discovery of a massacre of twenty thousand Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. They would help propagate lies that placed the responsibility on the Germans rather than the Soviets for the sake of the wartime alliance. They would at the same time pressure another ally, the Polish Government in exile, to accept these falsities.

The first military act with the USSR was a joint invasion of Iran to deny the axis powers access to the Middle East and allow an alternative corridor to supply the Soviet Union. This would not be to the Iranians’ benefit. Indeed, what the Soviets and British were prepared to do in other sovereign states show what the British would conveniently overlook once again. 

Both occupying powers commandeered much of Iran’s grain supplies for their own troops, which caused hyperinflation and starvation in Iran.  After the war the Soviets reneged on the promised withdrawal after Hitler’s defeat, and continued to occupy the country until 1946 after trying to set up two short-lived separatist and destabilizing republics on Iran’s border. 

Conclusion

The period of history from the beginning of the war until the German invasion of the USSR was an ever-changing political landscape of alliances and allies becoming foes and foes becoming allies.  This period has many other interesting oddities, peculiarities, and different perspectives but that is for another time.

What do you think of Britain’s World War Two alliances with France and the Soviet Union? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Steve’s article here on “Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?”

Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?

The Italian military has often been portrayed as having not performed very well in World War Two. But is that true? Here, Daniel Boustead looks at this by considering the Italian wars in the 1930s, their impact on Italy’s performance in World War Two, and how Italy fared during fighting in the war itself.

Italian Troops in Addis Ababa during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in May 1936.

In the years following World War II, the Italian military has been satirized in popular culture as well as historical scholarship. The Italian military was weakened by military conquests in Ethiopia, Spain and Albania before World War II. Their equipment, weapons and leadership were inadequate which caused their numerous defeats. Furthermore, while the 10a Flottiglia MAS was the most successful unit, it pales when compared to British Special Forces and German Special Forces. The unpopularity of the war and lack of Italian military success resulted in Mussolini’s fall from power in July 1943. Civil war followed.  Was Italy’s Military the weakest Axis Power? Let’s examine the facts.

Wars in the 1930s

On October 2, 1935 Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia (then Abyssinia) and did not conquer the country until May 5, 1936, when Italian troops entered the capital of Addis Ababa ([1]). The Ethiopian war cost the Italians about 1,500 men ([2]). The Italian support to Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War (from 1936 to 1939) cost the Italians 3,819 soldiers dead and 8.5 billion lire ([3]). The Italian military conquered the country of Albania in April 1939 ([4]). While the conquest of Albania was a success, it exposed the problems that plagued the Italian Army in the coming conflict. In Albania, the Italian military sent men who had never operated motorcycles to motorcycle companies (5). They sent men who did not even know Morse Code to signal units! (5) A member of the Italian Foreign Minister Ciano’s staff commented about the Italian military’s performance in Albania saying, “If the Albanians had possessed one well-armed fire brigade they could have driven us back into the Adriatic” (5).  By the time Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Italy had drained away the gold it had collected from its citizens during the Ethiopian war of 1935 to 1936 (6). This meant that Italy did not have enough gold to help finance a major conflict (7). These small conflicts combined with the Spanish Civil War debt would result in fatal consequences when Italy entered the war in 1940.

Entering World War II

The Italian military was not ready to go to the war by the time Mussolini declared war on France and Great Britain on June 10, 1940(9). The Fascist Italian military organization was so inept that the Army, Navy, and Air Force would frequently squabble, plot and sometimes spy on one another’s activities (8). Dictator Benito Mussolini’s belief that “Italy was an unsinkable aircraft carrier” and his decision to place all of Italy’s air power under the command of the Italian Air Force, deprived the Royal Italian Navy of an air force and aircraft carriers (8). The Italian Navy became dependent on the Royal Italian Air Force for both long-range reconnaissance and for air cover in its many battles in the Mediterranean (8). The Air Force would fail in their assigned duties at such battles as the Battle of Cape Spada and the Battle of Calabria (8). The military command was flawed because promotion came as often by political favoritism as by military skill (10).  Mussolini not only stifled debate in his military, but even fired one general on the spot for counseling him not to go to war, and he judged his military officers almost solely on “Fascist merits”(10). 

The Royal Italian Army had a lack of uniforms and equipment, which badly compromised their battle readiness (10). The recruits usually were trained less than the required 18 months that was prescribed by Italian law (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Army had rifles that dated back to 1891, horse drawn artillery, no heavy tanks, 70 medium tanks, and 1,500 light tanks that had armor that was so thin machine gun bullets could penetrate them (11). They were ill-equipped, ill-trained, and skeptical of Fascism’s propaganda (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Air Force only had 3,296 fighters and bombers, and they had neither the speed nor the armament to match Allied Fighters (10). The Royal Italian Navy’s ships were also not equipped with radar, which would prove a fatal flaw in various battles to come (12).

1940 to 1941

The Italian military would suffer numerous defeats in 1940 and 1941. The combination of lack of radar, lack of aircraft carriers, poor reconnaissance and air support resulted in 1 out of 2 Royal Italian light cruisers being lost at the Battle of Cape Spada against the British Royal Navy in July, 1940 (13). The Royal Italian Army invaded Egypt on September 13, 1940 (14). The British forces launched Operation Compass to counter the Italian invasion on December 9, 1940 (15). By the time Operation Compass ended in February 1941, the British forces had pushed the Italians 500 miles back into Libya and taken 130,000 Italians as prisoners (16). The Italians were rescued in North Africa when the Germans sent the Afrika Korps commanded by General Erwin Rommel (16).

On October 28, 1940 the Italian Army invaded Greece (17). By the end of December 1940 the Greek Army drove the Italians out of Greece and were controlling more then one quarter of Albania (18). Hitler decided in November 1940, in the immediate aftermath of Mussolini’s invasion of Greece, to also invade Greece. This was not so much to bail out Mussolini but to protect and to prevent British Royal Air Force bombers from bombing the Ploesti Romanian oil fields that were supplying his forces for the invasion of the Soviet Union (19). Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was initially scheduled for May 1941 (19). Indeed, had Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in May 1941 the war in the east might have turned out differently.

On November 11 to 12, 1940 the British Navy launched an aircraft carrier raid on the Italian fleet at Taranto, Italy (20). This raid resulted in three battleships, two cruisers, and two destroyers being sunk or severely damaged (20). They were useless for months (20). The raid on Taranto also forced the Italian Navy to retire to Naples (20). This was too far to be a hindrance against British convoys in the Mediterranean (20). In late March 1941 the British Royal Navy, using intelligence from Bletchley Park’s Ultra and exploiting the Italian’s ship lack of radar, fought the Battle of  Matapan (21). Italy lost three cruisers, two destroyers, and 2,400 men (21). The defeat at the Battle of Matapan was so devastating for the Italian Navy that Mussolini ordered his fleet confined to waters under firm Italian control (22). Fascist Italy’s military also suffered a further defeat on May 5, 1941 when Haile Selassie and his British forces entered the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa (23).

A more successful attack

The 10th MAS Flotilla was formed on March 15, 1941 and consisted of Frogman, Manned Torpedoes, and Assault Motorboats and was renamed Xa Flotilla in autumn 1943 (24). This group in both incarnations sunk, between March 1941 and April 1945, 12 Allied ships and damaged two British Battleships (25). The 10th Flotilla MAS’s units’ greatest success came in December 1941 when their frogman severely damaged the British Battleships HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth (25). This put them out of action for more than a year (25). This action left the British Royal Navy with only three light cruisers, and a handful of destroyers in the east and central Mediterranean, thus altering the balance of naval forces in favor of the Axis (25).

Later in the war

Mussolini was deposed in July 1943, in large part because the Royal Italian Military had suffered numerous defeats, first by the Fascist Grand Council on July 24, 1943 and then by King Victor Emmanuel III on July 25, 1943 (30). The aftermath of Italy’s surrender on September 8, 1943, split the Italian military into two sides, the Kingdom of Italy’s military, which fought for the King, and the other side for Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic (24). Following this, a group of German Paratroopers and SS Soldiers were sent on a raid to rescue deposed Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini at Gran Sasso massif (28). This German Special Forces raid was significant because it allowed Mussolini to rule as head of the German backed Italian Social Republic until his death in April 1945 (29).

The Royal Italian Military’s performance has been much maligned since World War II. Its military was weakened by pre World War II conflicts. Italy was not prepared to go to war in June 1940. The weakness of the Italian military is not a stereotype but an established historical fact. 

What do you think of Italy’s record in World War II? 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] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 367. 

[2] Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia:  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977. 158. 

[3] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 402. 

[4] Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 18. 

6 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 39. 

7 Adams, Henry. Italy at War.  Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 33 to 39. 

9 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 21

8 Adams, Henry. Italy at War . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 53. 

10 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life- Books, Inc. 1982 59.

11 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 58. 

12 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 61. 

13 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 52 to 53. 

14 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 8. 

15 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 26. 

16 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 33 to 35. 

17 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17. 

18 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 19. 

19 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 22

20 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 72 to 75.

21 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 92 to 98. 

22 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 24. 

23Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 101. 

24Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 8 to 42. 

25 Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 16 to 44. 

30 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 156. 

28 McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew43, FG 42 and StG 44. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 43 to 44. 

29 Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under a Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books, 2005. 506. 

References

Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982.

Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005.

Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 

Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977.

Ford, Ken. Campaign: St. Nazaire 1942: The Great Commando Raid. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2001. 

McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles: 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42, and StG 44. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981.

The Three Great Early Influences on Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), sometimes referred to as America’s Da Vinci, was the third President of the USA from 1801-1809, and a great intellect across a wide range of areas. Here, William Floyd Junior tells us about three of his great early educational influences: George Wythe, William Small, and Francis Fauquier.

Thomas Jefferson in London in 1786. By Mather Brown.

President John F. Kennedy addressing a group of Nobel Prize winners at the White House on April 29, 1962 stated, “I think this is the most extraordinary collection of human knowledge, that has gathered in the White House with the possible exception when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” It says something about Jefferson that the obelisk that marks his grave at Monticello and lists what he believed were his greatest accomplishments, has no mention of his being President of the United States. Some historians have referred to him as “America’s Da Vinci.” However, Jefferson did not achieve all that he did alone. He had plenty of help along the way and was fortunate in the three remarkable men he met while a student at William and Mary College.

Early years

Thomas Jefferson’s earliest education began with his father Peter, a self-educated man. Young Tom’s first formal education began at the English School at age 5 and then the Latin School at 9. He would then go on to the Reverend Maury, a classical scholar, where he would remain for two years. In March 1760, Jefferson and his slave, Jupiter, packed a wagon and drove 150 miles east to Williamsburg where Thomas would take up his studies at William and Mary. It would be his first real exposure to the outside world. At the college he gained a reputation as an obsessive student, sometimes spending as many as fifteen hours a day in study and three hours practicing the violin.

During his time in Williamsburg, Jefferson would have the very good fortune of meeting three extraordinary men who were living in Williamsburg at the time. They included George Wythe, William Small, and Francis Fauquier, the Royal Governor, all of whom played a huge roll in Jefferson’s education, both inside and outside the classroom. The four would dine regularly at the Governor’s Palace where they would play music and discuss a wide range of topics. Jefferson would remark about their partee quaree, “To the habitual conversations on these occasions I owed much instruction.”

George Wythe

George Wythe (1726-1806) mastered Greek and Latin as a teenager, graduated college at nineteen and was admitted to the bar at twenty. Among Wythe’s many accomplishments included, being a self-taught lawyer, a member of the House of Burgesses and the Virginia State Legislature, delegate to the Continental Congress, assisting in writing a new legal code for the state of Virginia, a judge on Virginia’s Chancery Court, and Chief Justice of Virginia.

After two years at William and Mary, Jefferson would begin a legal apprenticeship with George Wythe that would last five years, an unusually long period during this time, in which the first year was spent at home reading the assigned texts. In addition to the reading of law books, there was a good deal of time reading in the humanities. In 1767, Jefferson would be admitted to the bar of the General Court which would consume his time until 1774, when the work of the Revolution drew him in to politics and diplomacy.

In response to the Stamp Act, Wythe would be the author of a remonstrance sent to the British government in protest. However, the Stamp Act would go into effect in November 1765.

In 1790 Wythe would resign from William and Mary. One of the reasons for his resignation was his need to travel to Richmond four times a year as the single judge on the High Court of Chancery. In the autumn of 1791, with mixed emotions, Wythe would move to Richmond and purchase a home close to the capitol. Judge Wythe would rule on a variety of issues which included rulings against cases on slavery.

In 1806, George Wythe Sweeney, the judge’s grandnephew was living in Wythe’s house. On May 25, 1806, as Wythe was having breakfast, he became violently ill. Lydia Broadnax and Michael Brown, both free African Americans living in Wythe’s house also became ill.  Brown would die on June 1. It is believed that Sweeney thought he would receive a larger share of Wythe’s will by the poisoning of Broadnax and Brown. Before passing away on June 8, Wythe amended his will to disinherit Sweeney. Sweeney was later acquitted of the murder charge. 

George Wythe probably had more direct influence on Jefferson’s thinking, by virtue of the long periods of time they spent together. Jefferson would later say that: “Mr. Wythe continued to be my faithful and beloved mentor in youth, and my most affectionate friend through life.”

William Small

After fifty years of not having seen William Small, Jefferson would write: “It was my great good fortune, and what probably fixed the destinies of my life that Dr. William Small of Scotland was then professor of mathematics, a man most profound in the useful branches of science, with a happy talent of communication, correct, gentlemanly manners & an enlarged and liberal mind. He, most happy for me, became soon attached to me & made me his daily companion when not engaged in the school.” Small’s influence over the young Thomas Jefferson was one of his most outstanding accomplishments in a life filled with outstanding accomplishments.

William Small was born October 13, 1734 in the Scottish town of Carmyllie, Forfarshire at the time of the Enlightenment. He would graduate from Marischal College in 1755, one of the most scientifically and philosophically advanced schools in the country. There is some evidence that Small studied medicine at King’s College after leaving Marischal. 

The College of William and Mary where Small would arrive in 1758 was chartered in 1693 and was practically a reproduction of Oxford and Cambridge in England. Small would teach both mathematics and moral philosophy. He would also introduce to the college the study of the natural sciences and experimental philosophy. He acquainted Jefferson and other students with Sir Isaac Newton and would open the wonders of an ordered universe while demonstrating what the mind can do.

In the six years he spent at William and Mary, Small would do much to liberalize the college. He would do away with the old practice of making students memorize lessons. Instead, he instituted the modern lecture system. It was also believed to be the first time in America when physics principles came into use in the classroom. For a year, Small would be the only recorded master of the philosophical school, which gave him control of the curriculum.

Jefferson continued to be excited by all he was learning and found that Dr. Small had awakened in him a love of mathematics that had begun with his father years earlier. It would remain his favorite subject from then on. Whenever Jefferson travelled, he would carry mathematical instruments, a ruler, and a book of logarithms.

Much to Jefferson’s disappointment, Small would return to England in 1764. The circumstances surrounding his departure were not pleasant. Among his reasons for leaving was the passing of a new rule by the college board affirming the right to remove any member of the faculty at will, something that Small could not accept. In spite of his short time at William and Mary, his influence at the college would have a long-lasting effect.

Back in England, Small would become one of the founders of the Birmingham Hospital. Although, he often felt that medicine was a prison while his real interests were mathematics, mechanics, and chemistry. 

There is some evidence that upon his return, Small may have played a central role in the founding of the Lunar Society. The Society would become the most prominent and influential of any provincial intellectual club. Meetings were normally held on the Sunday closest to the full moon so the members could more easily find their way home. When the members could not meet, they would write to one another and would ship samples and other items such as bones, fossils, vases, and urns. Their inquiries and discussions covered almost every topic imaginable.

Small’s health had been poor since leaving Virginia, possibly suffering from malaria he may have contracted while living in Williamsburg. At the beginning of 1775, Small became increasingly ill and died on February 25, 1775. On May 5, 1775, Jefferson would write to Small, not knowing that he had died months before. The letter had been sent with three dozen bottles of Moderia wine.

Francis Fauquier

Francis Fauquier would be made Lieutenant Governor of the colony of Virginia by a commission given to him in on February 10, 1758. It was the custom at this time that the Governor would remain in England with the Lieutenant Governor residing in the colony.

Thus, would begin Francis Fauquier’s term beginning in 1758 and continuing until his death in Williamsburg on March 3, 1768. Fauquier would bring his wife and elder son, Francis, with him to Virginia where the two would stay until May 1766.

In John Burke’s, “The History of Virginia from its First Settlement to the Present Day,” he describes Francis Fauquier’s arrival in Williamsburg, “as having an effect on the literature of Virginia.” He goes on to write that, “Fauquier was elegant in his manners, correct and classical in conversation and writing. He was a patron of learning and was thought of in Virginia as a model scholar.”  However, Burke would also mention Fauquier’s habit of gambling, which was very popular among the state’s elite.

Francis was the second child of John Francis and his wife, Elizabeth. He was born in late June or early July 1703. The date of Francis’ marriage to Catherine Dalston is not known, but by the start of 1733, a son, Francis, had been born and a second son, William, not long after. Francis would be elected a director of the South Sea Company, and a governor of the Foundling Hospital. He was also elected a “Fellow of the Royal Society.”

As governor, Fauquier would face a number of difficult issues, the most serious of which were the Stamp Act and the French and Indian War. The Stamp Act, passed by the British Parliament in 1765 would impose a stamp duty on newspapers and legal documents. Colonial opposition to the “Act” led to its repeal in 1766. The French and Indian War (1756-1763) was also known as the Seven Years War. It began with France’s expansion into the Ohio River Valley resulting in a number of battles between the warring parties.

Without a doubt, Fauquier’s most enjoyable times as governor were the dinners he hosted at the Governor’s Palace with his three good friends. It was here that Jefferson would learn the art of living well. At the dinners elegance and good conversation took place, two things he greatly cherished. The older men would encourage Jefferson in his playing of the violin. He would be invited to join Fauquier on the governor’s musical evenings, performing at the palace. Jefferson would later write about the time he spent at the Palace: “I have heard more good sense, more rational, and philosophical conversation than in all my life besides.” The group represented four of the most brilliant minds in Virginia at the time, and perhaps in all of the colonies.

For the remainder of his life Jefferson attempted to replicate those nights he would spend at the Governor’s Palace as a member of the “Partee Quarre.” Whether it was at Monticello, the salons of Paris, the rooms of boarding houses, or the White House, Jefferson encouraged conversation in science, the arts, politics, or other topics of the day.

Francis Fauquier would pass away on March 3, 1768 and was buried in the north isle of Bruton Parish Church in Williamsburg.

What do you think of Jefferson’s early educational influences? Let us know below.