Saladin and Hitler: Opposite Reputations, Unusual Legacies

Saladin (1137-93) was Sultan of Egypt and Syria from 1174-93 and was in charge when Islamic forces took Jerusalem in 1187. The infamous Adolf Hitler needs less explanation. Here, Daniel Boustead considers how they were both liked by people you would not expect – Saladin by Christians due to his kindness, and Hitler by several Islamic extremist groups in the Middle East due to his Anti-Semitism.

Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, meeting Adolf Hitler in 1941. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1987-004-09A / Heinrich Hoffmann / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-1987-004-09A,_Amin_al_Husseini_und_Adolf_Hitler.jpg

Saladin and Adolf Hitler have two opposite reputations. Saladin’s stellar reputation produced positive praise amongst his enemies - his larger than life good reputation led to positive folklore stories that were written about him during Medieval times in the Christian world. In contrast Adolf Hitler’s policy of evil helped him gain prominence in the Islamic World of the Middle East. Adolf Hitler’s legacy of hatred continues to fuel the discord of the politics of the Middle East even today. Both Saladin and Adolf Hitler had unusual places in the Christian and Muslim worlds.

Saladin

Saladin’s generosity and kindness toward his enemies sometimes defied reason. In the tradition of the Second Islamic Caliph Umar, who conquered Jerusalem many years before, Saladin offered not to destroy the Holy Church of the Sepulcher ([1]). Saladin stated that even without the Church, Christians would still make a pilgrimage to the site of Jesus Christ’s tomb (1). Saladin therefore reasoned why make yourself more trouble then its worth by destroying the Holy Church of the Sepulcher? In 1187, when Saladin conquered Jerusalem, much to annoyance of Muslim critics, Saladin permitted the Patriarch of Jerusalem to purchase his freedom and his church treasures, for the normal ransom set for a single person ([2]). In 1187 Saladin permitted 10 Knights Hospitallers to remain in Jerusalem for a year to care for the sick (3).  In 1191 a Frankish women came to Saladin and said her three-month-old baby had been sold on the Arab slave market (4). The Frankish women went to Saladin as he was riding towards Tell al-Kharruba, and told her case which moved Saladin to tears. Saladin then asked that this child be brought to him. The Sultan Saladin ordered the purchase price to be paid to the purchaser and the child was taken from the purchaser. Saladin then gave this Frankish baby back to the women whom hugged it to her bosom and wept, while other people saw this moment and wept also at this sight. This Frankish woman and her baby were then taken back to the Frankish camp on Saladin’s order on horseback (4). 

Furthermore Saladin became an important protector to Eastern Christians against the Roman Catholic crusader states. The King of Georgia, the Byzantine Emperor of Constantinople, and the Catholicos of Armenia, were eager to call Saladin a friend and an ally (5). The Byzantines had friendly relations with Saladin though they never concluded agreement which would result in a military or political alliance between them. (6)

Legacy

Saladin was immortalized in fictional literature and Christian theology throughout Medieval Christian Europe. Christian theologians speculated between the natural, universal moral codes, and Christian morality (7). The Christian theologians concluded by the 13th Century C.E. that Saladin was a symbol of natural morality, because like the Pagan heroes of old he obeyed God’s natural moral laws without recourse to His church or His scriptures (7). In 1187 in a Papal Bull was issued by Gregory VIII (8). He claimed that Saladin captured Jerusalem because the Devil caused dissention in the Christian crusaders (8).  

In 1260, Saladin was romanticized in the fictional text Recits d’un Menstrel de Reims in which Saladin is shown giving the Hospitallers in the Hospital of St. John of Acre and their Grand Master hospitality (9). In Dante’s Divine Comedy Saladin goes to Hell (10). However, in Dante’s Hell Saladin is one of three Muslims who are in the “noble castle” which is emanating the light of human reason and are with the great poets, philosophers, and heroes of antiquity. The fact that these people are “virtuous pagans” forces them to be in the “noble castle” in Hell and prevents them from the torments of Hell’s other inhabitants experiences - but prevents them from being admitted into heaven. In Dante’s Hell Saladin discusses the nature of the Good and the True in this “noble castle” in Hell (10). Because of his stature Saladin was venerated by Christian theologians because they believed the Christian Crusader Knights did not have their hearts with God  - and by secular people for his chivalry. 

Hitler

In the way the Christians venerated Saladin as a noble heathen for his chivalry and kindness towards his enemies, the same could be said for how some more extreme Muslims venerated Nazi leader Adolf Hitler for his violent and destructive Anti-Semitism. How Adolf Hitler’s Anti-Semitism could become popular with a few Muslims is best summed up by George Antonius’ quote: “Arab hatred and Anti-Semitism would end, and the ancient harmony would be restored when Zionism abandoned both its ‘colonialist’ and ‘neo-crusader’ quest”(11).  Sections of Adolf Hitler’s autobiography Mein Kampf appeared in newspapers in Baghdad and Beirut in the spring 1934 (12). Mein Kampf expressed some very destructive Anti-Semitic viewpoints. In an incident on April 15, 1936 (according to the Palestinian Arab National Committee) member Akram Zu’yatir mentioned an incident where three members of Izz-ul-Din-al-Qassam’s militia, who were led by Sheikh Farhan al-Sa’di, pulled three people out of a truck on a mountain road in the Nablus region at 8:30 P.M.(13). The three men pulled three people out of the truck and asked them if they were Jews or Englishmen (13). The driver and passenger answered that they were Jews and were immediately shot on the spot by members of Izz-ul-Din-al-Qassam’s militia (13). Another person who was present “proved to the band that he was a German, a Hitlerite, and a Christian, swearing on Hitler’s honor that he was telling the truth” (13). “The three men released him. ‘For Hitler’s sake’ … with thirty five pounds sterling in his pockets”(13). This showed how a few Muslims supported Adolf Hitler for his Anti-Semitism. This event helped trigger a chain of events that ignited the 1936 Palestinian Arab uprising (13). Akram Zu’aytir describes another incident that took place in Tulkarm where “A car drove by; one of the passengers, wearing a Western-style hat, was attacked by Arab demonstrators (14). “He shouted ‘Heil Hitler’ in the direction of the demonstrators and raised his arm in the Nazi salute, then hoisted the Nazi flag over his car, while the crowd cheered him”(14). This showed how popular Adolf Hitler was with a more extreme section of Muslims and Arabs. If the crowd in this Tulkarm incident had found that the person was Jewish they would likely have killed him.

On January 11, 1941 Hitler issued Directive No.32 which stated: “after Soviet Russian armed forces have been crushed, Germany would carry out the main attack against the Suez Canal with German and Italian Forces” (15). On May 23, 1941 Adolf Hitler issued Directive No.30 which stated “Arab freedom movements in the Middle East are our natural ally against England” (16). This means that had Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy invaded the Middle East they would have liberated Arabs and Muslims from the colonial forces of Great Britain and the Germans would then have killed the Jews living in that region. This is confirmed in a meeting between the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Amin Al-Husseini and Adolf Hitler on November 28, 1941 (17).  Hitler not only promised to the Grand Mufti to “carry on the battle of total destruction of the Judeo-Communist empire in Europe”, but also promised to the Mufti that when the Germans reached the Middle East, that “Germany’s objective would then be solely the destruction of the Jewish element residing in the Arab sphere under the protection of British power. In that hour, the Mufti would be the most authoritative spokesman of the Arab world”(17). While, based on how the Nazis treated people in territories the Nazis invaded, it is debatable how Hitler would have behaved towards the Arabs of the Middle East, this shows a reason why some Arabs had sympathy towards Hitler.

Hitler after the war

After World War II Hitler was still considered a noble infidel by some more extreme groups. Egyptian Islamic Extremist Sayyid Qutb mentioned Hitler in a key text he wrote in the 1950s called Our Struggle with the Jews (18). In a key passage in the work Qutb states: “Then Allah brought Hitler to Rule over them. And once again today the Jews have returned to evil-doing, in the form of ‘Israel” which made the Arabs, owners of the Land taste sorrows and woe. So let Allah bring down upon the Jews people who will mete out the worst kind of punishment, as a confirmation of His unequivocal promise: ‘If you return, then We return’; and in keeping with his Sunna, which does not vary. So for one who expects tomorrow, it is close!”(18). In the aftermath of Sayyid Qutb’s execution in 1966, Qutb became a martyr and ideological inspiration for radical Islamist groups such as Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas (19). 

Saladin and Hitler were partially accepted by communities that would have not normally praised them -  but they would leave very different legacies. Saladin was respected and had Christian sympathy, while Hitler was evil and had the support of extreme groups.

What do you think of the article? 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, “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here, and “Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?” here.

[1] Mohring, Hannes. Translated by Bachrach, David S. Introduction by Cobb, Paul M. Saladin: , the Sultan and His Times, 1138-1193. Baltimore: Maryland. John Hopkins University Press. 2005. 66. 

[2] Mohring, Hannes. Translated by Bachrach, David S. Introduction by Cobb, Paul M. Saladin: the Sultan  and His Times, 1138-1193. Baltimore: Maryland. John Hopkins University Press. 2005. 65 to 66. 

3 Mohring, Hannes. Translated by Bachrach, David S. Introduction by Cobb, Paul M. Saladin: the Sultan and His Times, 1138-1193. Baltimore: Maryland. John Hopkins University Press. 2005. 100. 

4Shaddad, Ibn Bah al-din. Translated by Richards, D.S. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin. New York: New York. Routledge: Taylor& Francis Group. 2002 and 2016. 144 and 147 to 148. 

5 Poole-Lane, Stanley. Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. New York: New York. G.P Putnam and Sons, 1898. This edition published in 2017. 216. 

6 Mohring, Hannes. Translated by Bachrach, David S. Introduction by Cobb, Paul M. Saladin: the Sultan and His Times, 1138-1193. Baltimore: Maryland. John Hopkins University Press. 2005. 77. 

7 Tolan, John V. Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages. Gainesville: Florida. University Press of Florida. 2008. 92. 

8 Tolan, John V. “Mirror of Chivalry: Salah al-Din, in the Medieval European Imagination”, Images of the Other: Europe and the Muslim World before 1700(Cairo Papers in Social Science 19:2) Frasetto, Michael  and Blanke, David R. eds. (Cairo Egypt: American University in Cairo Press 1996). 27-28. 

9 Tolan, John V. “Mirror of Chivalry: Salah al-Din, in the Medieval European Imagination”, Images of the Other: Europe and the Muslim World before 1700 (Cairo Papers in Social Science 19:2) Frasetto, Michael and Blanke, David R. eds. (Cairo Egypt: American University in Cairo Press 1996). 27-28. 

10 Tolan, John V. Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages. Gainesville: Florida. University Press of Florida. 2008. 79 to 80. 

11 Calvert, John. Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism. Oxford: United Kingdom. Oxford University Press. 2018. 168. 

12 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World: With a New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 24. 

13 Achcar,Gilbert. Translated by Goshgarian, G.M. The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. New York: New York.  Metropolitan Books and Henry Holt and Company. 2009. 135 to 137. 

14 Achcar, Gilbert. Translated by Goshgarian, G.M. The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives. New York: New York. Metropolitan Books and Henry Holt and Company. 2009. 137. 

15 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World With a New Preface.  New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 57.

16 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World with a New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 2. 

17 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World With a New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 76 to 78. 

18 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World: With a  New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 259. 

19 Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda for the Arab World: With a New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 255. 

References

Achcar, Gilbert. Translated by Goshgarian, G.M. The Arabs and the Holocaust: The Arab-Israeli War of Narratives.  New York: New York. Metropolitan Books and Henry Holt  and Company. 2009. 

Calvert, John. Sayyid Qutb and the Origins of Radical Islamism. Oxford: United Kingdom. Oxford University Press. 2018.

Herf, Jeffery. Nazi Propaganda For the Arab World: With a New Preface. New Haven: Connecticut. Yale University Press. 2010. 

Mohring, Hannes. Translated by Bachrach, David S. Introduction by Cobb, Paul M. Saladin: the Sultan and His Times, 1138-1193. Baltimore: Maryland. John Hopkins University Press. 2005.

Poole-Lane, Stanley. Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. New York: New York. G.P. Putnam and Sons, 1898. This edition published in 2017. 

Shaddad, Ibn Baha al-Din. Translated by Richards, D.S. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin. New York: New York. Routledge: Taylor & Francis Group. 2002 and 2016. 

Tolan, John V. “Mirror of Chivalry: Salah al-Din, in the Medieval European Imagination”, Images of the Other: Europe and the Muslim World before 1700 (Cairo Papers in Social Science 19:2) Frasetto, Michael and Blanke, David. eds. (Cairo Egypt: American University in Cairo Press 1996). 7-38. 

Tolan, John. V. Sons of Ishmael: Muslims through European Eyes in the Middle Ages. Gainesville: Florida. University Press of Florida. 2008. 

A Shooting in Sarajevo: Updating First World War Historiography - Part I

Even before the guns fell silent in 1918, historians have debated the “true” causes of the First World War. In attempting to point a blaming finger, these academics also reflected the times they lived in. So where does the historiographical debate on the origins of World War I stand now? Avan Fata explains. 

Depiction of Gavrilo Princip killing Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914. An image from Domenica del Corriere, an Italian newspaper. Image by Achille Beltrame.

The narrative remains unchanged: on 28 June 1914, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, heir apparent to the Austro-Hungarian throne, was assassinated in Sarajevo alongside his wife Countess Sophie by Gavrilo Princip. Just a month later, the so-called “July Crisis” ended with Austria-Hungary’s declaration of war on Serbia. Yet what could have been a “Third Balkan War” instead escalated into a continental war, as the other great powers of Europe joined the conflict.[1] It is not uncommon for writers or documentary-makers to utilize cliché metaphors or dramatic phrases to underscore the sheer scale, brutality, and impact of the fighting between 1914-1918. Indeed, it is perhaps the event which laid the foundations for the conflicts, revolutions, and transformations which characterized the “short 20th century”, to borrow a phrase from Eric Hobsbawm.[2] It is no surprise then, that even before the Treaty of Versailles had been signed to formally end the war, people were asking a duo of questions which continues to generate debate to this day.

How did the war start? Why did it start?

Yet in attempting to answer those questions, postwar academics and politicians inevitably began to write with the mood of their times. In Weimar Germany for example, historians seeking to exonerate the previous German Empire for the blame that the Diktat von Versailles had supposedly attached to them were generously funded by the government and given unprecedented access to the archives; so long as their ‘findings’ showed that Germany was not to blame.[3] In attempting to answer how the war had started, these writers were all haunted by the question which their theses, source selection, and areas of focus directly implied: who started it? This article traces the evolution of those arguments and the contours of the debate around the events which began with a shooting in Sarajevo. 

Wartime Justification, Postwar Ponderance

The debate over the origins of the First World War began even while the war was being fought by the great powers. Governments of the great powers, in seeking to portray their involvement in the war as a just and noble act of self-defense, called upon historians to justify the country’s fighting as a just and moral decision.[4]

In some cases, this produced about-turns in the historical writings of entire academic communities. Herbert Fisher, a noted British historian who had praised Germany’s rise to power in the years before the war, changed his tone in a 1914 article titled The War, where he noted that: 

"Prussia has been made by the sword...That is one of the unalterable facts of history graven upon the mind of every German schoolboy, and shaping his whole outlook on the world.[5]"

These arguments were not debates in the traditional sense. How could they be? With the war still raging, historians were unable to engage in the international realm of discussion that had flourished in the prewar years. However, by the time the guns fell silent and the Treaty of Versailles had brought the war to an end, the opportunity arose for new debates on the origins of the War to End All Wars. 

During the interwar years, governments still sought to remove themselves of the blame of “starting” the war. They amassed multi-volume collections of thousands of archived materials (many of which had been previously classified), publishing them in the hopes that historians would find proof that their country had not been the one to engulf Europe in flames. Chief among these collections was the forty-volume Die Grosse Politik, published by the Weimar government, which contained documents dating from 1871-1914.[6]

These sources, previously inaccessible during the war, gave rise to new strains of historiography, which began to re-assess the "justifications" produced by each nation at the beginning of the war. In Britain, these collections of sources generated debates on the extent to which the German nation could be blamed for the First World War. This crusade's most prominent leader was George Peabody Gooch, a former Liberal M.P and author of distinguished historical works.[7] One of the first revisionists on the First World War, he argued alongside William Harbutt Dawson (another prominent historian on German), Raymond Beazely, and a few other British historians that the Germans were not the sole arbiters of war, and as such the peace treaty of Versailles was a flawed one.[8] Unsurprisingly, liberal parties in the Weimar Republic (and followers of a rising Nazi party) cheered the rise of these revisionist "Collective War Guilt" theses. German historians for their part, were re-mobilized to support and propagate these theses (with noticeably more nationalistic overtones). As historian Dennis Showalter describes:

"Strongly nationalistic and patriotic in orientation, matchless researchers and unrivaled polemics - controversy has long been an art form among German intellectuals - the pundits and professors rallied behind a cause lost by the soldiers. Given a previously unheard of access to government documents and frequently supported by government money, a generation of revisionists challenged and denied Germany's sole responsibility.[9]”

An Unavoidable War? 

In the 1930s, these revisionist historians found a way to wash their nations conscience clean of the war. They pointed towards “larger forces”, the “mass demands” which had compelled the statesmen of 1914 to declare war. These forces, among them Social Darwinism, nationalism, and imperialism, provided the perfect solution. By assigning blame to these invisible movements and not a physical group or nation, the problem of “war guilt” could be swept neatly aside.[10]

Politicians also helped give rise to another historiographical norm during the 1930s, the idea of an “inadvertent war”. Simply put, they portrayed the decisions for war not as deliberate, measured choices made by well-informed statesmen, but as decisions made in the dark by leaders who were unaware of the consequences. Going further, several historians propagated the belief that the military had manipulated the civilian leaders into declaring war, or, as George Quester puts it: “at the decisive moment the military took over the direction of affairs and imposed their law.”[11]

Fischer, Taylor, and Historiography during the Cold War

As the Second World War gave way to the Cold War, First World War historiography was revived. Fritz Fischer is the name most associated with this revival, in part due to his namesake "Fischer Thesis", which argued that Germany was, as the first non-German historians had argued during the war, the responsible nation. This of course went against the previously accepted idea that the war had been the collective fault of the governments at the time, and Fischer's book Griff Nach der Weltmacht (Germany's War Aims in the First World War) was hotly debated by other European and American historians alike.[12]

In an era of antiwar sentiments, the First World War was now viewed as something of a pointless conflict, with many in the public pointing towards the interwar instability and Second World War as proof of how hollow the soldiers’ sacrifice had been a half century earlier.[13] With this prevailing mood, the “inadvertent war” theses found greater popularity. A notable work in this regard is A.J.P Taylor’s “War by Timetable”, which proposed that the Great War had been inevitable, accelerated greatly by the meticulous and inflexible mobilization plans that Europe’s powers had developed by 1914.[14]

Beyond the academic debate, the Cold War also influenced popular-history works on the July Crisis. Chief among them is Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, which not only agreed with the “inadvertent war” theses, but portrayed Germany as a “barbaric” and warmongering European power whose armies marched “like predatory ants” across Belgium.[15] To a Western public that was locked in a geopolitical standoff with the monolithic empire of the Soviet Union, such rhetoric may have resonated well.

Current Historiography

In the 1990s, the debate over the origins of World War I began to shift towards what it is in the 21st century. With the Cold War having ended, historians were able to adopt a more disinterested yet critical view of 1914, and the resulting journal articles and theses made several things clear: 

1.     The “larger forces” which had once borne the responsibility of starting the conflict were dismissed. The war was a result of deliberate decisions made by government officials who had a good understanding of what they were getting into. Whilst the “mass demands” may have influenced their mentalities, they did not “force” war as previous historians had argued. 

2.     The military staffs, far from “taking control” of the decision-making bodies, continued to operate within their official capacities. At no point in any of the to-be belligerents did the military concerns override the diplomatic ones that the civilian statesmen possessed.

3.     The diplomatic mentality of the statesmen had been influenced, to varying degrees, by previous diplomatic crises of the 20th century, and investigating why these precedents failed in 1914 is thus a key focus.

Further, as a result of the distance from the First World War, historians in the 1990s emphasized a multinational approach to the matter. No country operated in isolation, and its diplomatic decisions in the lead up to war were influenced by the decisions that the other parties had made. As such, the common trope of assigning “war guilt” is noticeably absent in writings from the 1990s, replaced instead with critical analyses of why and how 1914 differed from a decision-making standpoint in each of the halls of power. 

Thus, there we have a general overview of how the focuses of historiography on the First World War have shifted in the past century, and it would perhaps not be too far-fetched to suggest that these focuses may very well change within the next century too. The next part shall deal with how the current historiography approaches the July Crisis in both its practices and focuses. 

What do you think of World War One historiography? Let us know below.

[1] The other “great powers” in question are Russia, Germany, Britain, and France; joined by the United States in 1917. Other “lesser” powers, whose contributions were still considerable, later included the Ottoman Empire, Bulgaria, Romania, Italy, and Japan. This classification taken from Richard F. Hamilton and Holger H. Herwig (eds.), The Origins of World War I (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 46-50.

[2] The term was first utilized in Eric Hobsbawm, The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century (London: Abacus).

[3] Margaret MacMillan, The War That Ended Peace: How Europe Abandoned Peace for the First World War (London: Profile Books, 2014), xxix.

[4] Dennis Showalter, “The Great War and its Historiography.” The Historian 68, no. 4 (2006): 713-715

[5] Quoted in Steven W. Siak. “’The Blood That Is in Our Veins Comes from German Ancestors’: British Historians and the Coming of the First World War.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 30, no. 2 (1998): 226-7

[6] Another noteworthy synthesis of such source materials is Luigi Alberini’s three-volume The Origins of the War of 1914 (1942 – 1943), which for a time remained the work to consult on the matter.

[7] Heather Jones, “As the Centenary Approaches: The Regeneration of First World War Historiography.” The Historical Journal 56 no. 3 (2013): 860-863

[8] Catherine Ann Cline, “British Historians and the Treaty of Versailles.” Albion: A Quarterly Journal Concerned with British Studies 20, no. 1 (1988): 46-50

[9] Showalter, “The Great War and Its Historiography.”, 716.

[10] Hamilton and Herwig, The Origins of World War I, 25-33.

[11] Quoted in Hamilton and Herwig, The Origins of World War I, 450.

[12] Frederick A. Hale, “Fritz Fischer and the Historiography of World War One.” The History Teacher 9, no. 2 (1976): 258-260.

[13] Alan Kramer, “Recent Historiography of the First World War (Part I),” Journal of Modern European History / Zeitschrift Für Moderne Europäische Geschichte / Revue D'histoire Européenne Contemporaine 12, no. 2 (2014): 160-161.

[14] Frederick Hale, ”Fritz Fischer and the Historiography of World War One,” The History Teacher 9, no. 2 (1976): 262-267.

[15] These quotations and poor view of the work are taken from Ulrich Trumpener, “The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman,” The Journal of Modern History 35, no. 1 (Mar. 1963): 94-95. 

References

Cline, Catherine Ann. “British Historians and the Treaty of Versailles.” Albion: A Quarterly                           Journal Concerned with British Studies 20, no. 1 (1988): 46-50.                                                                                   https://www.jstor.org/stable/4049797.

Hale, Frederick A. "Fritz Fischer and the Historiography of World War One." The History                 Teacher 9, no. 2 (1976): 258-79.  https://www.jstor.org/stable/492292

Herwig, Holger H., and Hamilton, Richard F., eds. The Origins of World War I. Cambridge:             Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Jones, Heather. "As The Centenary Approaches: The Regeneration of First World War                   Historiography." The Historical Journal 56, no. 3 (2013): 857-                  78.http://www.jstor.org/stable/24529097.

Kramer, Alan. "Recent Historiography of the First World War (Part I)." Journal of Modern             European History / Zeitschrift Für Moderne Europäische Geschichte / Revue D'histoire   Européenne Contemporaine 12, no. 1 (2014): 5-                28. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26266110.

MacMillan, Margaret. The War That Ended Peace: How Europe Abandoned Peace for the                First World War. London: Profile Books Ltd., 2014.

Showalter, Dennis. "The Great War and Its Historiography." The Historian 68, no. 4 (2006):        713-21. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24453743.

Steven W. Siak. ""The Blood That Is in Our Veins Comes from German Ancestors": British              Historians and the Coming of the First World War." Albion: A Quarterly Journal                                Concerned with British Studies 30, no. 2 (1998): 221-52.                 https://www.jstor.org/stable/4053522.

Trumpener, Ulrich. “The Guns of August by Barbara W. Tuchman.” The Journal of Modern History 35, no. 1 (1963): 94-95.https://doi.org/10.1086/243637.

Ancient Roman Emperor Trajan – Leader at the Height of Rome’s Power

Emperor Trajan led the Roman Empire from 98 to 117 AD, and played an important role in maintaining and expanding the Roman Empire. Here, Dylan Wardle looks at what he did and considers whether he was a good or bad emperor.

Trajan, in military clothes, in the Xanten Archaeological Park. Source: Hartmann Linge, available here.

His Rise To Power

The great Roman Empire began in 27 BC and was the post-republican period of ancient Rome. Since its formation, it had undergone many changes and vast amounts of hardship. War, turmoil, plague, and betrayal; Rome had experienced it all.

Most people are aware of the Roman Empire and what it consisted of. Many know of its aesthetic and agricultural expertise and that it was one of the largest empires in history.

Very few, however, know just how big the empire was. At the height of its power, it reached from Scotland to the Caspian Sea. The Roman legions and their wartime capabilities were feared by many.

But who was it exactly that allowed Rome to become such a superpower? Who ruled at the height of Rome’s potential?

The name you are looking for is Marcus Ulpius Trajanus, more commonly known as Emperor Trajan. Born on September 18, 53 AD, Marcus eventually spent his early life serving the Roman Empire by participating in various battles on the empire’s frontier.

It wasn’t until the year 89 AD when Marcus marched upon Rhine. His reasons for the march were paramount: to assist Domitian (the current emperor) in his fight against Saturninus (a German rebel governor).

It was soon after this event that Marcus was granted the honor of praetor and then in 91 AD was made consul.

5 years after, Domitian was assassinated and Nerva (Marcus’ adoptive father) became ruler. Nerva then proceeded to make Marcus Ulpius Trajanus governor of northern Germany. Marcus was eventually named Nerva’s successor and so, on the day of Nerva’s death, Marcus became emperor Trajan.

His Reign

Emperor Trajan ruled for a total of 19 years and was admired by many and was observed to be Rome’s kindest and wisest emperor. He encouraged the construction of formidable roads, aqueducts, and harbors as well as implementing the alimenta. The alimenta, which was a Roman welfare program, was inaugurated soon after the Dacian wars. It implemented many necessities for the empire’s recovery after the wars and provided aspects such as funds, food and improved education to children and orphans. Most of this was paid for via the spoils of war.

He was also known for his conquests to expand the empire to the East. The Roman Empire witnessed 6 years of peace and tranquility after the Second Dacian War. That was until the year 114 AD, which started the war against the Parthian dynasty. But what started this final conflict before Trajan’s death? What instigated a brutal and intemperate series of events that would last 3 years?

We must first turn our attention to Armenia, which is located in South Caucasus. At the time, it was a Roman buffer state. The Parthian dynasty placed one of their own on the throne, which aggravated the opposing side.

Trajan, in the year 114 AD, sent his troops to Armenia for an all-out invasion and was soon named a Roman province.

The following year, he proceeded to invade Northern Mesopotamia (which is now commonly known as part of the Middle East) and claimed it as another Roman province. It then wasn’t long until the Romans captured Ctesiphon, the Parthian capital.

After many more conflicts of the war, followed by a few rebellions, Trajan died in the year 117 AD on his return to Rome. He died of a stroke but many at the time suspected poison.

A few years prior to this (specifically in the year 112 AD) Trajan’s forum was formed. It was 300 meters in length and 185 meters wide. It was here that Trajan’s column was constructed which was the resting place of the emperor.

Trajan’s column was to commemorate his 2 victories against the Dacians.

Good Or Bad?

It is difficult to say whether or not Trajan was a good or bad emperor. He accomplished some spectacular feats and sought to see Rome reach a cosmic level of power. Despite the multiple wars he found himself in, the proceeds all went towards better roads and bridges and even harbors from modern-day Spain to the Balkans.

He was an extremely generous emperor too, as he even increased the total amount of grain handed out to peasants. One act of generosity that caught most off guard was that he remitted the gold sent to emperors on their accession back to the people and cities from whence it came.

He may have come across as kind and wise but nonetheless, he was as strict as they come. He had a true burning passion for war and thrived on battle, especially during his early years as an army commander.

After the Second Dacian War, when Trajan returned to Rome, he held competitions between 10,000 gladiators for all to watch.

However, Trajan had no child and so there was no heir to the throne. He had taken a similar approach to his father and adopted a child, which was his cousin’s son Hadrian.

So, what do you think? Was Trajan a good emperor of Rome or a bad one? Let us know below

References

National Geographic: https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/trajan/

World History Encyclopedia: https://www.worldhistory.org/trajan/

Britannica: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Trajan

New World Encyclopedia: https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/trajan

Trajan- The Best Emperor #13: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BagdB-pqno

Unsinkable Sam: The Cat that Survived Three War Ships Sinking in World War 2

Unsinkable Sam was a rather famous cat during World War 2. He managed to escape from three ships that were sunk. Nikhil Vemu explains this quite incredible tale.

HMS Cossack.

Ever imagined a cat would survive bullets and bomb blasts in a battle and finally would get into someone’s good hands to lead a peaceful, Garfield-like life thereafter?

Yes, it did exist in history, but is much forgotten. Not a fiction, not a movie. It’s the cat famously named ‘Unsinkable Sam’.

Why was the cat named so?

Though the cat was first named Oscar, he’s widely known as ‘Unsinkable Sam’ because he miraculously survived threewarships sinking in World War II when countless trained navy men died of drowning.

And how he survived three times, God knows.

Basic history of the cat

Sam, when his name wasn’t Sam, worked as a ‘ship’s cat’ for the German battleship Bismarck in World War-II.

Wait.. What? Ship’s cat? Yes, ship’s cat.

Dating back from ancient times to recent history, cats were carried along on ships by shipmen. They helped control rodents on ships, which could otherwise damage vital ropes, furniture and electrical wires. They’re called ship’s cats.

Tom and jerry episode 71 cruise cat part 2 - YouTube:

Ever watched this episode of Tom & Jerry? Tom works as a ship's cat here. He tries to kill Jerry, the mischievous rodent, on the ship.>>>

The year of his birth is unknown. He started being a ship’s cat for Germany in 1941, and died in 1955 in Belfast, Northern Ireland.

He’s a black and white patched cat, and all cats are cute, at least for me. Here’s his photo.

He worked in the ships:

• Battleship Bismarck of Germany.

• Destroyer HMS Cossack of Britain.

• Aircraft Carrier HMS Ark Royal of Britain.

I. What happened in Bismarck?

The cat was supposed to be owned by a German crewman on Bismarck. He was on-board in May 1941 for the mission ‘Operation Rheinübung’.

After a fierce battle by that only ship with 13 British and Polish ships, only 114 of over 2,100 of Bismarck's crew survived.

Hours later, the cat was found floating on a wooden board and was rescued by the rival ship HMS Cossack of the British Royal Navy, where he was named Oscar.

Why was he named ‘Oscar’?

When some crewmen of HMS Cossack found the cat in the sea, they shouted, “Oscar..! Oscar..!” Why?

Oscar (also Man Overboard), in the International Code of Signals, is an exclamation used to indicate if a person has fallen off a ship and needs immediate rescue.

After they successfully pulled him up, they felt he needed a name as he would be their new ship’s cat. If he were talking tom, he’d have spoken out his name. Unfortunately, he’s not. Also, his real owner must have died. So they newly named him after the signal as Oscar.

II. What happened in HMS Cossack?

Days were comfortable for Oscar on HMS Cossack, but they remained so only for the next few months, until a revenge torpedo launched by the German submarine U-563, hit the ship in October 1941.

Big fires spread and they were unable to drive the ship. They tried to tow the ship towards Gibraltar, a British overseas territory. However, due to the weather conditions, they had to leave the ship behind while the crew (and the cat) were inside. An explosion has blown off one-third of its forward section, killing 159 of its crewmembers.

To everyone’s astonishment, Oscar survived this blast too. He was brought to Gibraltar’s shore, and was named ‘Unsinkable Sam’ — as he survived two ships sinking till then, and that too without anyone’s help or protection.

Sam was then transferred to the Aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal, which was coincidentally a major player along with HMS Cossack in the hunt for Bismarck.

III. What happened in HMS Ark Royal?

Sam spent the least time in this aircraft carrier - only one month. In November 1941, the ship was torpedoed by German submarine U-81. Attempts were made to tow the ship to the port, but rapid water inflow made it heavier and it became tougher to tow. So the Royal Navy had to leave the ship and only rescue the crew.

Fortunately, there wasn’t much loss of life this time. Only one in all the crewmen died. All the survivors, including Sam, who was found clinging to a plank, were rescued by other ships. Sam was depicted here as “angry, but quite unharmed”.

The end of Sam’s career as ship’s cat

After the tremendous loss of Ark Royal, Sam wasn’t used as a ship’s cat anymore. He was sent ashore to let him enjoy his retired life thereafter. He safely lived the rest of his life in the ‘Home for Sailors’ in Belfast, and died of old age in 1955.

The painting of Unsinkable Sam by the artist Georgina Shaw-Baker is still preserved by the National Maritime Museum in Greenwich.

What do you think of Unsinkable Sam? Let us know below.

The 1943 Trident Conference: A Path to Victory in World War 2

The 1943 Trident Conference involved the two-key World War II allies of the USA and Britain. Prime Minister Winston Churchill traveled to Washington to meet President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Here, William Floyd Jr. looks at what happened during the conference and its impact on the later years of World War II.

Churchill and Roosevelt fishing - when taking a break from the conference. Source: FDR Presidential Library & Museum, available here.

On May 10, 1943, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, identifying himself as “Naval Person”, wrote to President Franklin Roosevelt from on board the ocean liner, “Queen Mary”, “Since yesterday we have been surrounded by U.S. Navy and we all greatly appreciate high value you evidently set upon our continued survival. I look forward to being at White House with you tomorrow afternoon, and also going to Hyde Park with you at weekend. The voyage has been so far most agreeable and Staff have done vast amount of work.”

The ocean liner “Queen Mary” had made her first voyage on May 27, 1936, as a passenger liner, primarily sailing on the North Atlantic until 1967. With the beginning of World War II, it was converted to a military ship transporting Allied soldiers. Her colors of red, white, and black were now gone under a pewter gray to make the ship less visible. She would become known as the “Gray Ghost.” On Tuesday morning, May 11, 1943, she would arrive in New York carrying her very special passengers, the Prime Minister and about one hundred staff. The ship also had 5,000 German prisoners, on board, captured in the North African Campaign and bound for POW camps in the American Southwest.

The Prime Minister and his staff would be meeting with the President and his aides to map out a plan to bring the war to a successful conclusion. Waiting at the dock to greet the Prime Minister was the President’s closest aide, Harry Hopkins, along with a special presidential train for the trip to Washington D.C. As the train came to a stop at Union Station, the limousines pulled onto the platform. The President was lifted from the lead vehicle and placed in a wheelchair. All of Roosevelt’s symptoms of stress and age seemed to go away at the sight of the Prime Minister approaching in his yacht squadron uniform. The two men beamed at each other before driving off to the conference. The President insisted that the Prime Minister stay at the White House.

The Trident Conference would become one of many between the United States and Great Britain including Casablanca, Quebec, Cairo, Tehran, Malta, Yalta, and Potsdam. Soviet leader Joseph Stalin attended the Tehran, Yalta, and Potsdam Conferences.

Objectives

The first meeting of the conference took place at the White House on May 12, 1943 at 2:30 P.M. The President, Prime Minister, and their staffs would be in attendance. The President welcomed Mr. Churchill and the British Chiefs of Staff stating that it was very appropriate that they should meet again just as Operation Torch (North African Campaign) was coming to a satisfactory conclusion. He also said that he thought the keynote should be to employ every resource of men and munitions against the enemy. Nothing that could be brought to bear should be allowed to stand idle.

He then asked the Prime Minister to open the discussion. Churchill would deliver some opening remarks and then proceeded to go through a number of objectives to consider. The first objective was the Mediterranean Theatre. The great prize was to get Italy out of the war by whatever means possible. The second objective should be taking the weight off of the USSR. Stalin had stated that the best way of taking the weight off of the Soviet front, in 1943, would be to knock Italy out of the war forcing the Germans to send a large number of troops, from the Soviet front to hold down the Balkans. The third objective, as mentioned by the President, was to apply the greatest possible numbers of our armed forces for the campaign. The fourth objective was to make it absolutely clear that his majesty’s government earnestly desired to undertake a full-scale invasion of the continent. The fifth and final objective should be aid to China and the hope that the USSR could be brought in for the fight against Japan.

In his closing statement the Prime Minister stated that he hoped his remarks would help to frame an agenda for the Combined Chiefs of Staff and serve as a guide for their discussions. The President expressed his gratitude to the Prime Minister for the open way in which he had presented his views.

The conference in Washington D.C. happened at a time of greater optimism for the Allies. There had been success in North Africa, a number of islands in the Pacific had been retaken, the Soviet Union had withstood the siege of Stalingrad, the battle of the Atlantic was turning in favor of the Allies, and preparations were going forward for Operation Husky (the invasion of Sicily).

Discussions

One of the main topics was that, if the British were interested in further operations in the Mediterranean Theatre while the Americans were insistent that these actions be limited so they would not interfere with a cross-Channel invasion in 1944. If the British would not commit themselves to the European invasion of Western Europe in 1944, then all bets were off and the United States would focus on Japan. There was much disagreement, even among those on the same side as to what the next step should be. However, Churchill and his generals were thus far right in that it was imperative to attack the Italian mainland, which was the only battlefield where Anglo-American ground forces could engage the Germans in 1943. Other topics of discussion included an increase in air attacks on Axis targets with an emphasis on the bombing of oil fields, recapturing Burma from the Japanese and reopening the supply line to China. There was also discussion of refugees leaving Europe, but no final decision was arrived at.

The President and Prime Minister had spent ample time together when they met for the 1943 conference, so they were used to each other’s moods for better or worse. They were each comfortable through the long hours of conversation. When the subject of the 1944 presidential election came up, Churchill told Roosevelt, “I simply can’t go on without you.” Churchill would write to Clementine from Washington, “Although after 12 arduous years he would gladly be quit of it. It would be painful to leave with the war unfinished and break the theme of his action. To me this would be a disaster of the first magnitude.” The United States and Britain, Churchill said in Washington, “could pull out of any mess together.” In Roosevelt’s mind, however, Churchill had become less of a force to contend with and was now a permanent part of Roosevelt’s universe, one in which he was in charge. 

During his time in Washington, Churchill would give another full -scale address to Congress. It was again a success. According to his typing secretary, Churchill spent nine and a half hours dictating it to her and it commanded the approval of the President.

After opening remarks on May 12, the first meeting would take place in Roosevelt’s oval study, a small hideaway above the Blue Room. As would be expected nautical paintings and etchings decorated the walls. The President would sit in his armless wheelchair greeting the Prime Minister and ten other men mostly from the Combined Chiefs. At this conference, the Americans were much better prepared than they had been at Casablanca where they felt they had been outfoxed by the British.

The President’s advisers worked hard to overcome what many thought was the biggest obstacle to American strategic leadership: Roosevelt himself, and his willingness to be swayed by Churchill’s oratory. The U.S. Joint Chiefs had met with Roosevelt three days before and had gotten from him a promise to press the British for a commitment to a cross-Channel invasion of Europe. They also reminded the President that a large segment of the American public considered the Japanese the real enemy. 

The President and Prime Minister would meet six times with the Combined Chiefs of Staff at the White House over the course of the conference. The Combined Chiefs, themselves, would meet almost every day in the Board of Governor’s Room at the Federal Reserve Building. On May 15 the two staffs had been able to take a rest-and-relaxation break at nearby Williamsburg, Virginia, the restored capital of 18th century Virginia. They would tour the town and feast on traditional foods of that era. Everyone from both sides seemed to enjoy themselves.

Final outcomes

Back in Washington, the meetings would continue until May 25. However, many major decisions would be reached on Wednesday, the nineteenth. On May 21, the Combined Chiefs presented their results to the President and the Prime Minister. In his diary Sir Alan Brooke, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, wrote, “We spent about one and a half hours listening to PM and President and holding forth on strategy and shivering lest either of them should suddenly put their foot right into it and reopen some of the differences which we had reconciled with some difficulty! ... Thank heaven we got through safely!” Brook spoke too soon. Three days after writing this, he again stated in his diary that Churchill, “wished to repudiate half” of the agreement, “which would have crashed the whole” agreement. Fortunately, Roosevelt’s adviser, Harry Hopkins, was able to get the Prime Minister to withdraw his revisions and only do minor rewording of some text.

The result of the Trident Conference, as that of Casablanca, for the near future pointed to the continuation of both the Mediterranean and Pacific offensives. However, barriers had been set at the Washington meetings to contain or limit the Mediterranean advance and these plans had mostly shifted to operations, which would set the stage for the planned cross-Channel invasion. There had also been progress in putting together the Pacific and European operations into tentative long-range planning in the war against both Japan and Germany. As welcome as these signs were to military planners, events would soon indicate that all the pieces in the worldwide strategic puzzle had not yet fallen into place and that the Mediterranean issue was still far from finished.

Ending the conference

At 4:00 P.M. on May 25, exactly two weeks after his arrival in Washington, Churchill walked down the corridor to the oval office. He would be leaving by flying boat from the Potomac River the next morning. After much debate, the code name for this departure would be “Neptune.” Roosevelt sat in his armless wheelchair, with Churchill now at his side, and gave a nod to let a large number of reporters in. “We are awfully glad to have Mr. Churchill back here,” the President told the gathering. “Considering the size of our problems, these discussions have been done in practically record time.” When asked about our plans for the future, Churchill replied, “Our plans for the future are to wage this war until unconditional surrender is procured from all those who have molested us, and this applies equally to Asia and Europe.”

     At the final Trident meeting with the Combined Chiefs and the President, Churchill proposed that Marshall accompany him to Algeria where they would meet with General Eisenhower. Churchill hoped to get from Ike irreversible promises to launch a campaign on the Italian mainland soon after “Husky.” Churchill also intended to try and get Marshall to accept some of his further plans in the eastern Mediterranean. However, Marshall remained skeptical as to the wisdom of invading mainland Italy. He would forcefully remind Churchill and the others that they had set a definite date for the cross-Channel attack in France for May 1, 1944.

     Eisenhower stated that the invasion of the Italian mainland would be an easy operation. Marshall disagreed. In fact, the invasion of Italy would be a bloody twenty-four month long struggle up the Italian boot that would cost the Allies more than three hundred thousand casualties, including 23,500 American deaths, and would turn most of the country into a wasteland.

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

Now read William’s article on three great early influences on Thomas Jefferson here.

Sources

1.     Rick Atkinson, The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Italy, 1943-1944 (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 2007).

2.     Chapter VI-The Trident Conference-New Patterns: 1943, history.army.mil.

3.     Debi and Irwin Unger, General Marshall (New York: Harper Collins, 2014).

4.     The Trident Conference: May 1943, U.S. Government Bookstore, https://bookstore.gpo.gov.

5.     Trident Conference Home, Eisenhower Presidential Papers and Minutes of Meetings, https://www.eisenhowerlibrary.gov.

6.     Gerhard L. Weinberg, A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1994).

7.     Max Hastings, The World at War: 1939-1945 (New York: Random House, 2011).

8.     The Trident Conference-May 1943 by Joint History Office (U.S.)

9.     Jon Meacham. Franklin and Winston: An Intimate Portrait of an Epic Friendship (New York: Random House, 2003).

10.  Andrew Roberts, Churchill: Walking with Destiny (New York: Penguin Random House, 2018).

11.  Roy Jenkins, Churchill: A Biography (New York: Penguin Group, 2002).

12.  The Trident Conference, Defense Media Network.

The British who Fought for the Nazi’s Infamous SS

A number of British and other colonial forces joined the Nazi SS during World War Two. These were usually captured individuals who decided to join the Nazi-supporting British Free Corps (BFC). The Nazis intended to use it as a propaganda tool to divide the Allies and help in battles – but instead the incompetence of the unit meant that it was a burden on the Nazis. Steve Prout returns to the site and explains.

Kenneth Berry and Alfred Minchin, members of the British Free Corps, with German officers in April 1944.

World War Two paints the picture of the Nazi SS as a brutal, ruthless yet elite fighting force second to none.  It closely followed a strict and stringent recruitment policy based on Nazi ideology - they were the Germans Army’s military special forces recruiting only the finest.

In the final stages of the war the Germans had exhausted much of its supply of experienced soldiers. The SS widened their recruiting net to include foreign nationals in the POW camps.  The SS approached certain Britons with fascist sympathies (most of which had memberships with Oswald Mosley’s British Union of Fascists prior to the war).  It is these British volunteers that made up a very peculiar crew when they were drafted into the SS.

John Amery – The Founder

John Amery was the son of the renowned politician Leopold Amery.  He was an ardent fascist and member of the British Union of Fascists. He led a life in complete contrast to his father with a string of business failures and numerous embarrassments. A life that ended at the gallows. 

Seeking to escape this self-inflicted stigma he left England to participate in the Spanish Civil War on the Franco side with a fellow French Fascist Jacques Doriot.  

Amery would embellish his account on his brief contribution to that war. He then travelled to France with Doriot to soon earn the disdain of the new Vichy government. This strained relationship would cause him numerous inconveniences and restrictions. Doriot helped him escape from France in 1943 to Germany where the Nazis would hear Amery’s ideas.

Amery proposed to the Germans the establishment of what would become the BFC - British Free Corps, which would be a detachment of the SS to fight on the Eastern front.  It was not an original plan as Doriot his friend had already formed a French version.

The Germans had other successes as France and Holland provided twenty thousand volunteers each, the Baltic and Russian states offered over one hundred thousand, and an Indian detachment of nearly five thousand amongst others.  The Germans now had hopes for a British detachment for propaganda purposes to upset British-Soviet relations.

The Team

Amery was hoping to replicate these successes and so he started to select a core of British and Commonwealth POWs to build his army for action on the Eastern Front in its crusade against communism.  The team he would select would be one of a very poor quality and make a very curious crew.  His participation terminated in late 1943, forced upon by the exasperated Germans. 

The original name, “Legion of St George”, was abandoned and was replaced by the “British Free Corps” suggested by new member Alfred Minchin (being his only noteworthy contribution combat or otherwise). 

The name itself, the British Free Corps, was misleading as the group was not exclusively British. New Zealanders, numerous Australians, South Africans and some Canadians were all identified post WWII.

The group would be largely comprised of “poor types”.  Listing and commenting on every member would offer no value but the ones presented in this piece largely represent the quality of this anomalous military faction. Out of a rumored one thousand who applied most would be rejected. The group never exceeded more than thirty but that reduced to seven as the war neared its end.

The Sum of the Parts 

1.The BFC’s own “Walter Mitty” 

Douglas Berville-Claye had many aliases and back-stories and cut a colorful figure. In fact, he could have been one of the first real life Walter Mitty’s. His early military career saw him failing his pilot training and swiftly going AWOL to partake in a bigamist marriage. He would spend most of his life impersonating officers, funding his life by all kinds of fraudulent means. He would deceptively work his way to an officer’s rank in the SAS where on his first mission in Crete he was captured.

After his capture he quickly fell afoul of his fellow POWs and was sent to the BFC by an officer in the German Army, Felix Steiner, who like the British before him believed his boasts and put him in an officer role.  

He pretended to be many things, fooling both the British and Germans. He was not a man committed to anything Pro–Nazi or Anti-Soviet but only to himself. If anything, he was a proficient con man and chancer caught up between two sides in the war.

His deceptive ways would continue long after the war, landing him in all kinds of trouble with the law but not for membership of the BFC - where the evidence against him was inadmissible.

2.The Deserters and Time Wasters

There were plenty of time wasters and no shortage of deserters. A few only stayed a few days before requesting to be returned to their detention camps as in the case of Robert Chipchase, an Australian. and numerous others like him. A large number were brutally coerced and would soon leave and those that remained were of little fighting value.  

If there was such a term as a “serial deserter” then Herbert Rowlands fitted that description.  He had deserted from The International Brigade in the Spanish Civil War fighting for the Republicans.  The war would see him desert the British Army to join the German side and swiftly desert again. Indeed, a man of no dedicated, commitment or cause.  Most would desert as the tide of the war turned against Germany.

3.The Womanizers

For many the BFC offered a chance to indulge in womanizing and access to alcohol away from the dull life of internment. They were oblivious to the future consequences.  William Alexander was one example.  

An Australian, Roy Barker, a man deemed by Thomas Cooper (he will have a special mention shortly) of “inferior intelligence” joined for the same women and alcohol and when the crucial call to duty arrived, he would smoke aspirin to get himself medically discharged on the eve of battle.  

George Croft was hated by fellow POWs, fled to the BFC, and would swiftly contract gonorrhea.   

Both Edward Jacobs and Charlie Munn had their conduct used as blackmail against them by the Germans. They would soon serve a short period of service before being rejected and returned to isolation camps.

4.The Criminal Faction

Eric Pleasants was not a military man at the start of the war and was removed from the Channel Islands after he was caught by the Germans with fellow prisoner and future BFC member John Leicester burgling the homes of the residents. They were both dispatched to a French prison where they would lie and pretend to be Merchant Seamen to obtain better rations, which led them to the BFC. 

Both were also classic time wasters as Pleasants’ left the BFC in January 1944 only to re-join a few short months later after finding the labor camps too harsh.  He and Lester made their intentions clear that being conscientious objectors before the war they had no plans to fight on the Russian Front.  In fact, they admitted to fellow member Minchin that they only sought a good time. The end of the war would see him incarcerated in a Soviet gulag until his release in 1952.  He made spurious claims, included killing two Soviet soldiers with his bare hands (interestingly he did not incur the wrath of the Soviets who killed others for less). The British did not prosecute, acknowledging that his punishment in the Soviet gulag was sufficient.

Roy Courlander, a New Zealander, one of the “Big Six” prominent members, was also of a criminal background.  He had been convicted on charges of burglary in New Zealand before the war.  He bizarrely posed as a White Russian Immigrant to justify his anti-Soviet views despite being London born.  His choice for joining the SS was surprising with him having a Lithuanian father of Jewish descent.

When he was assigned to recruitment drives in the internment camps or leading propaganda broadcasts, he would focus his energies undermining Amery for control of the group, sensing that he was falling out of favor with the Germans. 

Not only did Courlander turn against his country but towards the end of the war he deserted the Germany side as well. Finding that he was on the losing side he quickly deserted and joined the Belgian resistance to fight against the Germans. We are unsure of his contribution there, but it did not save him from a fifteen-year sentence at the end of the war.

Tom Perkins, a purported pre-war prison officer would find himself expelled through concealing a pistol to sell on. Interestingly, Cooper suspected that Perkins’ knowledge of prisons was not from his claim to being a prison officer but from the experiences of “being inside the cell rather than the outside.”

5.Other Undesirables

Kenneth Berry, Amery’s first and only lasting recruit, was in his post-trial considered a “young fool” who again would offer nothing to the project due to his inexperience (perhaps reflected in his seven-month prison sentence).  John Wilson, a sexually obsessed and former poor performing commando, the only officer material to be recruited quickly, showed his ineptitude in leadership and quickly had himself appointed to a liaison position to avoid actual combat.  

Hugh Cowie is also worthy of a special mention for his racist behavior and incessant scandals. He insisted on a whites only organization and saw to the removal of six Maoris who they sought to enlist.  One could argue Cowie did the allies a service by depriving the project of six willing members.  It is interesting that other accounts name a Roland Barker for these racist objections.  It is not impossible that both were guilty of sharing similar views

Frank MacLardy, a captured army medical officer (one of the Big Six), also did little to assist the movement.  He was an ardent member of the British Fascist Party prior to the war. He was not an unintelligent man being a trained Pharmacist and Treasurer of the BUF. His extreme views would result in fighting between him and his fellow BFC members. It would also be the only fighting he would be involved in.

MacLardy tried on several occasions to use his failing health as a means of repatriation and joined the BUF for a more comfortable existence. At the first sign of hostilities and not before did he make his escape and surrender to the advancing American army.  His inactivity, disruptive tendencies and general ineffectiveness served his country well with its detrimental effect on the corps.

6.The Worst of the Worst

Thomas Cooper was the only one to be branded and accused of being a war criminal.  Thomas Cooper left Britain a bitter and rejected man for Nazi Germany in 1938. He had failed to secure any positions when he applied for all sections of the armed forces and the police force. He had joined the British Union of Fascists and quickly established contact with the Nazis.

After a brief spell of private tutoring in Germany he was approached to join the SS in 1940. He was quickly drafted and served in several capacities before moving to the BFC.  He was also rumored to be complicit in numerous war crimes involving alleged genocidal activities in Krakow.  However, this was unproven - despite his retracted boasts and testimonies from former unreliable BFC members.

He remained bitter to his home country and looked forward to German victory and occupation so he could take out his revenge on those who excluded him, in his words “settle scores with people who refused him work.”

He also secretly undermined Amery for control of the group, sensing that Amery fell out of favor with the German High Command. 

Courlander’s treachery went full circle. Towards the end of the war, he deserted the German ranks after realizing that he was on the losing side and joined the Belgian resistance. It did not however save him from a fifteen-year sentence at the war’s end.

7. A few good apples

There were genuine saboteurs within the ranks.

Thomas Freeman was first to assign to the BFC the label as “poor types”.  Freeman would face no charges proving that he used the BFC as a ruse then means of escape, which he succeeded in. He helped identify several BFC members after the war.

Sergeant John Henry Brown requires special mention as he was awarded the DMC for his conduct in feeding back intelligence and subtly sabotaging the efforts of the recruitment drive.  Throughout his captivity he exploited German confidence to undermine the BFC. He was so convincing that his own side believed him to be a real collaborator.

Scharper was one of the German officers who was now responsible for recruiting. He subjected newly captured Allied soldiers to psychological and physical torture who were isolated, still in shock and vulnerable.  The idea was while in this state they would be easier to coerce into joining the BFC. He assisted other BFC members, notably Edward Martin. The effect would only be for the short term.  

Sergeant John Brown convinced Cooper that coerced recruits would not be conducive to a stable team. As they gathered in numbers in the BFC camps, being no longer isolated, the majority demanded their retraction.

Conclusion

Given the quality of the individuals it was inevitable that the BFC failed to achieve its objectives. Many were put on trial after the war, resulting in one execution and the rest barely serving a fraction of their sentences. The matter was quickly forgotten amid the post-war challenges.

This whole debacle was more of a benefit to the Allied cause (albeit unintentionally) owing to the combined ineffectiveness of these “poor types”.  The Germans had taken the worst of the British POWs and unwittingly installed a problem child inside their own military machine. The quality of the men would only result in failure. The time wasted on supervision, the running of the camps, training, discipline, recaptures of escapees and general administration on indoctrination and membership turnover meant that a piece of the German war effort had been distracted. 

A South African namely Doug Marden was given charge of the BFC in April 1945.  He would report back to his German commanders shortly before fighting that they were not fit for purpose (which was true). Subsequently they were then consigned to unimportant logistical support duties.

The intended propaganda tool to split the Allied coalition became an embarrassment as well as a spectacular failure for the Germans. Perhaps moving these errant individuals from the camps was a blessing for the many loyal ones - and keeping their shortcomings from contaminating the active Allied ranks.

Let us know what you think of the article below.

Now read Steve’s article on Britain’s relations with the Great Dictators in the inter-war years here.

Bibliography

Renegades: Hitler’s Englishmen – Adrian Weale- 1994 – Random House – (Kindle)

Britische Freikorps: British Volunteers in the Waffen SS 1943-1945 – Richard Landwehr – 1992- Merriman Press

Jewish Virtual Library

The Partition of India and the World’s Largest Forced Migration

The 1947 Partition of India followed the end of British rule in India. It divided India up to a Hindu-majority India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan. Here, Rezaul Karim Reza explains how this happened and the long-term implications.

A refugee train traveling to Punjab in Pakistan.

Whenever I pay a visit to Hili, the nearest border that divides India and Bangladesh, I kick the dirt below my boot, and inculpate the British lawyer, Cyril Radcliffe who drew the lines that divided India in 1947. The partition now does not allow me to meet the people who speak the same language, wear the same clothes, and smell the same air in Bengal. 

Although I criticize Cyril Radcliffe mostly, it was not actually Radcliffe alone to demarcate India. It was the then British Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, and the last Viceroy of India, Mountbatten. And it was the Indian politicians - Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, and Muhammad Ali Jinnah.

The End of the British Raj 

Britain faced financial hardship and lack of resources to control its overextended empire in India in 1947, just after the end of WWII, when British Prime Minister Clement Attlee decided to end the two hundred year long British colonial rule in India. Attlee sent Mountbatten as the last Viceroy of India, where he would soon transfer power to the Indian leaders. 

By then, people in the subcontinent came to know that the British were leaving, and they were going to be free soon. But a fear and suspicion swept through the Indian Muslim community, a sizable minority in the region. They thought that they would be discriminated and tortured under the Hindu dominant India, so they wanted a separate country. Muhammad Ali Jinnah, the leader of Indian Muslim League, a political party established in 1906, took this opportunity. He urged the Muslims to unite for a separate country. His focus ultimately shifted on creating ‘Pakistan.’

On the other hand, the Hindus disliked the idea of breaking up India. Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru, the leaders of the Indian National Congress, which was established in 1885, disagreed with the Muslims. The disagreement between the two party leaders and the contradiction among the people resulted in violent riots and clashes between Hindus and Muslims. One such brutal clash occurred in Calcutta, the capital of the British Indian province of Bengal in 1946.

The Great Calcutta Killing

‘The Great Calcutta Killing’ or ‘The Direct Action Day’ turned the city of Calcutta into war-ravaged havoc in 1946. Corpses strewn, houses burnt, and businesses vandalized. The Muslims attacked the Hindus and the Hindus the Muslims. They abducted, raped, and killed underage girls, young ladies, and old women in broad daylight. During the four day –long violence, the death toll was between 5,000 and 10,000, with 15,000 wounded. After Calcutta, the riot passed through many other major cities across India, including Mumbai, Delhi, and Lucknow. The Hindu – Muslim riot shook the British and they thought Partition was inevitable. So, Mountbatten decided to declare ‘Partition’ and leave India in 1947, a year before planned, thinking the more they waited, the more disagreements arose.

Muhammad Ali Jinnah was happy with partition, hoping to be prime minister of newly created ‘Pakistan.’ Jawaharlal Nehru reluctantly agreed. Gandhi disagreed but it was too late because the British were in a hurry. Now, the leaders were ready to make partition happen. Mountbatten called upon Radcliffe to divide the country upon religious demography.

Radcliffe had little idea about India. He did not know anything of Bengal and Punjab. Yet, a man of such inexperience was given only five weeks to draw a map that eventually displaced millions of people. From the outdated maps and census data, he drew the map dividing Muslim majority Pakistan and Hindu majority India. But his pen cut through two key provinces of British India - Bengal and Punjab.

Divide Bengal and Punjab

Muslim majority East Bengal (Bangladesh today) joined Pakistan and the Hindu majority West Bengal went with India. In the Punjab, Sikh and Hindu majority East Punjab joined India while the Muslim majority West Punjab went with Pakistan. Now the so-called borders were set, creating two new countries – India and Pakistan. But, all of a sudden, a mass migration shook the two countries.

Forced Migration

Ethnic cleansing, arson, riots, looting, vandalism – fresh violence erupted across India and Pakistan. People started moving. Villagers started selling up and moving on. They were moving with their cattle, cats, and clothes. Women were moving with their babies in their laps and men with their belongings packed in sacks on their soldiers. Some peaceful Hindus and Muslims hugged each other and shook hands. Tears rolled down their cheeks. They said good-bye to their century old parental houses for a destination unknown. A desperate journey began. The peaceful unpaved country roads suddenly turned into migrant roads. They were all moving – Hindus to India and Muslims to Pakistan.

The displaced migrants walked on foot, rode in bullock carts, and travelled by trains. Many people walked for days and weeks to reach their unknown destiny. During the desperate journey, children starved to death, while old people coughed frequently and stopped breathing suddenly.  People died and dead bodies scattered by roadside ditches were torn apart by vultures. 

They became homeless overnight and found their shacks in the refugee camps. Diseases soon swept across those unhealthy camps and the death toll soared. The partition displaced about 15 million people, killed more than 1 million, and thousands of women were abducted and raped. Besides the brutal British legacy of ‘Divide and Rule,’ the partition kept India and Pakistan in a long-term enmity that has resulted in three major wars between the two countries. 

War

One such war broke out in 1971 when Bangladesh was eventually created in East Pakistan, some 1,200 miles from West Pakistan. Now, Bangladesh borders India. Despite having strong ties, and lasting friendship, Indian border security forces killed their Bangladeshi counterparts. The victims ranged from cattle traders to smugglers and innocent civilians. Once a friend, India is now a foe to many people in Bangladesh, especially to those who are living in the border areas.   

Prior to the Bangladesh War, India and Pakistan had two more major wars in Kashmir. Radcliffe did not draw a map for Kashmir because the Kashmiri, unlike many other Princely States, wanted to be an independent country. But it failed to be so and the dispute over Kashmir sparked tension that resulted in the first Indo –Pak War in 1947, just after the partition, and the second one in 1965.

Although the two countries have maintained a ceasefire since 2003, border skirmishes create panic among the people on both sides frequently. The legacy of the British Raj has now created enmity among the three countries – India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh. 

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

Rezaul is a substitute English teacher, a history enthusiast, and a freelance contributor based in Rangpur, Bangladesh. His works have appeared in the Christian Science Monitor and Reader’s Digest. 

Chief Flying Hawk – A Great Native American in Troubling Times

Flying Hawk was an important Native American as white settlers moved across the western US in the latter half of the 19thcentury. He met 10 US presidents and later became part of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West troupe. Alec Marsh explains.

Alec’s new book, Ghosts of the West, is now available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Chief Flying Hawk, Oglala Lakota.

He fought at Custer’s Last Stand and counted the warrior Crazy Horse as a close friend, as well as his cousin. He met ten US Presidents and ranked Teddy Roosevelt above them all. He was present at the death of Sitting Bull in 1890 and attended the massacre of Wounded Knee. He then travelled the world as a star of Buffalo Bill’s Wild West troupe.

And before dying at 77 in 1931, Chief Flying Hawk also acted as translator for the writer John Neihardt, thereby helping him to create a seminal work in Native American culture, Black Elk Speaks. More than this, Flying Hawk also produced his own history of America, finally published in 1946, ‘so that the young people would know the truth. The white man’s books about it did not tell the truth’.

So if you haven’t already, I believe it is high time you acquainted yourself with the Native American chief, Flying Hawk, a renaissance man who was a leader, an educator and warrior in equal measure. The son of Chief Black Fox of the Oglala Lakota – a leader who lived for decades with an arrow lodged in the back of his sky before dying in his eighties, Flying Hawk was born in 1854 at a time when the Sioux’s traditional way of life was still largely unaffected by white men.

The buffalo herds upon which the Sioux’s civilization depended still roamed abundantly across the great plains of the West. And when European-Americans did come, they came to trade – not to necessarily to live, or to dominate. That, however, was all about to change.

But as a result Flying Hawk grew up in a way that would have been familiar to those who had gone before him: learning the art of warfare by fighting skirmishes against rival tribes – the Crow and Piegan. He took part in his first battle aged ten, against soldiers protecting a wagon train. ‘I do not know how many we killed of the soldiers, but they killed four of us,’ he would say later. ‘After that we had a good many battles, but I did not take any scalps for a good while. I cannot tell how many I killed when a young man.’

Red Cloud’s war

More fighting was to follow. Just two years later, in 1866, armed conflict broke out between the Sioux and the US, over the latter’s decision to build forts along the Bozeman Trail, a road through the Powder River country in modern day Wyoming and Montana – land belonging to the Sioux and a prime hunting ground. What followed – known as Red Cloud’s War – was a two year guerrilla conflict in which the Native Americans, led by another Oglala Lakota chief Red Cloud, were able to outwit and outmaneuver their better-armed opponents. In December 1866, Crazy Horse, who would come to world’s attention for his part in defeating Custer at the Battle of the Little Bighorn ten years later, commanded a small party of warriors to lure out a large body of soldiers from one of the forts – leading them into a deadly ambush. The Fetterman Fight or Massacre, left 81 men under the command of Captain William J Fetterman dead and was the biggest military defeat suffered by the United States at the hands of the Plains Indians until Custer’s Last Stand in 1876. Red Cloud’s war concluded in victory for Sioux with a peace treaty signed 1868 at Fort Laramie in eastern Wyoming. It is still recognized as an international treaty in law today.

Moreover its an international treaty which the United States breached in 1876 with the invasion of the Black Hills, the Sioux’s last great hunting ground, following the discovery of gold there in 1874.

The Sioux, now led by Sitting Bull, Flying Hawk’s uncle, and Crazy Horse, fought back: and so began the Great Sioux War of 1876-77. Red Cloud, whom Flying Hawk described as ‘the Red Man’s George Washington’, had been to Washington and New York after the peace of 1868 and now knew what the Native Americans were up against. He did not join the call to arms in 1876. Flying Hawk was there every step of the way.

Custer’s last stand

The defining moment of this war was the Battle of Little Bighorn in June 1876, where Flying Hawk fought alongside Crazy Horse, the architect of the victory. In his graphic account of the battle he described how it began with the US cavalry firing on their village, and how the Native Americans quickly had the soldiers on the back foot. ‘When we got them surrounded the fight was over in one hour,’ Flying Hawk recalled. ‘There was so much dust we could not see much, but the Indians rode around and yelled the war-whoop and shot into the soldiers as fast as they could until they were all dead. One soldier was running away to the east but Crazy Horse saw him and jumped on his pony and went after him. He got him about half a mile from the place where the other soldiers were lying dead.’ 

He added: ‘It was a big fight; the soldiers got what they deserved this time. No good soldiers would shoot into the Indian’s tepee where there were women and children. These soldiers did, and we fought for our women and children. White men would do the same.’

Despite the victory the chiefs quickly realized that the game was up: Washington put the Sioux reservations under the authority of General Sherman and all Native Americans were henceforth to be treated as prisoners of war. Those that were off their reservation would be treated as hostiles. Rather than submit to this, Sitting Bull led his band to Canada; Crazy Horse was killed in a scuffle after handing himself over at Fort Robinson in Nebraska. ‘He was honored by his own people and respected by his enemies,’ said Flying Hawk. ‘Though they hunted and persecuted him, they murdered him because they could not conquer him.’ The murder of Crazy Horse proved to the harbinger of the treatment that Sitting Bull would receive 13 years later on his return from Canada.

By this point the Great Sioux Reservation had been broken into five reserves occupying perhaps half the original land promised to them, having been appropriated for white settlers by the US government. In 1890 the Ghost Dance, a religious movement swept across the hungry and cold Sioux people, prompting fears of an uprising among the authorities. Once again Flying Hawk was close to the action: his brother Kicking Bear, a holy man and chief, was a leading figure of the movement, and Flying Hawk was among the first to witness the results of the massacre at Wounded Knee, when soldiers of the Seventh Cavalry machine-gunned more than 200 mainly Sioux women and children camped in the winter snow outside the Pine Ridge reservation in South Dakota. Flying Hawk described seeing the bodies of women and children lying under a blanket of snow – and asserted that the attack was retaliation for the ‘Custer affair’ 13 years before.

Extermination of the buffalo

By now the way of life that he had grown up with was gone – including the last great herds of the buffalo, wiped out by the mid-1880s. The whites, Flying Hawk claimed, ‘could not fight them fairly and win’.

And then, having lived through all of this calamity and change, in the years that followed, Flying Hawk turned to show business. Following in the footsteps of Sitting Bull and Red Cloud, he joined Buffalo Bill’s Wild West show in 1898 and while it is said he initially chafed at being asked to perform the displays of the battles he had taken part in, he soon made peace with the life on the stage. Not only was there was money in it, but the shows celebrated performers like him; it also allowed them to communicate something of their way of life to the outside world. Flying Hawk spent the next three decades ‘Wild Westing’, as it was known, touring the US and Europe with Colonel William Cody’s show and later joining the Miller Brothers 101 Ranch show and Sells Floto circus. He finally retired from touring in 1930, the year before he died. That was also year he acted as an interpreter for the writer and ethnographer John G. Neihardt in his interviews with the Oglala medicine man Black Elk, which remains a powerful and important testimony to this day.

Flying Hawk also toured schools speaking about Native American history, which became part of his effort to tell the story of his people from the Native American perspective. This he achieved most comprehensively through a series of interviews with his friend Major Israel McCreight, becoming Firewater and Forked Tongues – A Sioux Chief Interprets US History, published in 1946 under McCreight’s name. When each age was finished, McCreight would read it to Flying Hawk who would apply his thumbprint approving the pages individually.

In a foreword to Firewater, Ohitika, or Benjamin Brave, ‘a member of the Sioux tribe’, who tells us that his grandfather fought at the Little Bighorn, says this of Flying Hawk: ‘Perhaps no other Indian of his day was better qualified to furnish reliable data covering the period of the great Sioux war, beginning with the ruthless exploitation by rum-sellers, prospectors and adventurers, of their homes and hunting grounds pledged to them forever by sacred treaty with the Government, and ending in the deplorable massacre of Wounded Knee.’ Quite possibly.

Certainly Flying Hawk was at the center of the action, and somehow lived to tell the bloody tale, which he did. He also inspired those he met and remained unequivocal about what he witnessed. ‘Nowhere in the history of mankind is there to be found a parallel,’ Flying Hawk said, ‘nothing so cruel, un-American and wholly inhuman. Cortez in Mexico and Pizarro in Peru carried on their wars of extermination in the name of religion... But the white man had no justification for this ruthless campaigns against the red race.’

The cover of Alec’s new book. Imaged provided by and included with the permission of Headline Accent.

You can read Alec’s new book, Ghosts of the West, here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

It is published by Headline Accent.

Wernher von Braun – Dangerous Nazi or Hero of the Space Race? Part 3 – von Braun’s Beliefs

Wernher von Braun came to America from Germany after World War II as part of Operation Paperclip. He went on to play a major role in the Cold War’s Space Race with his expertise of rockets. However, views of von Braun are being reassessed as the terrible role he played in Nazi Germany has come to the fore in recent years. Victor Gamma looks at von Braun’s beliefs and how much responsibility he needs to take for Nazi atrocities below.

Read part 1 on Von Braun’s life here, and part 2 on the evidence here.

Von Braun with Fritz Todt, who used forced labor across the parts of Europe occupied by the Nazis. Von Braun is wearing the Nazi party badge on his suit lapel. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1978-Anh.023-02 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

What about the photos of him wearing a swastika badge or an SS uniform? This does not prove he was an ideological Nazi either. The nature of the regime meant that gestures of at least outward loyalty must be performed. That is a characteristic of a dictatorship. During the Third Reich many people joined the Nazi party for a variety of reasons, some of which had nothing to do with loyalty to party ideology. For instance, the stellar economic performance of the Hitler regime motivated many to support Hitler and join the National Socialist party organization in some capacity. The evidence is fairly clear that this was the case with von Braun. Witnesses testify that he wore the SS uniform on certain occasions when it was required or expedient to do so and no more. In the last years of the war, Hitler grew increasingly paranoid. More and more, he only trusted those “tried and true National Socialists,” such as the SS. The wearing of the SS uniform meant protection for the wearer. Von Braun, having been arrested once, could not give Himmler any excuse to do so again.

The accusation of von Braun as an amoral sycophant devoid of any moral sense does not entirely hold up either. A more accurate view, based on numerous eyewitness testimonies and an understanding of the era, is that von Braun, like so many Germans, did not foresee the extent of the atrocities that would take place, and, once aware they were happening, overlooked them. Nonetheless, at least some of his decisions were at least partially motivated by ethical concerns. When it came time, at the end of the war, to decide which side deserved his rocket secrets, he employed moral reasoning hostile to the atheistic communist regime of Stalin. Commenting on his surrendering to the Americans in May 1945, von Braun stated:

We knew that we had created a new means of warfare, and the question as to what nation, to what victorious nation we were willing to entrust this brainchild of ours was a moral decision more than anything else. We wanted to see the world spared another conflict such as Germany had just been through, and we felt that only by surrendering such a weapon to people who are guided not by the laws of materialism but by Christianity and humanity could such an assurance to the world be best secured.

A study of von Braun’s life reveals that these sentiments reflect a developing personal moral viewpoint that evolved into a strong and fully formed religious belief system in subsequent years. Over time he progressed from a relatively irreligious technician to a man of deep and abiding faith. As director of America’s space effort he stated, "In this age of space flight, when we use the modern tools of science to advance into new regions of human activity, the Bible - this grandiose, stirring history of the gradual revelation and unfolding of the moral law - remains in every way an up-to-date book.” The above quotes are just two of dozens by von Braun.

Additionally, evidence shows plainly that the great rocketeer warmly embraced not only American citizenship but also American values. In April 1955, von Braun and his fellow German scientists became American citizens. Von Braun told the press at the time, “This is the happiest and most significant day in my life. I must say we all became American citizens in our hearts long ago.” By that time, Dr. von Braun’s personal convictions and worldview were antithetical to both the official paganism of the Nazi state or the official atheism of the Soviet Union. Wernher von Braun summed up his philosophy as follows: “The ethical guidelines of religion are the bonds that can hold our civilization together. Without them man can never attain that cherished goal of lasting peace with himself, his God, and his fellowman."

Just how Guilty?

Nonetheless, we cannot completely excuse von Braun from his involvement to some extent with atrocities, even if indirectly. His guilt is beyond doubt. The question rather, is just how guilty? After the war he attempted to portray Germany’s rocket program as unstained by the stain of atrocities going on elsewhere. Unfortunately, the record reveals otherwise. The problem began by 1942. Germany, facing desperate manpower shortages, began turning to prisoner and slave labor to meet its production needs. This included a forced-labor camp for the Peenemunde rocket program set up by the SS. After the Allied bombing of Peenemunde on August 17/18, 1943, the works, along with the laborers, were moved to underground facilities to the south, near Nordhausen, called Mittelwerk. Many of the workers came from the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp or Buchenwald. Need we say more? Up to 20,000 laborers died in those years. But how responsible was von Braun? Did he have a choice when it came to the labor supply? How involved, if at all, was he in the abuse of the workers? 

First, von Braun had nothing to do with the setting up of the entire system of utilizing prison and forced labor to meet rocket production. In Neufeld’s words, “Von Braun was certainly aware of them (prisoner exploitation) but bore no direct responsibility for their conditions.” Others were making the decision as to how to supply and manage Germany’s labor needs. Another understanding needed is that von Braun was not one to “stick his neck out.” He was a conservative, nationalist and one who lived by the axiom “to get along, go along.” Additionally, he, like many others, was most likely influenced by official Nazi propaganda that portrayed the concentration camps as places of punishment for deserving criminals or enemies of the state. General Dornberger, in fact, gave a speech in which he described the in-coming laborers as “murderers, thieves, criminals.” Nonetheless, their true nature as simply means to exploit labor or kill off vast categories of people gradually became fairly common knowledge despite the later notorious German excuse that “we didn't know.” This is the excuse that von Braun employed, which is only partly believable due to the intensity of his work-pace coupled with a conscious effort to avoid knowing too much.  

More to help?

Why didn’t von Braun do more help? Given the nature of the regime, he could hardly be expected to either refuse to work with the system or even to protest strenuously. In his own words he felt helpless to change the situation and claimed that he did at least look into the possibility of taking action: “My spontaneous reaction (on observing the atrocious conditions of the laborers) was to talk to one of the SS guards, only to be told with unmistakable harshness that I should mind my own business, or find myself in the same striped fatigues!" After his arrest in early 1944 it would have been impossible for him to speak up. Before that time, though, was he in a good position as head of rocket development and production, on the basis of production efficiency, to take some action to improve conditions for the workers? It is possible. One major obstacle, though, is that he would have come up against Brigadier General Hans Kammler. This brutal Himmler appointee was in charge of SS construction projects. He had built numerous concentration camps before being placed in charge of the secret weapons programs. It was he who supervised the construction of the new underground facilities to be used to continue the rocket program. Kammler’s attitude toward the slave-labor workforce is summed up by this quote: "Don't worry about the victims. The work must proceed ahead in the shortest time possible." Kammler was known to keep a sharp eye out for ideological deviance, which would have made it difficult for von Braun to push too hard to help the workers. Nonetheless, there is no record that von Braun made any attempt to do so. He stated later that he did not see any way to change the prisoner’s conditions. 

Von Braun’s public voice on the atrocities was not heard until twenty years after the war, when public knowledge about facilities like Dora became so widespread that the rocket engineer could no longer maintain silence. It was not until the late 1960s that von Braun was even called upon to speak directly about alleged atrocities related to slave labor used by Hitler’s rocket program. In February 1969 he testified in a war-crimes case involving former SS personnel from the Mittelwerk-Dora concentration camp. Von Braun stated: “During my visits in the Mittelwerk, I never saw a dead man nor did I ever see a beating or a killing.” There is no way to prove this assertion, despite the claims of surviving prisoners that he “must have” seen atrocities take place. Nevertheless, von Braun, as Technical Director at Peenemunde was kept very well informed of all decisions related to the use of forced labor. Furthermore, he and his team were familiar with the conditions in the labor camps. Additionally, he was involved in decision-making regarding the prisoners. After the air raid on Peenemunde, von Braun was part of the meeting that decided to move the workers to the underground site in western Germany - the Mittelwerk - where conditions for the labor force deteriorated even further. Von Braun admitted that he visited the plant at Mittelwerk several times. He admitted that he recalled the conditions were “repulsive” but that he personally never observed any actual physical abuse of prisoners, although he knew that deaths had occurred there. He claimed to have never visited the Mittelbau-Dora concentration camp, where up to 20,000 died. Von Braun’s repeated downplaying or denials do not hold up to scrutiny. For example, in the same 1969 deposition, he claimed that he never received any reports of sabotage. That is technically true, but in his many visits to the Mittelwerk and meetings with the Mittelwerk overseers, the subject of sabotage could hardly have been avoided, since survivors testified that an act of sabotage did take place. 

And yet there is no evidence of any expression of concern from the young engineer about the horrors of the labor camp. The only occasion on which the rocket leader showed concern over prisoners involved his dealings with Professor Charles Sadron, a French scientist who was one of the prisoners in forced-labor. Dr. Sadron testified that on one occasion von Braun approached him to express his regret that such a respected and accomplished scientist was subject to such horrific conditions. He went on to propose that he work in von Braun’s office. In the words of Dr. Sadron, “To be sure, there is no question of accepting. I refused him bluntly. Von Braun excused himself, smiling as he left. I will learn later that, despite my refusal, he tried several times to better my lot, but to no avail.”

What do you think about Wernher von Braun? Let us know below.

Now, read the final part in the series on whether von Braun was a war criminal here.

The Modern Greek State: 1863–1897 – Bankruptcy & Defeat

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece. This article covers the period from 1863 to 1897 and looks at the instability that Greece and the wider region felt over the period before bankruptcy and military defeat came for Greece in the 1890s. Thomas Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on 1827-1862 here.

A photo of influential Greek politician Charilaos Trikoupis.

Acemoglu and Robinson describe why the establishment of a virtuous cycle of inclusive political and economic institutions is a prerequisite for the prosperity of nations. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) In the previous article though, it was shown that in the first thirty years after its independence, the Modern Greek State did little to suppress the remaining tradition of the extractive institutions of the Ottoman occupation. (Papageorgiou, 2021) It tried to speed up after that by doing too much too fast in a turbulent political scenery. The result was bankruptcy in 1893 and military defeat in 1897.   

Introduction

After the deposition of King Otto I in 1862, the search for a new king of the Greeks begun. Several candidates were considered including the nephew of the Tsar Nikolao and Alfred, the second born son of the English Queen Victoria. British foreign policy was especially interested in avoiding another champion of the Great Idea, namely, the liberation of all Greeks under Ottoman rule by all means, including war. Finally, it was Prince William of Denmark who ascended to the throne under the regal name of George I. To increase its influence, Great Britain ‘offered’ George the Ionian Islands under the condition that they would be rendered demilitarized. This infuriated the locals, but a compromise restricting neutrality to the islands of Corfu and Paxous, facing mainland Epirus still under Ottoman occupation, allowed for the integration of the islands to Greece in 1864. This was the first expansion of Modern Greece. The Ionian Islands added 1,813 square miles to the Greek territories and increased the population by 236,000, among which were significant intellectuals and politicians. A key figure during the negotiations for the integration of the new territories was the debutante 32-year-old politician Charilaos Trikoupis. (Divani, 2010)   

Charilaos Trikoupis

Trikoupis was a shining example of the Greek political oligarchy. (Kostis, 2018) His father Spyridon and uncle A. Mavrokordatos were former prime ministers. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) This is a ‘tradition’ that lasts to this day. The current prime minister of Greece is also the son of a former prime minister. Other members of the Mitsotakis family serve(d) as ministers, members of parliament and mayors of Athens. The father Georgios, the son Andreas and the grandson, also Georgios, of the Papandreou family have all also served as prime ministers in the period from the Second World War to the beginning of the 21st century. The last prime minister of the Papandreou family succeeded Konstantinos Karamanlis who is the nephew of another former prime minister with the same name. So much for the inclusiveness of Greek political institutions.  

Following his service at the Consulate in London and the negotiations for the Ionian Islands, Trikoupis was elected Member of Parliament in 1865. His appointment as minister of foreign affairs in 1866 coincided with another crisis of the early years of modern Greece, the Cretan Revolution. Trikoupis believed that Greece was unable to undertake any military initiative on its own. On the contrary, Athens ought to look for allies in the Balkans and beyond and coordinate its diplomatic and military actions with them. (Klapsis, 2019)  Politically, this is a particularly turbulent period though. Between 1863 and 1875 twenty-two governments were formed. (Malesis, 2018) The system of government after 1864 was Crowned Democracy with the power for the appointment of the government resting in the hands of the king. The latter did not necessarily consider the balance of power in parliament, and it was not unlikely that minority governments were appointed. Thus, coordination for internal and external affairs was lost.   

The gap was filled by National Associations, similar to the Society of Friends (Filiki Eteria) that prepared the War of Independence. They had a diversified membership including university professors, journalists, bankers, politicians and officers of the army pervaded with the Great Idea. (Malesis, 2018) These associations substituted the official state in the conduct of foreign policy. They supplied the Cretan rebels with material resources and organized the dispatch of volunteers so the island. This infuriated the Ottomans as well as the European Powers, although the Greek State officially did not approve of the Associations’ actions after the debacle of 1854, during the Crimean War. At the same time though no action was undertaken to restrain the Associations in fear of the political cost. (Klapsis, 2019)

Trikoupis was describing the National Associations as ‘the fungus of national policy’ and believed that all resources of the nation should be subject to the national center. Foreign policy was to be mandated by the government and not by ‘irresponsible clubs’, he said. (Malesis, 2018)  Thus, as minister of foreign affairs, Trikoupis contributed significantly to the signing of the Greek state’s first alliance treaty with Serbia against the Ottomans (Vöslau, August 1867). (Kostis, 2018)Nevertheless, the king was skeptical, opting for a more moderate approach and refused, at first, to ratify the treaty. (Klapsis, 2019) Furthermore, a few months later George I married the Grand duchess Olga of Russia. This enraged Trikoupis. The Ionian Islands were given as a dowry to the king upon his ascendance to the throne, but now the British and the French had absolutely no reason to endow with Crete the Tsar’s niece. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) By the time the Cretan crisis was settled in 1869 at the Paris Conference, with no gains for Greece, Trikoupis had long resigned his post (December 1867).

1870s

By 1872 Trikoupis was the leader of the ‘Modernist Party’ pursuing political stability. His most famous action to this end is the publication of the article ‘Tis ptaiei?’ (Whose fault, is it?), accusing the king of a lack of respect for the terms of parliament and holding him responsible for the country’s political situation. The king succumbed to the pressure and in August 1875 declared that the principle of declared confidence of Parliament would govern the appointment of the government from that point on. This did not help much though as between 1875 and Trikoupis’ retirement in 1895 another 21 governments were formed. (Kostis, 2018)     

Thus, the quirky foreign policy continued after 1875 during another Balkan crisis initiated by the revolt in Bosnia and Herzegovina. This expanded to Bulgaria in May 1876. Serbia and Montenegro considered that the circumstances were favorable and went to war against the Ottoman Empire in June. Nevertheless, the Ottomans suppressed the revolt and defeated the joint forces of Serbia and Montenegro. Russia intervened and an armistice was signed in November. A conference was held in Constantinople in December, where the Great Powers envisaged increased autonomy for Bosnia, Herzegovina and Bulgaria. The crisis was not resolved though because the Ottoman government rejected the decisions of the conference.

The intransigent stance of the sultan caused yet another Russo-Turkish war in the spring of 1877. After all, Russia’s intervention in the first place was the result of a secret treaty with Austria–Hungary in July 1876, which, in the case of Serbian victory that year, provided for significant territorial gains not only for the cosignatories, but also for Serbia, Montenegro, the independent Bulgaria and Greece. The latter was to receive Epirus, Thessaly and Crete. Eventually, the content of the treaty became known to Greece, and this caused significant excitement to the public. (Klapsis, 2019)

Greece’s response was similar to that of 1866–69. The realistic policy of neutrality was opposed by the pro-war and anti-ottoman stance of the public forged by the activity of National Associations. The compromise reached by the universal government of the elderly admiral K. Kanaris included military preparation, instigation of revolts in the Ottoman territories and the development of diplomatic initiatives. (Malesis, 2018) In fear of the political cost, the successor of K. Kanaris, A. Koumoundouros, decided to invade Thessaly in early 1878 under the pretense of the protection of the Greek populations in the area. This came to the dismay of both Great Britain, which demanded Greek neutrality, and Russia, which signed an armistice with the Ottomans two days before the Greek invasion and was hoping that this would have come much sooner.

To make things worse, the Treaty of St Stefano in March 1878 between the Russians and the defeated Ottoman Empire attempted to set in motion the plans for the creation of Great Bulgaria and provided for significant gains for Russia, Serbia, Montenegro, Romania and Bosnia–Herzegovina. This would significantly increase Russia’s influence in the Balkans and Greece was to face significant competition in the face of the pan-Slavic movement.

1880s

Luckily, the other Great Powers reacted to the Russian plans and the Treaty of St Stefano was revised in Berlin in the summer of 1878. Despite its disorientated policy, Greece was to negotiate with the Ottoman Empire for the settlement of their borders in Thessaly and Epirus. The Powers intervened once more to overcome the obstructionist tactics of the Ottomans, which delayed the settlement for another two years. Finally, in July 1881 most of Thessaly but only a small part of Epirus around the city of Arta was ceded to Greece. Crete remained under Ottoman rule and Great Britain, for its diplomatic services to the sultan, acquired the right of ‘temporary’ administration of another very important island for Greece, that of Cyprus. (Klapsis, 2019)

At about this time Trikoupis formed, as prime minister, the first ‘long term’ government of Greece from March 1882 to April 1885. This was followed by another one from May 1886 to October 1890. By that time (1882) clientelism weakened the state institutions (Hazony, 2018). In response, Trikoupis expanded the election districts to break the bonds between politicians and their supporters. He also took measures to discourage the participation of army officers in the elections. Stricter rules for hiring and promoting public servants aimed for an increased effectiveness of public administration. 

The most striking feature of Trikoupis’ government though was his extensive program of public works. This included the construction of roads and railways, bridges and ports, the Isthmus of Corinth and land reclamation. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works, 2001) These were prerequisites for the development of the economy and allowed for a rapid deployment of the army. 

Trikoupis took special care of the latter with measures for better training, the reorganization of the officers’ schools and the utilization of the reservists. He also carried out an extensive rearmament program including the construction of several new battleships. (Malesis, 2018) In short, Trikoupis aimed for efficient representation at international level based on a well-administered state of justice, with an efficient economy and strong armed forces. (Klapsis, 2019)

It was very risky. Trikoupis relied on external and internal borrowing to go through with his reform. From 1879 to 1890 Greece took out external loans amounting to 630 million drachmas plus 65 million from internal loans. Although Greece had settled the loans that led to the bankruptcy of 1843, the new ones were agreed under very unfavorable terms with only 72% of the nominal value collected at the end. (Eleftheratos, 2020)   

It was crucial that the economy would grow fast enough to allow for consistent loan servicing. But Greece remained an agricultural country and after the recovery of the French vineyards from phylloxera in 1890, currant exports, which after 1860 accounted for 50–60 % of the total value of Greek exports, decreased dramatically. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The exploitation of the fertile lands of Thessaly also did not bring much for the peasants. Wealthy expatriates bought the large manors from the Ottomans and the feudal system of the empire remained in place. This prepared the way for the peasants’ revolts at the beginning of the 20th century. (Divani, 2010) Trikoupis did not actually get the help he was hoping for from the expatriates’ investments. Although many of them developed philanthropic activity in the country, some were also involved in financial scandals, e.g. that of the Lavrio silver mines, with devastating effects for the general public. (Eleftheratos, 2020) The growing financial problems led to an unprecedented immigration wave, mainly to the USA. (Klapsis, 2019) So much for the inclusiveness of the Greek financial institutions.   

 Thus, the amount of public expenditure going to the service of public debt grew from 9% in the period 1871-1878 to 53% in the years 1887-1892.  Considering that military spending remained high during this period (100 million of the 460 million drachmas of foreign loans that reached Greece were spent on military equipment), it comes as no surprise that from 1887, 70% of the new loans were used to serve the older ones. Taxation was another measure used by Trikoupis to support his program at the cost of his popularity among the people. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

It was the disagreement for taking out yet another loan, for the service of older ones, between king George and Trikoupis that led to the latter’s resignation in 1890. He became prime minister two more times after that (out of seven times in total between 1875 and 1895) but could not prevent state bankruptcy in December 1893. Interestingly, when comparing with recent experience, at the time of the bankruptcy the public debt was 200% of the GDP, somewhat higher than the 182% that led to Greece’s ‘rescue’ by the European Commission, the ECB and the IMF in 2010.[1] (Eleftheratos, 2020) Trikoupis suffered a devastating defeat at the elections of 1895, when he was not elected member of the parliament, retired and died the next year. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016)

From bankruptcy to defeat 

Trikoupis’ archrival was Theodoros Deligiannis. The two alternated in the prime minister’s office, inaugurating bipartisanship in Greece. Deligiannis was often described as anti-Trikoupis aiming to systematically cancel the latter’s work (e.g., the expansion of the election districts, the discouragement of army officers to enter politics and the rules for hiring and promoting public servants) and for this he is blamed by some authors as the main culprit for the bankruptcy of 1893. (Tricha, Charilaos Trikoupis, 2016) One should keep in mind though that Trikoupis’ governments ruled four times as long as those of Deligiannis and that it was he that took out seven colossal loans. (Eleftheratos, 2020)

There can be no doubt though that Deligiannis’ foreign policy was catastrophic. Back in 1885, when he succeeded Trikoupis for a brief period of one year, he had to handle another Balkan crisis. That was the annexation of Eastern Roumelia by Bulgaria. Under public pressure and with parliamentary support, Deligiannis mobilized the army, but for months he was taking no military initiative, apart from some skirmishes in Thessaly because of some hotheaded army officers. At the same time the Great Powers demanded that Greece demobilize its army and abstain from any war effort. Deligiannis’ indecisiveness finally led to another naval blockade by Britain, Austria, Germany, Italy and Russia and his resignation in 1886. (Malesis, 2018)

By 1895, when he was again prime minister, it was Crete’s turn to rise once more. Greece had regained confidence after holding the first Olympic Games of the new era in 1896 and the pattern was once more the same: public pressure under the propaganda of a National Association (Ethiniki Etaireia) for military action, demands for self-restraint from the Great Powers and the government trying to balance in between. To that end, Deligiannis sent the fleet and an army detachment to the island hoping for another naval blockade that would help him save face on the internal front and avoiding, at the same time, war with the Ottoman Empire. (Klapsis, 2019) Things did not go that way though. The Powers asked for a withdrawal of the armed forces of both the Greeks and the Ottomans and opted for an autonomous Crete under the rule of the Sultan. The Ottomans accepted. Deligiannis attempted a catastrophic maneuver: he withdrew the fleet, but not the army suggesting this way that Greece preferred the union with Crete. At the same time guerrillas were sent into Thessaly under the command of officers of the army. (Malesis, 2018) This gave the Ottomans the opportunity they were looking for. In April 1897 they declared war on Greece and having overwhelming numerical superiority the Ottoman army had retaken most of Thessaly within days, stopping only thanks to the intervention of the Powers. In a sign of weakness, Greece was not invited to the peace negotiations of the Powers with the Ottomans and luckily it had to make only small territorial concessions. On the other hand, war reparations to the amount of four million Turkish lira were imposed and to make sure that Greece would honor its obligations to the lenders the Powers set up an international committee to oversee the fiscal policy. (Klapsis, 2019) The International Financial Committee remained in Greece for 81 years - until 1978.

Conclusion

A critical juncture is a major event or confluence of factors disrupting the existing economic or political balance in society. It is a double-edged sword that can cause a sharp turn in the trajectory of a nation. On the one hand it can open the way for breaking the cycle of extractive institutions and enable more inclusive ones to emerge. Or it can intensify the emergence of extractive institutions. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) The 19th century included several such junctures for Greece. Revolution, independence, expansion to the Ionian Island, Thessaly and part of Epirus. Political and economic developments though did not allow for the emergence of inclusive institutions.  

Exclusive institutions do not rule out growth. And indeed, Greece was (inevitably) slowly growing. Cities were developing and the distribution of GDP in different economic sectors was changing. Whereas in 1861, 74% of the economically active population were employed by the primary sector, by 1881 the figure dropped to 69.9% with the secondary sector employing 11.8% and the tertiary sector 18.3%. (Kostis, 2018) The expansion of the road and railway network and the rest of the public works would be Trikoupis’ legacy for the future. However, growth under extractive institutions has moderate results, as it does not allow for creative destruction through innovation. It is therefore not sustainable. (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013)

Social and political ills discussed previously (Papageorgiou, 2021) were not cured by the end of the 19th century. To this we can add, new ones like the establishment of para-statal organizations playing a significant role in political developments and officers’ mentality that they constitute a special group increasingly autonomous from the political leadership and with support from the palace. (Malesis, 2018)

What do you think of these years in the Modern Greek State? Let us know below.

[1] The word ‘rescue’ is in brackets because of the conflicting views regarding the necessity and effectiveness of the implemented policies whose analysis is beyond the scope of this work. 

Bibliography

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

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

Eleftheratos, D. (2020). An Oblique Look at History, 200 Years of Modern Greek Laughter and Cry. Athens: Topos (in Greek).

Hazony, Y. (2018). The Virtue of Nationalism. Basic Books: New York.

Klapsis, A. (2019). Politics and Diplomacy of the Greek National Completion 1821-1923. Athens: Pedio (in Greek).

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

Malesis, D. (2018). '... let the Revolution Begin' Great Idea & the Army in the 19th Century. Athens: Asinis (in Greek).

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2021, May 16). History Is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2021/5/16/the-modern-greek-state-1827-1862-a-bad-start#.YLe-yqFRVPY

Tricha, L. (2001). Charilaos Trikoupis and the Public Works. Athens: Kapon (bilingual in Greek and French) .

Tricha, L. (2016). Charilaos Trikoupis. Athens: Polis (in Greek).