The Kangaroo’s Tale: How an errant elevator door ended an odd form of popular entertainment

Here, Jack El-Hai tells us a sad tale about a very different type of boxer in 1940s America…

When an elevator door slammed shut at the Minneapolis Auditorium on March 20, 1940, an era of American entertainment came to a bloody end. The door crushed the six-foot-long tail of Peter the Great, a famed boxing kangaroo, who was touring the U.S. and had just demonstrated his skills to a Minneapolis audience.

Peter’s owners and managers, Mr. and Mrs. Ted Elder, considered the injury minor and wrapped the marsupial’s tail with a bandage. They began driving Peter to his next engagement in Omaha, but it became obvious along the way that the kangaroo was in distress. The Elders rushed Peter back to the O.B. Morgan Dog and Cat Hospital in Minneapolis, and they were about to have the damaged body part amputated when the 160-pound kangaroo died.

Peter, a singularly famous boxing kangaroo, had made a notable impression on American popular culture. Less than a year before, he fought a boxing match with “Two Ton” Tony Galento, a pugilist who had once floored Joe Louis. During an exchange of blows, Peter dropped back on his tail and kicked Galento in the groin. The man-versus-beast match ended in a draw. A wave of publicity carried Peter to shows around the country.

If Peter had lived, he would have played a role in U.S. electoral politics. He was scheduled to appear with comedienne Gracie Allen and serve as the mascot for her 1940 mock run for the Presidency. Without Peter’s help, Allen’s Surprise Party never found traction, and Franklin Roosevelt won the 1940 election without a satirical opponent.

In a lawsuit they filed against the city of Minneapolis, the Elders claimed that Peter’s boxing and entertainment talents resulted from his special training. “Peter the Great,” Mrs. Elder testified, “was no ordinary kangaroo.” The city countered that swinging and kicking when threatened is instinctive behavior for his species. A jury sided with the city, and Peter’s owners did not receive the $75,000 they sought in compensation for their loss.

No other kangaroo rose to Peter’s level of fame after his death. As exploitations of stage animals began to smell of cruelty, boxing kangaroos disappeared except as cartoonish symbols of Australian resilience. Today we never encounter them in the flesh. Peter the Great’s fame and profession belong to the past.

This article is © Jack El-Hai. Jack writes regularly for www.wondersandmarvels.com. He is the author of The Lobotomist: A Maverick Medical Genius and his Tragic Quest to Rid the World of  Mental Illness and The Nazi and the Psychiatrist. He often writes about medicine and history.

 Want to read more? Well, here is an article on Animal Mesmerism!

References

• “Jury Refuses Damages for Death of Kangaroo.” Milwaukee Journal, October 8, 1940.
• “Peter, Boxing Kangaroo, Dies.” The New York Times, March 24, 1940.
• Zahn, Thomas R. The Minneapolis Auditorium and Convention Center: The History. 1987.

The roaring Twenties! But were the 1920s a liberal or conservative period in the USA?

Bradley Phipps from bphipps.co.uk has provided us with this fascinating article on 1920s America. Was the 1920s a decade of fun, liberal values? Or was it rather a time of great conservatism? Bradley presents his view by looking at key topics in the decade – race, immigration, female suffrage, prohibition, the economy and election results.

It’s tempting, partly due to portrayal in the media and literature, to see the 1920s in America as a time of consensus around progressivism and liberalism, consumerism, excess, and fun. Whilst there are elements of truth in this, the decade which came to an abrupt and memorable close in the 1929 Wall Street Crash was actually a time of reactionism, conservatism, and division.

Before delving into the experience of different groups in society and looking at some important issues like prohibition, it’s important first to briefly set the scene. The 1920s was, in part, a battle between conservative forces and progressive forces. This battle was epitomized in religion, which is where much of the attempt to make society more moralistic stemmed from. There was a fierce battle raging during the decade between the traditionalists and the modernists in religion, with questions over how the Bible should be interpreted and whether theories like evolution – which challenged the usual wisdom of how the world worked – should be taught in schools. This battle in religious issues spilled over into just about everything else, with the forces of conservatism attempting to preserve tradition and what they believed to be morality, and other forces seeking a more liberalized, free society. The conservative forces certainly won the war of ideas during the Twenties, though the 1930s would in many ways be in quite stark contrast due to Roosevelt’s New Deal policies.

People campaigning for female suffrage.

Race relations and Immigration

There are a number of areas to look at when assessing the decade, one of the most important being race relations and immigration. Whilst it’s true to a certain degree that the Roaring Twenties were a period of prosperity and liberalism for some people, for new immigrants and African-Americans, this cannot be seen to be the case. The decade saw resurgence in nationalist and racist sentiment, as well as more understandable concerns about immigration. The division in race was most clearly seen in the resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which probably benefited from the nationalist sentiment and racial tensions which the First World War had brought up, as well as the migration of African-Americans to the north. The Klan’s membership rose rapidly to around 6 million in 1920, which totaled over 5% of the population at the time. Whilst that may not sound impressive, the KKK wielded substantial influence in politics, and as there was general popular consent for things like immigration restrictions and less of a liberal attitude towards race relations compared to what we have today, the Klan did not come under serious threat throughout the decade. Even politicians, who often have different and more moderate views than the public at a given time, were in general agreement with their voters in terms of restricting immigration. In 1921, the Emergency Immigration Act was passed, which severely reduced immigration and did so partly on race-based lines in terms of blocking off immigration from the Middle East. These restrictions were tightened further still in the 1924 Immigration Act, which placed further restrictions and quotas on immigration in a further attempt to please the public. There appeared to be a conservative consensus during this time on the issue of immigration; both the public and the political classes were in consensus that there should be a large reduction in the number of people settling in the country, and there was also general agreement that the race of a potential immigrant should play a deciding role.

The difficulties for immigrants and minorities during this period were not just political though; the Klan did not limit its activities to the political arena. The passing of the immigration restriction legislation was a success for the Klan; it had in many ways fulfilled its purpose. With the public satisfied at the restrictions on immigration, membership of the Klan plummeted from its peak of 6 million in 1924 down to just 30,000 in 1930. But during the 20s, such was its fervor in defending what it believed to be traditional, white, Protestant values and morality, that it took to more violent methods to attack those who it believed to be corrupting the morals it defended, including violence against black people up to and including the infamous public lynchings, serving as yet more evidence against the fairly common perception of the decade as being liberal, care-free, and fun.

Female Suffrage

Women are often portrayed as having a new-found freedom in 1920s America, having undergone a sexual liberation and seen their role in society turned on its head. This is perhaps the only section of society where the myth of the 1920s fits quite well. There can be no denying that for many young women, their willingness to challenge the status quo increased; photographic evidence alone serves as evidence of new short skirts, provocative dances, and more open and flagrant promiscuous behavior. In contrast to the attempts to enforce morality and good behavior, youthful women found a new side of life and many of them embraced it with open arms, throwing themselves into exciting new jazz music and dances like the Charleston. Luchtenburg succinctly summarizes the increased personal freedom of women: “Before the war, a lady did not set foot in a saloon; after the war, she entered a speakeasy as thoughtlessly as she would go into a railroad station.”

Aside from in the social context, the increasing move for more power for women in politics was seen in the suffrage movement which became increasingly powerful before the 1920s. This culminated in the 19th Amendment to the Constitution in August 1920, when women were finally given the right to vote on equal terms with men. Opposition came primarily in the form of the National Association Opposed to Woman Suffrage, which disbanded after the 19th amendment was successful, but continued to publish works which opposed the liberation of women and their changing role in society. There was also considerable opposition in Congress, with 25 members of the 96-strong Senate voting against the amendment, alongside a number of abstentions. There was also considerable difficulty in getting the amendment ratified by some states, particularly Southern states, where members of the state legislature faced considerable lobbying by various groups.

Even the politicians and lobbyists who supported women’s suffrage cannot necessarily have been doing so purely out of the moral cause of increasing women’s rights and making the nation more democratic. The extent of the dominance of conservative thinking in the era can be seen in Daniel Okrent’s argument, who believed they could only make alcohol illegal and have popular consent for doing so with the votes of women, who were generally more in favor of it becoming illegal than men.

Interestingly, even the women’s suffrage movement cannot be seen as entirely progressive and liberal; particularly in the South, the women campaigners sought to gain more support from men by playing upon the issue of race. They said it was unfair that males from ethnic minority groups could vote whilst women could not. Even more divisively, there was also the suggestion that allowing women to vote would ensure that white voters remained dominant and more politically powerful than minority groups. We can see that even the progressive political causes in the decade were in some ways heavily regressive and conservative.

Prohibition

Something important during the 1920s that we’re all aware of is prohibition. Alcohol became illegal in early 1919 with the passing of 18th Amendment and whether it should continue to be so remained a contentious issue throughout the following decade. Prohibition is the best and clearest example of an increasing trend towards enforcing morality and an attempt to return to traditional Protestant values. The nation was divided over the issue, with much of the division being between traditional rural areas and the more liberal and less morally strict urban areas. Leuchtenburg writes that prohibition served as a way for rural America to “impose their social mores on city folk”; for Protestants to stop Catholics drinking; and for Anglo-Saxons to change the behavior of immigrants. As is well known, making alcohol illegal led to a reliable source of income for many criminal and mafia gangs, and so far from enforcing morality, prohibition is often seen as just opening up new avenues of immorality.

Similarly, prohibition led to speakeasies and other illegal hidden parties at which people continued to indulge in alcohol. However, despite the common wisdom that prohibition was a complete failure, it did actually succeed in substantially reducing alcohol consumption, a reduction which largely remained in place even when prohibition had ended. By 1933, when prohibition came to an end, alcohol consumption was 70% what it had been before prohibition. Whilst not a raving success, it’s safe to say it fulfilled its purpose at least a little bit. Though of course other factors could also have led to these variations in consumption.

Conversely, prohibition brought out the very worst in the American policing system; bribery was common, with many police willing to turn a blind eye to illegal bars provided they had received a bribe or other benefit for doing so. This is an important lesson for today - laws imposed without significant popular consent cannot work; they will be subject to capricious enforcement. Leuchtenburg argues that the public anger at the police’s mix of corruption and harsh treatment of bars led to anti-police sentiment springing up, with one example being crowds cheering on the boat of a bootlegger in New York when being pursued by the police.

Perhaps the weakness of the whole attempt to enforce morality upon parts of society which were pursuing liberalization was that Eliot Ness, a key prohibition enforcement agent and leader of the elite ‘Untouchables’ group, died an alcoholic.

Radical Groups

Radical political dissent during the Twenties was not tolerated. It is important to view policies in era in context. Having just come out of the First World War, the United States now saw a new threat emerging in Russia. The threat was Red. The Bolshevik revolution in what was to become the Soviet Union began in 1917, leading to a civil war between defenders of the old Tsarist regime, and those who sought to impose a communist-inspired regime. America has always feared communism – it is anathema to its principles of liberal democracy and free trade, and red scares have become part of its history. Whilst McCarthyism in the 1950s is fairly well-known, the red scare during the 1920s is less well remembered.

There was increasing government action against radical left-wing political groups and moves to clamp down on leftist groups had already begun before the 1920s, as seen most clearly in the arrest and imprisonment of Eugene V. Debs – the leader of the American Socialist Party - who had performed remarkably well in elections considering his outsider political position. Deportations without due process or trials became common, particularly against the Socialist International Industrial Workers League; in January 1920 around 10,000 people were arrested for holding radical political views. Furthermore, the immigration acts which were discussed earlier were also used to restrict radical literature and punish any immigrants with sympathies towards left-wing political groups.

The economy…

But aside from all this, wasn’t the economy at least growing – wasn’t everyone sharing in a newfound wealth? In some ways, yes. The economy was growing and people were generally more affluent, giving the majority more access to consumer and electric goods. However, not all shared in the increased prosperity; urban workers saw their wages increase quite rapidly, but the wages of farmers stagnated, and some manual laborers such as miners saw their wages decline, and with the rise in machinery and technology, some manual workers were replaced by automated systems. Union membership during this period fell, dropping from 5 million in 1920 to 3.5 million in 1929, a sign of general increasing prosperity as well as the government’s crackdown on radical elements. As often happens during economic booms, the gap between the rich and the poor widened, with the poorest seeing their standard of living stagnate whilst the richest saw their wealth continue to skyrocket.

Undoubtedly, though, the economy did improve the standard of living for many people during the decade. Gross National Product grew by 40% through the decade, wages for most workers rose in real-terms, and prices on some previously inaccessible goods became accessible. The prices of cars, for example, fell due to more efficient and faster production, leading automobile ownership to rocket by nearly 200%, from 8 million to 23 million people owning cars. Similarly, increasing access to the radio gave a source of entertainment in almost everyone’s home, and with increasing demand came national programming which provided most of the nation with access to some of the same programs. This boom in the economy also led to an upsurge in the number of people buying shares, with it becoming increasingly common for middle class families to buy into the market; as we know, this ended in catastrophe in 1929. The great tragedy of the decade is that, though the Wall Street Crash impacted everyone, those who bore its brunt most heavily were the poorest, who had seen the least benefit from the economic boom.

Election results

Finally, the clearest indication of the conservatism and consistency of the decade which helps to dispel the myth of the decade being progressive and unique is the actual results of election. We’ve already seen that from prohibition, to the Red Scare, to attempts to enforce morality, the politics of the decade were conservative and at times regressive. But the real flavor of a decade can be found in its election results.

In the 1920 Presidential election, Republican candidate Warren Harding won with a massive 60% of the vote, leaving the Democrat candidate James Cox with an abysmal 34%. In 1924, Coolidge was victorious with 54% of the vote, leaving the Democrat with just under 30%. This election was notable because of a rarity in American politics – the strong performance of a third party candidate, which came in the form of Robert La Follete who stood for the short-lived Progressive party. Whilst it could be argued that the Progressives split the Democrat vote, thereby allowing the Republican in by default, the vote for the Democratic candidate and the Progressive Party candidate still falls 10% short of the Republican vote. In 1928, Herbert Hoover continued the Republican ascendancy. Pledging continued economic growth, he won 58% of the vote, leaving his Democrat opponent with only 40%. Whilst some of these margins may not sound incredibly wide, bear in mind that American Presidential elections are apt to have very narrow margins of victory. In the year 2000, for example, the result between Bush and Gore was less than a percentage point apart.

But Presidential elections don’t give us the full picture. The Congress Republicans were also dominant. They gained control of the house in 1918, and comfortably retained control of it until 1930. The Republicans also gained control of the Senate in 1918, keeping it until 1932. This means the decade saw uninterrupted Republican control of the Presidency, and both chambers of Congress; a very rare thing indeed. There is no way this could have happened unless the vast majority of the public were aligned in a conservative consensus. They were content with Republican policies and did not desire change.

On reflection

So we’ve seen that in very few ways can the decade which has been dubbed the Roaring Twenties be seen as a time of radical change. It was  conservative and reactionary, and in some ways regressive. Even in modernizations like female suffrage, the forces of conservatism were involved in their support of it in order to ensure more support for prohibition. Modern liberal ideas had little place in this decade; they would not gain common support until the 1930s, when the much-lauded (though much-overrated) Franklin D. Roosevelt put into practice his new vision for the role of government in society and much greater regulation of the free market.

This article is provided by Bradley Phipps from bphipps.co.uk.

Want to read more? Well take a look at this article on how American stereotypes of the Japanese from World War II linger on… Click here!

The Russian Peasant who attacked Napoleon’s War Machine – Image of the week

The tough Russian peasant who attacked Napoleon’s forces in 1812 is our image of the week.

We’ve had a number of articles related to Russia on the site this week, so thought we’d make the image of the week Russia-related too.

The 1812 Russian Campaign, or the French invasion of Russia, relates to Napoleon Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia during the Napoleonic Wars. The campaign was led by a huge French-led force of well over 500,000 troops. All did not go quite to Napoleon’s liking though, and the Russians were able to overcome the French to devastating effect. The defeat was a catastrophe for Napoleon and his dreams of control over Europe.

Our image is related to the Russian Campaign and says: “A Russian peasant loading a dung cart.” In the image, a hardy Russia peasant is about to attack a dainty French soldier with his pitchfork. The French soldier is terrified, even though he has a sword. In the background we can see why he is horrified – there is a dung cart full of the bodies of French troops among hay. A boy is also in the background, happily looking at the man’s attack on the French soldier.

This print is from March 1813.

What else Russia-related have you missed this week? Our article on famed Russian Grigori Rasputin is here and a podcast about Gulags is here.

George Levrier-Jones

The man who survived a cyanide attack – But just who finally killed Rasputin?

Grigori Rasputin was an enigma of his age. He rose from obscurity to become a key friend of the Russian royal family. He was also said to have mystical powers. Following our previous article, we finish the story of a group who wanted to kill him – and Rasputin’s almost super-human powers to resist death.

We pick up the tale after Rasputin survived a cyanide attack…

Rasputin was observing a cabinet inlaid with ebony in the corner of the room when Yusopov returned with the gun concealed behind his back. He is reputed to have exclaimed, “Grigori Efimovich, you would do better to look at the crucifix and pray to it,” before shooting him in the chest. With his silk shirt stained with blood, Rasputin lay dead upon a bearskin rug. Yusopov informed the others of his success, but was ‘suddenly filled with a vague misgiving; an irresistible impulse forced me to go down to the basement.’ What followed next could be plucked straight from the pages of a horror story. According to Yusopov, ‘Rasputin leapt to his feet, foaming at the mouth. A wild roar echoed through the vaulted rooms, and his hands convulsively thrashed the air. He rushed at me, trying to get at my throat, and sank his fingers into my shoulder like steel claws. His eyes were bursting from their sockets, blood oozed from his lips. And all the time he called me by name, in a low raucous voice.’ Such claims should be taken with a pinch of salt, however: it is important to note that Yusopov was seeking to justify his actions by portraying Rasputin as a demonic monster from whom he had saved Russia. 

Mythical powers? A book "Rasputin, the black monk."

As Rasputin attempted to escape through the garden, Yusopov called for assistance from Purishkevich. The latter seized a revolver and felled Rasputin with two shots. Together, they bound his body and drove to the Malaya Nevka River, where they cast it off a bridge into an ice-hole. Two days later, a frozen corpse was dredged up, and, to the amazement of onlookers, Rasputin’s arms were raised as though he had been struggling to escape from his bonds. Some press reports even suggest that a few people rushed to the site clutching pots and buckets, believing that the water surrounding this individual might instill in them a measure of his mystical power.

Whilst the murderers’ accounts are compelling, they are flawed and inaccurate, and do not stand up to close scrutiny. The autopsy carried out on the thawed corpse refutes many of Yusopov’s exaggerated statements. It revealed that Rasputin had been hit three times: once in the left side of his back, once in the left side of his chest, and once at close range in his forehead. The pathologists confirmed this final shot to be the cause of death, yet Purishkevich never mentioned firing a bullet into Rasputin’s head from such a short distance. The final contradiction of Yusopov’s testimony was the absence of poison in the body.

As if the historian’s role is not challenged enough by excavating the past for gems of truth amongst the rubble of legend, let us now introduce Lieutenant Oswald Rayner to the list of dramatis personae. There is considerable evidence that the British viewed the situation in Russia as increasingly precarious and unstable: a mercurial compound jeopardised by the oxygen of revolution. The ambassador at the time, Sir George Buchanan, gave voice to these concerns in a meeting with the Tsar himself, in which he implored him to make some concessions regarding the constitution. “If I were to see a friend walking through a wood on a dark night along a path which I knew ended in a precipice, would it not be my duty, sir, to warn him of his danger? And is it not equally my duty to warn Your Majesty of the abyss that lies ahead of you?”

Rayner was a British officer employed by the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) in St. Petersburg. He was also a contemporary of Felix Yusopov, for the two men had formed a close relationship when studying together at Oxford. The British were worried that Rasputin’s significant influence over the royal family would result in his directing them to withdraw troops from the war. This would have been catastrophic for the Allies. Russia’s conflict with Germany in the East provided a crucial buffer, as it meant that the Germans could not concentrate all their forces on one front.

Rayner visited the Yusopov residence on several occasions around the time of Rasputin’s death, leading some to suspect the SIS of instigating the assassination. Was it Rayner who shot Rasputin in the head with the precision of a trained killer? There were certainly persistent rumours that he had somehow been involved; even the Tsar and his family became wary of Buchanan and his supporters. The intelligence historian, Andrew Cook, uncovered an incriminatory message sent by a British intelligence officer in the aftermath of Rasputin’s death. If Rasputin is the ‘Dark Forces’ to which he refers, then this memo is most damning indeed: ‘Although matters here have not proceeded entirely to plan, our objective has clearly been achieved. Reaction to the demise of “Dark Forces” has been well-received by all… Rayner is attending to loose ends.’

Historians can dissect documents and posit theories, but, ultimately, the true events of that night will continue to elude them. Instead, they must sift through the pile of myths and reach their own conclusion. Should Yusopov’s account take precedence over others? Was the SIS complicit in the murder, or, indeed, can a different explanation altogether be justified? The most compelling aspect of Rasputin’s story is the aura of mystery surrounding his death: the truth has been swept away by time, with only a few fragments of the past remaining, half-glimpsed through the prism of the years.

By Julia Routledge

If you enjoyed this article, take a look at Julia's recently published book on George Orwell. You can view the book here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

References

• Lost Splendour: The Amazing Memoirs of the Man Who Killed Rasputin – Felix Yusopov
• My Mission to Russia, and Other Diplomatic Memories – Sir George Buchanan
• How To Kill Rasputin: The Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin – Andrew Cook

A plot against the Russian royal family’s unlikely aide – Could Rasputin be killed?

Grigori Rasputin was an enigma of his age. He rose from obscurity to become a key friend of the Russian royal family. He was also said to have mystical powers. Here, we start to tell the story of a group who wanted to kill him – and Rasputin’s almost super-human powers to resist death.

The Moika Palace, resplendent in yellow hues, stretches like a supine lion beside the river in St. Petersburg. The residence of the Yusopov family from 1830 to 1917, it was the site of a gruesome murder that continues to mystify and intrigue today, for the details of the night read like a vividly-imagined crime story. No definitive and coherent narrative exists; indeed, the only eyewitness accounts are those of the assassins themselves, and these are, of course, biased. They do, however, provide a starting point from which strands of fiction and truth can be separated and ordered.

The beaming eyes of Rasputin in a photo taken in c. 1905.

Grigori Rasputin’s stratospheric rise to power – akin, perhaps, to Thomas Cromwell’s – transformed him from an illiterate peasant to the trusted confidante of the Russian royal family. This association was divisive, at times scandalous, and ultimately destructive: his presence at court and sway over them – in particular the Tsaritsa – contributed to increasing resentment towards the royal Romanovs in the months preceding the February Revolution of 1917, and precipitated their downfall. An enigmatic figure, much of Rasputin’s life is obscured by conflicting accounts of his character and actions. He was portrayed by his followers as a ‘starets’ or mystical ‘elder’, who possessed supernatural powers to heal the heir to the throne. His critics, on the other hand, regarded him as a licentious and decadent charlatan with a propensity for excessive drinking. He was despised by many in the highest echelons of society, who believed that their bête noire was corroding the popularity of the Romanov dynasty. In the winter of 1916, this resentment became overwhelming.

Prince Felix Yusopov, heir to a vast fortune and husband to the Tsar’s niece, arrived at Rasputin’s house in the middle of the night of December 16 in order to escort him to the Moika Palace. The invitation had been extended at an earlier date: the prince had decided to entice Rasputin to his home by indicating that his beautiful wife, Irina, would be present. In fact, Irina was staying in the Crimea with his parents. Rasputin seemed to have taken particular care over his appearance that evening, donning a silk shirt embroidered with cornflowers, velvet breeches and polished boots. Even his unkempt, matted beard had been combed. Yusopov led Rasputin outside, where a car driven by Dr. Stanislaus de Lazovert was waiting to take them to the palace.

A basement in the east wing had been specially prepared for the occasion. There was a convivial atmosphere: the room was sumptuously furnished with a thick Persian carpet on the floor, and a fire crackled in the background. A gramophone in the adjoining study played ‘Yankee Doodle’, and tempting cakes were laid out on the table. To avoid suspicion, tea had been poured into cups to give the impression that a meal had taken place there recently. The mise-en-scène was set. Unbeknown to Rasputin, Yusopov and his fellow disaffected conspirators had laced the cakes with enough cyanide ‘to kill several men instantly.’ These collaborators, who included the Tsar’s cousin, Grand Duke Dmitry Pavlovich, and a forthright politician, Vladimir Purishkevich, were waiting elsewhere for the deed to be executed. When Rasputin enquired after Irina, he was informed that she would be joining them shortly. Yusopov then proceeded to offer him the sweet pastries and poisoned wine. At first, Rasputin declined, citing reasons of health: had he detected that treachery was afoot? Eventually, however, he relented and sampled a few of the delicacies. They had crossed the Rubicon: Yusopov’s work was complete.

Several hours later, the poisoned wine and pastries had had no effect on Rasputin. One can only imagine Yusopov’s disquiet as that inviolable gaze continued to bore into him with unnerving intensity. Rasputin’s face is almost simian in photographs, with a feral, hypnotic glint in his eyes suggesting a simmering madness. Yusopov recalled in his memoirs: “Under Rasputin's heavy gaze, I felt all my self-possession leaving me; an indescribable numbness came over me, [and] my head swam.” In desperation, Yusopov retreated upstairs to seek the counsel of the other men, who were shocked at Rasputin’s apparent immunity to the poison. It was agreed that Yusopov should go back armed with a revolver to put an end to the fiend, for who could survive being shot?

 But equally, Rasputin had just survived eating cakes laced with cyanide? Was Rasputin as immune to shooting as he was to poison? We’ll continue this story in our unique style next week!

By Julia Routledge

Read on! Part 2 of this article is available by clicking here!

 References

• Lost Splendour: The Amazing Memoirs of the Man Who Killed Rasputin – Felix Yusopov
• My Mission to Russia, and Other Diplomatic Memories – Sir George Buchanan
• How To Kill Rasputin: The Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin – Andrew Cook

The Discovery of King Tutankhamun’s Tomb – Image of the week

The classic image of the discovery of King Tutankhamun’s tomb is our image of the week.

After we looked at the mystery of San Agustin, today we are considering one of the greatest discoveries of the 20th century.

It was in 1922 that Howard Carter and George Herbert, Earl of Carnavon, made the legendary discovery of the tomb of King Tutankhamun. The young King of Egypt ruled for about 10 years in the 14th century BC, but then the tomb lay largely forgotten for millennia. Until one opportune day when the two British explorers discovered the tomb. However, a short space of time after visiting the tomb George Herbert died, leading some to believe that this was the “Mummy’s Curse.” This curse said that if you disturb a mummy’s tomb, you will fall victim to them and die…

In the image we see Howard Carter inspecting the inner sanctuary of the Boy King’s tomb. He is looking at aspects of Tutankhamun’s mummified body alongside his Egyptian helper. Fascinating.

We are still looking for regular contributors to our blog… Interested? Well email us by clicking here or Click here for more information!

George Levrier-Jones

Hypnotic Animals - or maybe not? How Animal Mesmerism grew across Britain and Europe

Here Kate Tyte gives us a fascinating overview of Mesmerism, a popular hypnotic process that united all classes and many people believed in through the 18th and 19th centuries.

“There is only one illness,” pronounced Franz Anton Mesmer, “and only one cure.” This cure was animal magnetism, a practice that united eighteenth century society in debate. From royalty to peasants, politicians to revolutionaries, scientists to Freemasons: everyone had an opinion on magnetism. 

Franz Anton Mesmer was born in Germany in 1734. He studied medicine in Vienna, married a wealthy widow and became a fashionable doctor. Not bad for the son of a game keeper. 

In 1774, Mesmer was introduced to patient Francisca Oesterlin. She suffered from ‘constant vomiting, inflammation of the bowels, stoppage of urine, excruciating toothache, earache, melancholy, depression, delirium, fits of frenzy, catalepsy, fainting fits, blindness, breathlessness, and lameness.’ Mesmer tried a novel cure. He gave her a medicine containing iron and applied magnets over her body to create an ‘artificial tide.’ Oesterlin was cured. In fact, she was so well she soon married Mesmer’s step-son. Mesmer now theorized that the whole universe was held together by magnetic fluid, and that disease was caused by blockages in free-flow of this fluid through the body. Animal magnetism was born.

Mesmer developed his cure. He would stare into his patient’s eyes and massage their body, wave a wand at them, or have them put their feet in magnetic water, until they had a ‘crisis’ or a fit and were cured. He was soon hounded out of Vienna as a charlatan and moved to Paris. Once again the medical and scientific authorities were skeptical, but the public loved magnetism so much he had to introduce group cures. His patients would hold onto a tub of magnetized water, a magnetized tree, or simply hold hands.

The authorities felt threatened by Mesmer’s miracle cures and were determined to stamp out animal magnetism. In 1784 the King appointed a Royal Commission of eminent scientists, led by Benjamin Franklin, to investigate. It was rather awkward as they were all members of a masonic lodge that was very keen on magnetism. But their scientific self-interest won the day. They reported that ‘magnetic fluid’ was humbug and that Mesmer’s cures were either fake or a product of the imagination. Mesmer was a staunch materialist and strongly denied that his cures were produced by the mind.

The commission finished Mesmer’s career. He left Paris and drifted around Europe. He was later imprisoned in Vienna as a suspected revolutionary, and died in Germany in 1815.

Magnetism lives on!

Meanwhile, animal magnetism continued to march through Europe and remained as popular as ever. This was hardly surprising. In the late eighteenth century all the medical establishment could offer was blood-letting, vomits and purges. Given the choice between a cure that was painful, dangerous and useless, or one that was pleasant, safe and useless, I would pick the latter option every time.

In 1784, the same year as the Royal Commission, Armand Marie Jacques Chastenet, Marquis of Puysegur, took magnetism in a new direction. He discovered he could induce a new state of consciousness, called ‘artificial somnambulism’ or ‘magnetic sleep.’ This sometimes gave patients occult powers such as clairvoyance and extra-sensory perception. Puysegur’s ‘spiritual’ or psychological version of animal magnetism, became known as ‘mesmerism’, and ensured the continued popularity of the practice.

The British

Mesmerism spread to Britain in the 1780s. The establishment was skeptical. They saw mesmerism as unscientific, and worse, un-English. The Frogs and the Krauts might go in for such effeminate mumbo-jumbo, but John Bull was not going to fall for such nonsense. Despite this, the political classes got quite hysterical about it during the revolutionary wars. They worried that the French were using ‘magnetic spies’ to pry into the minds of the British.

Mesmerism was re-born in Britain during the 1830s and 1840s when several popular books on the subject started a craze dubbed ‘mesmeric mania’. The salons of high society delighted in mesmerism and even Charles Dickens had a dabble. Many people think of mesmerism as an eccentric pursuit by the fringes of Victorian society, but for about 20 years it was all-pervasive and inescapable in every aspect of British life.

The working classes were just as fascinated by mesmerism as the wealthy. Mesmeric showmen toured the country giving demonstrations. Mesmerism’s appeal was obvious. It was exciting, mysterious and wonderfully meritocratic. Anyone could mesmerize. There was no need for expensive training or membership of exclusive professional bodies. Mesmerism was used as a cheap form of medicine for the poor and also a way to explore paranormal phenomena, such as clairvoyance. It could also be deliciously subversive. Men who dropped their aitches could mesmerize duchesses, throwing the whole social order into glorious disarray. And some Socialist groups actually promoted mesmerism as part of a radical political agenda.

The medical profession, though, remained vehemently opposed to mesmerism. John Ellitson, senior physician at University College Hospital and respected medical author, was eager to experiment. He found mesmerism helped many of his patients so he began lecturing on it. This caused a mighty row with the hospital authorities and ended his career. The hospital didn’t care whether mesmerism worked or not. They simply felt that it was disreputable and a threat to their status. Thomas Wakley, editor of The Lancet, said that mesmerists ought to be shunned “more than lepers, or the uncleanest of the unclean.” Wakley had no such qualms about the ludicrous pseudo-science of phrenology.

The medical profession even dismissed mesmerism’s use for surgical anesthesia. Hundreds of operations were carried out using mesmeric pain relief in the 1830s and 40s. At one colonial hospital in India, mesmeric anesthesia caused the death-rate to plummet by 50%. The medical establishment simply ignored this evidence and claimed that all the patients had been faking it! Ellitson asked in despair, “How long will you refuse to spare a single wretched patient the pain of your instruments?”

As it turned out, not long. Mesmerism made the infliction of pain surgery seem like an avoidable trauma, rather than a simple fact of life. Mesmerism inspired surgeons to experiment and by the 1850s ether and chloroform were being used widely. 

The mesmeric craze died out in the 1850s. Chemical anesthesia rendered it redundant in operations and the public had moved on to a new craze for séances, ouija boards and spiritualism. It took many years for mesmerism, or hypnosis as it was later called, to be taken seriously and recognized as tool with great potential for psychological healing. In the meantime the mesmerism craze was practically written out of history as a silly and embarrassing episode. This was unfair, as mesmerism had in fact spared many patients from pain and suffering.

By Kate Tyte. Kate is an archivist, history writer and blogger.  You can follow her on twitter at @KateTyte and find her blog at katetyte.com.

You can also find out more about Mesmerism in Robin Waterfield’s Hidden Depths – The Story of Hypnosis. Available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Face Value: How World War II stereotypes of the Japanese linger on to this day

In this article Manfred Gabriel argues that as a result of World War II propaganda, some people in the West expect Japanese people to ‘appear’ a certain way…

I was watching the Japanese Anime film, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, the other night, when a question popped into my head that American and European fans of the genre have been asking for decades. Why do Japanese animators make their characters look Caucasian? Why the light skin, the round eyes, the light colored hair?

Academic papers have even been written on the subject and what it says about Japanese culture. Some have posited that the reason is the influence of Disney Movies on early anime artists. Others have claimed it is to do with an envy the Japanese have for all things Western.

The answer, however, can be summed up simply - they aren’t Caucasian at all.

Now, let’s get one thing straight. Not all Japanese look alike, no more than all South Africans, Mexicans or Canadians look alike. While there may be some shared characteristics due to genetic factors, there is no one particular look for any one people. I myself can trace my German heritage back four hundred years on both sides of my family, yet among my two brothers and three sisters, there isn’t one blond haired, blue eyed person.

That said, look at the photo to the right of a real life Japanese girl and an anime character. Once you account for the lighting, the resemblance is uncanny.

And how about the image to the left of the Japanese fashion model Sosaki Nozomi? 

World War II propaganda

The job of the soldier is to kill the enemy. But killing someone is no easy task. Those who train snipers will tell you that they can teach almost anyone to shoot another person through the head at five hundred yards. The hard part is finding people with the proper temperament to pull the trigger. One of the reasons for Nazi death camps, besides them being the most efficient means for mass slaughter, was that many of the men ordered to shoot the Jews (the method used before gassing) were having mental and emotional difficulties from shooting others.

The solution is to dehumanize the enemy. Turn them into monsters. You aren’t killing a person, you are killing an animal. And this is exactly what the US propaganda machine set out to do.

On June 13, 1942, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of War Information (OWI). Headed by the popular CBS radio newscaster Elmer Davis, it was created by combining several separate government departments into one. Its 3,000 employees were charged with controlling all news about the war and motivating Americans both at home and abroad.

World War II was total war, and everyone was expected to do his or her part to ensure victory. The OWI used short films, newspaper articles, newsreels, radio broadcasts and especially posters to encourage people to recycle, conserve fuel, maximize factory production, buy war bonds and write to troops. It promoted enlistment and continued to remind the troops on the front why they were stuck in muddy fox holes or storming some remote Pacific island.

All information regarding the war that came to the public had to go through the OWI. Among its output was 100,000 cable wireless words a day, 350 daily radio programs and 50 movie shorts per year. Over its three year history, it became the largest pamphlet and magazine publisher in the world.

The poster encourages employees not to call in sick to work.

Not many people complained about the OWI’s control over media. In fact, many in the military self-censored, seeing it as their patriotic duty to show America, and its armed forces, in the best possible light.

The OWI’s message was simple – this was a fight of good versus evil. Nothing was shown or communicated that could undermine this message. Maimed soldiers were never depicted, the dead only shown towards the end of the war. The enemy was always shown in a negative light. The OWI enlisted film-makers from Hollywood and advertisers from Madison Avenue to help hone this message. And to reinforce this message, they made the enemy look as evil as possible.

The inherent idea was this: the Japanese aren’t human. You can shoot them, bayonet them, even drop an atomic bomb on them with a clear conscience.

An actual photo of two young Japanese soldiers.

Remove the uniforms and swords (you can just see the hilts at the bottom of the photo) and what you have are a couple of good looking young men, who could be your neighbor, your co-worker, the clerk at the corner grocery. Certainly no one who deserves death.  

Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying that Imperial Japan didn’t deserve to be defeated in World War II. I’m also not saying that US Propaganda was unique in this tactic. The Nazis, for example, were excellent at depicting Jews as ugly, rat-like creatures, helping them to justify mass extermination. But the OWI did use some methods that leave a sour taste in the mouth.

The OWI was dissolved with the war’s end in 1945, with most of its duties going to the State Department. All these decades later, its depictions of enemies who are now our friends still linger on.

By Manfred Gabriel

Enjoy this article? Well, another article from Manfred is here. It is about the story of how a car defined a nation.

The mystery of San Agustin, Colombia – Image of the week

A mysterious ancient site in Colombia, the Archaeological Park of San Agustin, is our image of the week.

Following our look at the Mogao Caves last week, this week we are going way back into the past again.

This time our image dips into the pre-Hispanic past and takes us to the Archaeological Park in San Agustin, Huila, Colombia. The site features many fantastic stone-carved statues of varying sizes and styles – a fascinating place to explore.

The stones themselves are the subject of much debate. They are known to be ancient, but their exact purpose is a matter of debate. What do you think?

Our image features a main stone with a man with prominent teeth and what appears to be a chain with a skull face at the end of it. The leader of this group, surely? Either side of the stone are figures, who, to my mind, are protecting the main statue. Two of the figures have what appear to be some sort of clubs. Unless… Could they be related to a religious practice?

The mystery continues…

Want to write for us? Well, we are looking for regular contributors to our blog currently… Email us by clicking here or Click here for more information!

George Levrier-Jones

The Battle of Bosworth Field and the end of The Wars of the Roses

Our final installment in The Wars of the Roses series looks at the intrigues that led Richard and Henry to face each other and bring the wars to an end. This article follows our introduction to the Wars of the Roses available here and our article on Edward III’s descendants and the causes of the Wars of the Roses available here. Later were the battles of the war from 1455-1464, the Kingmaker, and Prince George’s treachery. Then came part 1 and part 2 of a love story. Finally, our previous article looked at how a baby ended The Wars of the Roses.

Is it possible for a man to be an uncouth barbarian but manage to be a devoted father, husband and an excellent King? Henry Tudor forces this question on us.

The young Lancastrian had a barely existent claim to the throne. He was the last in a line of bastard descendants who were legally not allowed to inherit the crown of England. This didn’t worry Henry too much. His mother, Margaret Beaufort had paved the way for his attack a full year before he made it. Margaret’s husband, Lord Stanley, was one of those men whom history calls a coward. He famously only joined sides once he knew who the victor would be. He was always neutral in politics and never took part in revolts. This has earned him the title of traitor. I think that to be an unfair analysis. From one perspective, Lord Stanley was a dangerous man. No one knew where his alliances lay. From a soldier’s point of view, he was the best commander they could have. He only joined battles at the end and only on the side of the victor. That meant his soldiers were almost guaranteed to walk away the winners, and this made Stanley a very popular lord to fight for. After all, England was built on the backs of peasants and not by the swords of their masters. Being popular with peasants was a better option than being a favorite soldier of Kings. And so, when Lady Margaret began her campaign against Richard III, Lord Stanley stayed out of it.

King Richard III at The Battle of Bosworth Field. By James Doyle.

Margaret summoned rebel armies to revolt against Richard’s followers in 1483. Her plan was to overwhelm Richard with attacks while her son, Henry, snuck in through Wales. It probably would have worked, but the weather in England had never favored the Lancastrians. Once again, the River Severn flooded, preventing Henry from entering England and stopping the rebels from carrying out their revolution. Richard’s reign had been in no real danger, and because he was not allowed to punish a woman, nor would he ever have done, he simply issued a warning to Lord Stanley to better control his wife.

Whispers

Apparently Lord Stanley didn’t listen as Margaret then attempted another plot. And this time she did it as all women who had come before her had done – quietly. She simply spread enough rumors about Richard to tarnish his pristine reputation. By this point, the princes in the tower had not been seen for months. Margaret herself claimed to have staged a rescue, but had no princes to show for it. Could that “rescue” have been murder? Despite Richard’s claims to the contrary, he was blamed for the boys’ murder. Was Margaret behind it all? Well, we do know that Richard’s popularity began to dip after this point. He was no longer the beautiful King of England.

More misfortune struck Richard in 1484 when his only son and heir died. Both Richard and his wife, Anne, moved into a dark place where happiness no longer existed. Anne never came back out, and she died in March 1485. Richard was a broken man. To make matters worse, a rumor spread across England that Richard had killed his wife in order to marry Edward’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth of York. The princess would then be heir to the throne and very important. Richard denied this many times, and history backs him up. There is documented evidence that Richard was in the process of organizing a Portuguese prince for Elizabeth when Anne died, and there is no historical evidence whatsoever to back up the claim that Richard wanted to marry Princess Elizabeth. It was just another rumor. Started perhaps by Lady Margaret?

Henry Tudor, on the other hand, wanted Elizabeth. With no substantial claim to the throne, marriage to the new heir would make him the unquestioned King. History tells us that Henry was no soldier. He knew nothing about battlefields or war and even less about the country he was trying to claim. Henry did have an area of expertise though - he was extremely intelligent. He knew that it was better to make friends in high places and to let experienced soldiers call the shots. This was a trait he would pass down to his granddaughter, the later Queen Elizabeth I, who is known for just that and whose time in power was a “Golden Age.” Like Elizabeth, Henry was a great leader and wise beyond his years.

A broken man

Meanwhile, Richard was struggling. Having lost his wife, his son, his reputation, the love of his people, and his allies, he marched to intercept Henry’s newly assembled army on August 22nd, 1485.

Although Richard was emotionally beaten, the old soldier in him had not died. He was, afrer all, trained by the Kingmaker. The Yorkist troops positioned themselves atop Ambion Hill and used their advantage to tire the Lancastrians at the Battle of Bosworth Field. Henry’s troops were waning; fighting uphill was no easy task. Richard and his army were set to win. But Lord Stanley had other ideas. He and his troops had entered the battle on the side of the Yorkists, and when Richard called for reinforcements to finish the battle, Lord Stanley’s men ran downhill and attacked Richard’s army. The last words the great King ever uttered were, “treachery, treachery, treachery.” King Richard III, the last King of England to die fighting on the battlefield, was slaughtered as he fought to keep England under the protection of the House of York. He was then stripped naked, and his lifeless body abused, molested and throne in a shallow grave that would not be found for half a millennium.

It is said that Henry Tudor lifted Richard’s crown from the rose bush and crowned himself King Henry VII on the battlefield. Another one of Shakespeare’s lies. Henry, or one of his men, had actually stolen the crown from Richard’s cart before the battle. For all we know, he had fought with the stolen crown on his head.

Henry was no fool however, and he was aware that England would not take kindly to this French-speaking, Welshman who had just won the crown by conquest. So he decided to re-write history and declared that he was crowned King on August 21st – the day before the Battle of Bosworth Field. That meant that legally Richard was not defending his crown, but fighting Henry for it. This made Richard and his followers the true traitors. This also meant that Henry was legally King and did not need Princess Elizabeth. He most certainly did not mention marriage again. But Elizabeth, like her mother Elizabeth Woodville, was not someone to take lightly. Despite no repeat mention of wishing to marry her, Henry seemed to quickly change his mind and the two were hastily married in a quiet ceremony very unbefitting for a King. Eight months later, their first son and heir was born. Premature babies rarely survived in the Middle Ages, yet this child – born at only eight months – easily made it. Why is that? Could it be that Elizabeth had realized she was no longer needed and had quickly trapped Henry? Had she seduced him, become pregnant and demanded to be made Queen?

History’s lips are once again sealed.

With the marriage of Henry to Elizabeth, the two warring houses were now joined. The red Lancaster rose and the white York rose were now drawn together and called the Tudor rose. Most historians believe that the Wars of the Roses ended with the Battle of Bosworth Field, but I believe it ended with the marriage of the Lancastrian King to his Yorkist Queen and the birth of their Tudor son.

And so began the next dynasty.

By M.L King, a history enthusiast and part-time blogger. You can connect with her on Facebook here.

We would like to send a special message of thanks to M.L King for her excellent Wars of the Roses series of articles. I hope you have all enjoyed it too!

Want to read more? Go to the blog now and see what else we have for you. Click here!

References

• British History by Miles Kelly
• Measly Middle Ages by Terry Derry
• www.english-heritage.org.uk
• www.battlefieldstrust.com
• www.learningsite.co.uk