Bizarre World War I – The New Body Armor that Failed

In this relatively light-hearted article, Adrian Burrows tells us about a new World War I military invention that never took off – Body Armor.

The First World War revolutionized warfare on an epic scale. Cavalry became redundant against the machine gun. The deployment of metal monstrosities soon to become known as tanks forever changed infantry’s role in battle. The development of airplanes as weapons of war transformed the battlefield into a three dimensional arena in which military commanders had to consider all avenues in order to finalize their strategy, while the use of poison gas forever changed our ethical and moral standpoint on the rules of warfare. All of these factors meant that officers on both sides faced a never-ending tirade of considerations when thinking about how to defeat their enemies.

However, this article isn’t about any of those military changes; this might make you wonder why they were written in the introduction to this article. To that I would give you this answer: tanks, airplanes and machine guns were all successful in their development and use but that doesn’t interest me at this moment in time. Rather, what I’m going to be considering are the military developments that were not successful. The ones that didn’t take off. The genius (and not so genius) ideas that almost revolutionized warfare… but not quite. First up, I’ll be looking at personal body armor.

Personal Body Armor

Quite frankly the headgear provided to soldiers at the start of the First World War was not fit for purpose. Some provided no protection whatsoever, such as the cloth French Kepi cap - which while it gave no protection to the head certainly made you look incredibly dandy. Other helmets made you a target, such as the German Pickelhaube helmet that had an easy-to-spot spike on top. The development of the Brodie, Stahlhelm and Adrian helmets over the course of the war cut mortality rates and assisted in reducing head injuries. So, some bright sparks considered… Why stop there? If a helmet is good, then surely covering a soldier in a metal suit would be even better! Or would it…?

Brewster Armor.

Brewster Body Armor

In the first picture is the Brewster body armor (named after its inventor Dr. Guy Brewster), developed by the United States Army towards the end of the war. Whilst it was very clumsy and heavy it could withstand the bullets from a Lewis Gun. Its problems occurred due to maneuverability being massively reduced and the small issue of the helmet not turning. This led to visibility for the soldier on the inside being zilch.

This didn’t stop Dr. Brewster from excitedly telling America of his invention. But being a man of both action and science, Dr. Brewster didn’t just tell people about his invention, he demonstrated it. The picture below is of Dr. Brewster in his armor; the accompanying article describes how the American military tested his armor by shooting at the suit while Dr. Brewster was inside it. You would think that one or two shots would be sufficient to prove the protective qualities of the armor, but that was not the case for the American military. Its soldiers unleashed a ‘rain of bullets’ at the good Doctor.  Apparently the military top bods were very pleased as no bullets penetrated the armor’s thick hide. I can only imagine that Dr. Brewster was very pleased about this too. At the end of the experiment Dr Brewster declared that being shot by a machine gun while wearing his armor was only about ‘one tenth the shock which he experienced when struck by a sledge-hammer.’ One has to wonder how he knew what it felt like to be hit by a sledgehammer.

Brewster Body Armor as shown in the article.

Unfortunately for Dr Brewster, his body armor never took off. This has always struck me as a shame, for after all, surely the Brewster Armor was a precursor to a real life Iron Man suit (and let’s face it, we’ve all been waiting for one and the fact that’s it’s 2014 and nobody has invented it yet is terribly disappointing).

Final Thoughts

Clearly the Brewster armor was unsuitable for the requirement of life in the trenches and warfare across no-man’s-land. Yet there is still some fascinating theorizing that suggests that if body armor was provided to soldiers then thousands of lives could have been saved.

The majority of injuries to soldiers in the First World War were caused by shrapnel to the chest and head. Surely then, if a soldier could protect these areas their chances of survival would have drastically increased? The Brewster Armor was absurd in many ways yet at its core Dr. Brewster had a very positive desire - to keep soldiers alive.

Alas, over the four years of the First World War, very few developments were made in the field of body armor; it took some two years for most soldiers to get a metal helmet rather than a cloth cap. Perhaps if someone had managed to design and mass produce effective body armor then hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved by the end of the war.

Adrian Burrows works for Wicked Workshops, an organization that brings historical workshops to primary schools across the UK. They are currently doing many workshops about World War I. Click here to find our more about this great organization.

Want to read more about an unknown aspect of World War I? Click here to find out about the underground battlefield of WWI tunnel warfare.

Selected References

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_armor

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brewster_Body_Shield

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/body-armor2.htm

http://2pep.com/funny%20pics/extreme%20funny%20stuff%20cool%20%20images/Weirdbodyarmorinhistory_149CF/funnyoddityweirdbulletproofvestsbodyarmorinhistory10.jpg

http://www.sepiachord.com/index/retro-body-armor/

http://io9.com/5917559/10-retro-body-armors-that-will-transform-you-into-an-old+school-iron-man

Why is Ukraine in such turmoil? History, Russia and Ukraine...

In this article Stevan Bozanich provides us with some of the historical context to the current problems in Ukraine by looking at three ages in Ukrainian history: the Middle Ages, the Great War, and the very recent past.

Quite often it is helpful to view current events within their historical context in order to understand ‘why’ and ‘how’ things have come about. The events occurring in Ukraine at the moment are no different. Many media reports speak of an East-West divide, with Russian and Western interests vying for control within Ukraine. While this is partially true, this only tells a part of the story. There are a number of other factors involved, but to understand them all a little better, the wider context needs to be seen.

Maidan protests in Kiev. January 2014. Picture: Mikola Vacelychko

Ukraine: Middle Ages to Imperial Russia

Russian and Ukrainian historical and religious identity is traced through a Slavic identity. To Russia the unity of this identity is important and an inseparable element of this identity is Ukraine. In the Middle Ages a confederacy known as the Kievan Rus, an Christian Orthodox group of Slavs, emerged roughly within the modern-day borders of Ukraine. This group was overrun by the Mongols in the 13th century and forced to disperse. Some of them ended up in modern-day Russia, others remained within modern-day Ukraine and made up other parts of other nations such as Belarus. From the 14th to the 16th centuries the people in modern-day Ukraine were controlled by Polish and Lithuanian principalities, and then overrun by Cossacks in the 17th century. With the rise of Russia as an imperial power, a thirty year struggle ensued between Russia, Poland, Turkey, and the Cossacks for control of fertile Ukrainian land. In this struggle everything west of the Dnieper River, which runs through Kiev, went to Poland while everything east went to Russia. By the end of the 18th century Poland itself would be partitioned and the Polish territories of Ukraine would be further divided between Austria and Russia. The Austrian lands became “Ruthenia” and the Russian lands became “Little Russia”; the term “Ukraine” was outlawed within the Russian territories.

First World War

Through the period of Imperial Russia, the idea of Ukraine as a ‘nation’ was non-existent. It was not until the twentieth century, and more specifically around the Great War, that Ukrainian national identity began to be discussed among literate peoples. This urban literate class pushed for the Ukrainian language in schools, newspapers, and books. They also pushed for land reforms and civil rights tied to Ukrainian language-usage. With these social reforms, the people of Ukraine were granted access to schools, courts, and political representation. In 1917, during the First World War, these reforms faced opposition from Russians within these territories and the Russian government. The Ukrainian nationalist movement looked to Russia’s enemies in the Great War, Germany and Austria, for help. This led Germany and Austria to offer assistance to Ukrainian nationalists. Soon enough though, Russia capitulated to Germany with the signing of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, effectively removing the country from the war.

With Russia’s defeat Germany granted Ukraine independence through a puppet government that was subordinate to Germany and obligated to supply Germany food from its rich land. Then, as Germany itself faced defeat at the hands of Great Britain and the United States, it was forced to withdraw from Ukrainian lands. As a power vacuum ensued, Polish troops moved in along with Western-backed White Army troops and Russian-backed Red Army troops. This tripartite annexation was important for the ongoing Russian Civil War. The Ukrainian nationalist cause had the smallest slice of the pie, so to speak. By 1921 the Bolsheviks had won the civil war and at the Soviet-Polish Treaty in Riga, Ukrainian territory was once again partitioned. Within Russian-held lands, the Ukrainian nationalists who had sided with Germany and Austria were punished. Josef Stalin, for example, starved the people of Ukraine for their push for independence in what many nations recognize to be a genocide.

In a Modern Context

Ukrainians lived under the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) for the majority of the 20th century. Upon the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, Ukraine was granted independence and its borders drawn using its republic status within the USSR. Because of this, the country is divided amongst Ukrainians, Russians, Tartars, and other ethnic groups. For example, in a recent census, 77% of the population claims Ukrainian ethnicity and 17% Russian ethnicity. In areas closer to the Russian border, the number of Russian speakers becomes the majority. Certainly this is part of the division within Ukraine and many media outlets have picked up on this East-West divide.

However, the problems in Ukraine are deeper than merely East-West. In Donetsk, the former pro-Russian president Viktor Yanukovich stronghold in the far east of Ukraine, approximately 5,000 people participated in the protests in Kiev against the new, pro-Western government. Certainly this is proof of matters being deeper than an arbitrary geopolitical divide. Another region within Ukraine, and one that has been in the news a lot lately as well, is Crimea. In the north of Crimea many people claim to be ethnic Ukrainians, are bilingual and have some Ukrainian loyalty. In the center and south of the peninsula, Tartars make up 15-20% of the population, speak Russian, oppose Russian annexation, and support the Ukrainian revolution. These statistics speak against suggestions of partition along east-west boundaries. No partition would be acceptable to any portion of the population.

With Ukraine caught in the middle of an east-west push and pull, through several annexations and partitions, and a muddled ethno-linguistic population, the current events in Ukraine are convoluted and confusing. While no answers can be found as yet, putting the events occurring in Ukraine within their correct historical context helps us to understand how and why these events are unfolding. History can sometimes offer us an answer to today’s problems, but not always. What history can always do, however, is offer us answers to how we got there.

What do you think about events in Ukraine? How does history help us explain the situation? Comments below.

This article is by Stevan Bozanich. You can read more about Russian history by clicking here to read about the fall and rise of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Selected References

• Rodric Braithwaite, “Ukraine Crisis: No wonder Vladimir Putin says Crimea is Russian,” http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/ukraine-crisis-no-wonder-vladimir-putin-says-crimea-is-russian-9162734.html
• Glen Kates, “The Conflict in Ukraine: More Complex Than You Might Think,” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/the-conflict-in-ukraine-more-complex-than-you-might-think/284118/
• Walter G. Moss, <em>A History of Russia, Volume I: To 1917</em>, (London: Anthem Press, 2005).
• Alexander Motyl, “A House United,” http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/02/22/a_house_united
• Brian Whitmore, “Is it Time for Ukraine to Split Up?” http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/02/is-it-time-for-ukraine-to-split-up/283967/

The Scientist who World War I wrote out of history

Karl Ferdinand Braun is the unsung hero of wireless telegraphy. He made many great discoveries, but due to World War I, he was forgotten. Here, Kevin K. O’Neill tells us his story.

Many people have memories of the early history of radio development summed up in a single word: Marconi. This is not undeserved as Marconi and the companies he founded were instrumental in the development of wireless telegraphy and radio. The transition from the wired telegraph to wireless telegraphy came at a time of turmoil in Europe and was in part driven by different country’s desire for improved communication.

At the outbreak of WWI, verbal radio was still in its infancy and crossing any significant distance in wireless communications was achieved by the "dots and dahs" of Morse Code, whose cultural legacy remains with us in the form of SOS as a distress signal, chosen for its simple three "dots", three "dahs", three "dots" pattern. One of the fathers of this technology remains unsung in much of the world due to Germany's loss of WWI. Despite numerous technical contributions, this man, Karl Ferdinand Braun, remains largely unknown to many English-speaking people.

Most of us in today's world have viewed images on a Cathode Ray Tube, commonly known among English speakers as a CRT.  Before the advent of semiconductor flat panel display technology, every TV and computer sported a CRT as its most prominent feature, but how many know who invented it?  It was Karl Ferdinand Braun.

Braun in 1909.

Success at learning

The youngest boy of seven children, Braun was born in June of 1850 at Fulda, a town northeast of Frankfurt still enclosed in its medieval walls. Despite his father's job as a mid level civil servant, Braun was raised in extreme poverty due to the billeting of Bavarian soldiers in his home. A time of unrest in Germany, Fulda was forced to house many soldiers forcing its inhabitants into sheds and barns, while the poor ate rodents to survive.  Despite these inauspicious beginnings, Braun did attend to school.  Hardly a prodigy, the fact that he had difficulty with mathematics outside of theory was often laughed at later in his life.  Despite this, Braun wrote a book on crystallography when he was 15. Reviewed favorably by several professors it went unpublished due to his age. However Braun was undeterred, publishing several papers on aspects of chemistry before he turned 17.

Braun enrolled in experimental physics, mathematics, and chemistry at the college in Marburg just before his 18th year. Due to his physics professor's musical inclinations his studies were focused on acoustics, which while good at, Braun was not inclined to pursue.  Even so, it is likely that his understanding of the concept of resonance would later play a role in his inspired electrical innovations. Dissatisfied with the scope of his studies at Marburg - with its mere 355 students and unimaginative professors - Braun cleared financial hurdles and went on to the University of Berlin, an undisputed leader in science, after his second semester at Marburg.

In Berlin, an elite physics laboratory existed with only 3 of 265 science students allowed access. Braun, after a single interview with the professor in charge, was allowed use of the lab in complete privacy and at no expense, an honor almost unheard of. Morally and financially compelled to return to Marburg after two semesters to please his father, Braun's next break came when offered a paid internship as a laboratory assistant and lecturer at what was to later become a section of the Technical University of Berlin. This allowed him to stay in Berlin under the tutelage of a Professor Quincke who promoted the spirit of German scientific education, something that was to eventually propagate through much of the academic world. This pairing reaped great benefits for mankind.

Braun's first dissertation earned him the beginnings of a reputation. His acumen for the mechanics of experimentation became evident to all those involved. His contributions to scientific knowledge are too numerous to even outline here, but his discovery of the "diode" effect should be mentioned. This discovery effectively makes him the great grandfather of every semiconductor ever manufactured. Braun was the teacher that every student hopes to get and if they do, they remember him for life.  Braun taught at numerous German universities and his talent for amusing anecdotes once had Kaiser Wilhelm II repeatedly slap his leg and laugh during a lecture.

A history of invention

In the latter half of the 19th century, electricity was working its way into industry and society.  Batteries, generators, lights, telegraphs, and other assorted technologies were being implemented while barely being understood. Braun was asked by early German electricity producers for help with various aspects of energy propagation. With characteristic energy, he tackled the problem by refining ideas published by Roentgen, the discoverer of X-Rays. Braun's solution to probing the inner workings of electrical circuits was the creation of the Cathode Ray Tube.  A long glass tube with the air pumped out and two metal plates with a phosphor coated "screen" of cardboard. Braun was the first to control the horizontal and the vertical by waving magnets around the tube to deflect the electron beam, or cathode ray, which was a discovery in itself. 

Braun, a kindred soul to Tesla and never a businessman by nature, altruistically published his findings with expediency, despite being aware of the enormous fiscal value of his invention. He honed his marvelous tube into what is known today as an oscilloscope, a fundamentally unchanged tool of electronics that is indispensable to any electronic engineer or technician. It was Braun's oscilloscope that first showed the German electricity producers that the electricity they were creating operated at a frequency of 50 "hertz" or cycles per second - a frequency unchanged in Europe to this day. To say the German industrialists involved were pleased with Braun's "Scope" is a huge understatement. Braun contributed many other items to the electric industry and his brother, a successful merchant, founded a company to reap some gain from Braun's inventive mind. The most pervasive legacy of this company remains with us in the form of the Braun electric razor. His tube, known in America as the CRT, is still called "Braunsche Rohre" (Braun's Tube) in German speaking countries and "Buraun-kan" in Japan.

At the tail end of the 19th century "wireless" communication was in its infancy, and utilizing "Spark Gap Transmitters" and releasing barely manipulated EMP (electro-magnetic pulse) assaults into the atmosphere, Braun hoped that someone could pick them up at distances measured in single to double digit miles. If one of these transmitters were "sparked up" today in a modern city, it is likely that all the iPads, iPods, and cell phones in the immediate area would suffer a premature death, all their semiconductor junctions fried at the hands of raw electromagnetic energy.

World War I and change

Ferdinand Braun helped change all that. Braun and Marconi were jointly awarded a Nobel Prize in 1909 for "contributions to the development of wireless telegraphy." Marconi even admitted to Braun himself that he "borrowed" several of Braun's patents. It was during his work on wireless telegraphy that Braun invented the first diode, without which there would be no modern electronics as we know it. It was also here that Braun's early work with acoustic resonance came into play as he improved the wireless technology including inventing the phased array antenna.

During the Russo-Japanese war of the early 20th century and before the outbreak of WWI, the combat efficacy of wireless communications was proven by the Japanese sinking of the Russian flagship Petropavlovsk. Baited out of Port Arthur with small ships, torpedo boats were called in as reinforcements by wireless. At the outbreak of WWI, Braun's workplace, then at Strasbourg, was shut down and the city filled with troops. Braun's family was scattered by various circumstances. When the tide of war ebbed Braun returned to Strasbourg to find his university's station locked behind closed doors, being used by the military as one point of the first known radio triangulation efforts to track ships at sea.  The British ships were tracked and the U-boats success at finding prey may have been due to this effort.

Prior to the war, with Marconi's efforts tied up, the only world wide network of communications was set up by Telefunken. Many pieces of this network were destroyed in the early days of the war in an effort to isolate Germany. The Sayville station, outside New York and the last of the offshore Telefunken stations to remain operational, had recently been upgraded and was able to receive reports from Germany.  It came under assault for patent infringements in efforts to shut it down, with Marconi himself scheduled to testify. Braun decided to travel to New York to help counter the British efforts to shut it down. Diagnosed and treated for cancer ten years earlier though, the disease was rearing its head again making Braun aware that this trip might be the last effort of his life. Risking winter travel and the Atlantic blockade (his own son had been caught at sea returning from America and imprisoned), Braun left for New York without much hope of seeing his homeland or family again.  Departing from Bergen, the captain went far out of the normal sea routes, passing just south of Iceland to deliver his "cargo," for, besides Braun and his three companions, the ship was carrying a new transmitter and antenna setup for the Sayville station. Shortly after Braun's arrival in New York he had a pleasant surprise when his son, released from internment by the British, was allowed to return to America.

In part due to Braun's presence, the lawsuit against Sayville went in Telefunken's subsidiary's favor. However Sayville was taken over by the US Navy when America declared war on Germany.

His job done, Braun petitioned the British government for safe passage to Germany but they were non-committal. Braun remained in America under the watchful eyes of British intelligence, and coming to the realization that the British did not want him back in Germany, Braun resigned himself to life in the Catskill Mountains of New York until the war ended. Many American scientific groups, pleased to have a Nobel Prize winner nearby, treated him to feasts and event invitations, easing his isolation.  He continued to write articles on physics, one of his last being "Physics for Women," a practical aid to housewives everywhere. In 1918 Braun slipped and fell. He broke his hip, went into a sickbed, and never arose. He passed away shortly thereafter.

Scientist, teacher, innovator, and patriot to his country, Braun was a remarkable and admirable man written out of history by the winners of WWI. The next time you view the iconic 1960s TV show The Outer Limits’ introduction, with its elemental display of oscilloscope functionality, take a moment to reflect upon a 20th century without the Cathode Ray Tube.  Braun was the first to control the horizontal and vertical, bringing much of physics in to crystal clarity. Life would not be the same without his wonderful "Braunsche Rohre" and other miraculous inventions.

This article is by Kevin K. O’Neill.

You can read another article by Kevin, related to ghosts and science in the 19th century, here.

When the Spanish met the Aztecs – Image of the Week

Our image of the week looks at the time the Spanish Conquistadors took Tenochtitlan, modern day Mexico City.

We’re yet to foray closely into the history of Latin America on the site, and even though we have shared a few images, thought that we would start to make amends.

Following Christopher Columbus’ founding of the Americas in 1492, European interest in the continent grew. The Portuguese and Spanish were the two European countries best able to explore the New World and set about doing so with gusto – and much violence. The Spanish Conquistadors went on to cause many problems for their ‘heathen’ foe while they were on the look out for gold. On one foray, they attacked the Aztec Empire, and eventually reached Tenochtitlan, modern day Mexico City, and laid siege to the city in 1521.

Our image shows the moment in which Hernan Cortes led his Conquistadors in a major attack on Tenochtitlan, an attack that would result in its fall in August 1521. The painting shows this mighty battle, with the Spanish, launching themselves into the city in armor and on horseback, about to cross a bridge. In the background we can see a grand Aztec pyramid and mountains in the distance.

Catch all of our articles by subscribing to our rss feed - click here.

George Levrier-Jones

When the Cold War became Hot – The Summit Series between the USSR and Canada

In this article, Matthew Struth tells us the story of the Summit Series, a number of ice hockey games that took place at the height Cold War. These games took place during détente and were anything but friendly…

When the American ping-pong team played in China in 1971, it was seen as a step toward negotiation and cooperation between the USA and China in the Cold War. A year later, Canada made its own attempt to bridge the gap with the USSR, using a game so dear to both nations’ hearts: ice hockey. This was the Summit Series.

The Summit Series, widely considered to be the eight best played and the eight bloodiest and dirtiest ice hockey games of all time, was not called that at the beginning, but it’s a name that has since gained widespread acceptance.

In 1972, Leonid Brezhnev ruled the USSR with an iron but intelligent hand. However, Canada was still dealing with the aftermath of the October Crisis; only the idea of hockey kept even nominal unity in the country. It was in these conditions that Canadian Sports Executive, Joe Kryczka, announced the Canada-USSR Series.

The belief was that the Canadians would easily trounce the Soviets. Even in the Eastern Bloc, the thinking was that Canada would win easily. Orders from Moscow were to play well and win a couple of games. Even the Kremlin didn’t believe the Soviets would win.

The Canadians got one of the greatest wake-ups in their history though: that when it came to hockey, there were others who could match up with the best in the National Hockey League (NHL).

When the first game was done, the Soviets won with a humiliating seven goals to Canada’s three.

A Canadian hockey rink has never been so quiet.

Paul Henderson of Canada celebrating a very important goal in the USSR in September 1972.

On to the USSR

The Canadians were devastated. It showed that just because you could pay a player a lot of money, it did not make him the best in the world. The image that Canadians had always had was that they were the best at hockey, that it was their game, but now... Now Canada struggled with identity, a problem it has always been faced with. Then the game turned to war.

The second game in Toronto saw Canada strike back. Vengeance was on Canada’s mind; the Soviets had humiliated them, and they wanted to return the favor. And they did, with a 4-1 win. The Canadian media soon took to derisively calling the Soviet players “robots” for their lack of emotion while playing the game, an insult that the Soviets took as complimentary for hard-working men. The third game was a tie, but tempers on both sides rose.

The fourth game is the one that Canadians like to forget, if only because of the rude and dishonorable way the Canadian team played. Players held down the Soviet goalie, among other acts that today would have a player expelled from the NHL. The nation was mad at the team and began booing them. This was how Canadians played? But worse, it hurt the team. Some on the team, like Ken Dryden, agreed with the fans, and knew they deserved the boos.

The next four games played in Moscow were not about a shared love of hockey but about the ideological war taking place in the world. The players on the ice mirrored the feelings of the opposing sides as blood was drawn and threats were screamed. To the players, particularly Phil Esposito and Paul Henderson, this was the battle between communism and capitalism.

3,500 Canadians made the trip to the very heart of the Soviet world to cheer on their team. To the Muscovites, the sight was confusing and abnormal. The Russian audience was silent and stoic, while beside them Canadians screamed and cheered.

Blood on the ice

The first game in Russia and fifth in the series saw another Soviet victory. And in the sixth, Canada won; followed by another win in the seventh game.

It was in the seventh game that the unforgivable happened: Soviet player Boris Mikhailov kicked out several times with the blade of his skate, and Canada’s Gary Bergman suffered the worst of it. Bergman’s shin pad was cut through, and his leg was left bleeding. Mikhailov has always regretted the act.

The final game was infamous for the way it played out. Both teams saw winning as crucial to their way of life. The Soviets changed the referees and ordered them to cheat for the USSR. The move infuriated the Canadians, who were more nervous about their position as more militia men were ordered in. Even the Soviet team didn’t like the calls that were handed out, but they could do nothing. An uncounted goal led to unrest as Canadian hockey agent Alan Eagleson tried to have the goal counted, but he was grabbed by militia men. As they were hauling him away, the Canadian players attacked the militia men and freed Eagleson. In the end, Canada scored the three goals needed to first tie, then win, the game.

The NHL adapted and began to use the Soviet methods of training and drilling after the games, methods still in use today. They also brought in rules and regulations that would lessen the physically violent side of hockey, rules that are still contested and disputed. The Series gave Canadians a boost too; hockey was still their game, and they were the best at it. But it was a more respectful Canada that came out of the Series, one that was less arrogant about their game but could still claim to the world that it was the best at it.        

The Summit Series healed a nation and gave respect to an enemy. Indeed, after the fall of the Iron Curtain, Russians and other Eastern Europeans were welcomed into the NHL, having more than proven themselves in the Series. A common love for hockey also helped keep the détente period alive, as both sides could now look to a similarity that helped one seem less alien and less of an enemy. But like the détente period, it was not a kind, peaceful event. It was marked by trickery and cheating on both sides, and stood as the example that, though bridges were being built, mistrust and the need to win were a concern on everyone’s minds.

Now, after the hardships of the games have passed, many of the players on both sides look to the others as some of the greatest players ever to hit the ice.

You can find out more about détente by reading our introductory ebook about the middle years of the Cold War here.

Tsar Alexander II of Russia. Assassinations and Assignations - Cat or Rat? The Tsar with many lives and loves

In this brilliant article with a twist at the end, Helen Saker-Parsons tells us the story of the various assassination attempts on 19th century Russian ruler Tsar Alexander II. And his compelling and complicated love life – or lives…

Historically, it is a bear that symbolizes the Russian Imperial Court. But for Alexander II, Tsar of Russia from 1855 to 1881, there are more suitable creature comparisons. His was a reign marked by assassination attempts and sexual assignations. He appeared to have the many lives of a cat but was also referred to as a rat – a love rat. For though it was customary for imperial rulers to take mistresses, Alexander II appeared to move beyond what was acceptable, even for a Tsar.

But has history misjudged his sexual misdemeanors? Or could it be argued that it was his awareness that as a cat his lives were not infinite which pushed him towards his love-rat behavior?

Tsar Alexander II, circa 1865.

Attacks on a ruler

Alexander II oversaw a period of upheaval and change in imperialist Russia. Nick-named ‘the liberator,’ it is the emancipation of the serfs for which he is most renowned. But how the country adapted to change was to leave the Tsar vulnerable, with enemies amongst both the radical reformers and conservative factions. Alexander survived several attempts on his life, firstly from lone assassins and then by the Nihilist group, Narodnaya Volya [People’s Will]. His first near-miss he later referred to “as the event of April 4 1866.” On this date the elbow of Dimitry Karakozov was reportedly nudged as he aimed his revolver at the Tsar leaving the Summer Garden in St Petersburg. When the Tsar questioned the captured wannabe assassin as to what he wanted, the latter apparently replied: “nothing.” During the 1867 World Fair, Polish immigrant Antoni Berezowski attacked Alexander’s carriage but his pistol misfired and hit a horse instead. On April 20 1879, Alexander was out walking when he spotted an armed man, 33 year old former school teacher, Alexander Soloviev, approaching. The Tsar fled, running in a zigzag pattern so that all five of  Soloviev’s bullets missed him.

The People’s Will was founded in 1879 with the principal policy of killing the Tsar. In November their initial attempt to bomb his train route at three points failed. The train diverted from the first point; the dynamite failed to ignite at the second as it did at the third – when a tunnel dug to the track from a rented apartment passed through sandy soil and flooded. On the evening of February 5, 1880, one of their members, employed as a stoker at the Winter Palace, set off a charge in the guard’s rest room aimed to coincide with the Tsar and his family gathering to eat in the dining room above. Eleven people were killed and a further thirty wounded but the Tsar and his family were not amongst the casualties, having fortuitously delayed their meal. Poor time-keeping saved Alexander on The People’s Will’s third attempt when one of their terrorists turned up too late to blow up a bridge over the Catherine Canal which the Tsar was set to cross. The fourth attempt was abandoned when the Tsar changed his travel plans thus avoiding the road that had been mined. For their fifth effort The People’s Will returned to tunneling and rented an apartment from which to burrow and bomb one of Alexander’s frequent haunts. But the terrorist group failed to represent everybody’s will and one of their neighbors denounced them.

Alexander II had survived eight times and a cat is known to have nine lives. That eventually an attempt on his life should be successful seemed an accepted fact both by Alexander and his contemporaries. The British Prime Minister, Benjamin Disraeli, had remarked in 1874 that the Tsar always looked sad questioning “Whether it is satiety, or the loneliness of despotism, or fear of a violent death, I know not” and Peter Kropotkin describes the events of March 13, 1881 ‘the tragedy developed with the unavoidable fatality of one of Shakespeare’s dramas.’ On this Sunday, Alexander was travelling his usual route when a bomb was thrown under his carriage. He alighted to inspect the damage and console the wounded Cossacks who accompanied him. A second, as it happened suicidal, terrorist, Ignatei Grinevitski, seized the opportunity to throw another bomb; this time with more success. The Tsar’s legs were blown off by the blast and chunks of his flesh, combined with that of others caught in the blast, littered the lying snow. The dying emperor was taken by sleigh to the Winter Palace. His mutilated body was met by members of his family. His grandson, who later became Tsar Nicholas II and was to meet a violent demise himself, described that “there were big red spots on the carpet - when they had carried my grandfather up the stairs, blood from the terrible wounds he had suffered from the explosion poured out.” Alexander’s body was taken to his quarters, passed the secret passageway, which led down to another series of rooms. It was the presence of these and his mistress and children housed there which gained him the reputation of a rat.

A history of lovers

Alexander II had many admirers, not least Queen Victoria, whom he first met in 1839, when both were barely out of their teens. She wrote in her diary: ‘I really am quite in love with the Grand Duke; he is a dear, delightful young man.’ During his month-long visit to England the two went on horse rides in Windsor, attended balls at Buckingham Palace and even spent half an hour alone behind closed curtains in the royal box at the theatre. But Alexander’s father, Tsar Nicholas I, feared a marriage would result in his son having to give up the Russian throne to become British Prince Consort. He ordered him to Germany where a more suitable suitor awaited; writing: ‘Back to Darnstadt. Don’t be a milksop.’ The parting was not without emotion and Alexander left Victoria his prized dog, Kazbek, as a leaving present. They were not to meet again until 1874 by which time Victoria was dismayed by his changed appearance and openly critical of his indiscretions.

Alexander II’s subsequent marriage to the German Princess – who became known as Maria Alexandrovna following their wedding in St Petersburg in April 1841 – was initially a happy one and she bore him eight children. Alexander’s virility was proven and there were rumors of other offspring; including twin girls born to the British Ambassador’s wife. But it was also the death of his children that reminded him of the fragility of life. His firstborn by Maria, a daughter Alexandra, died aged seven from tuberculosis and Alexander kept her nightgown beneath his pillow for the rest of his life. Their eldest son and heir, Nicholas, also died from consumption in 1865. Both tragedies contributed to Maria’s frail health, something that had already taken a severe down-turn after the birth of her final child in 1860. Diagnosed with tuberculosis and instructed to spend more time in warmer climates, her husband built a sanctuary for her in the Crimea. Her absences paved the way for his infidelities.

Amongst his lovers was an eighteen year old, Marie Dolgorukaia. But it was her sister Catherine who was to steal the Tsar’s heart. After the death of their father, Alexander II had taken on their guardianship and enrolled the girls in the Smolny Institute, in St Petersburg. It was on a visit here that the sisters grabbed his attention. Firstly Marie was employed as a Maid-of-Honor to his wife whilst performing more personal functions; but after less than a year the Tsar turned his eyes to her younger sister Catherine, almost thirty years his junior. Following a brief platonic period, their relationship turned sexual and intensely passionate. Catherine too was appointed as a Maid-of-Honor and assigned her own suite of rooms in the Palace, directly above the personal rooms of the Tsarina.

One love too far?

It was the flaunting of the affair and the damaging effect it had on the Tsarina’s heath that angered many, especially the couple’s children. But Alexander’s first assignation with Catherine, in July 1866, came only a few months after the initial attempt on his life. The awareness that there would be other assassination attempts must have prevailed. He had survived a second by the time Catherine bore their first child together. At a time when life seemed precious and short Alexander turned away from his often morose and religiously maniacal wife towards the intensely sexual mistress. Proof of their passion can be read in the thousands of sexually explicit letters exchanged between them, with almost everyone referring to the act of love-making or ‘bingerle’ [their pet-name for it]. The regularity of his rigor even led to the Tsar’s physicians placing him with a six-week sex-ban. During this period Catherine wrote ‘I confess that I cannot be without your fountain, which I love so… After my six weeks are over I count on renewing my injections.’

It was the permanent presence of the mistress in rooms above the wife that attracted particular criticism. It is alleged that Maria was often disturbed by the noises of Catherine’s children and even as she lay dying was purported to have uttered: “Why is there no one to check those unruly bastards?” But perhaps the most controversial and biggest bone of contention was Alexander’s rush into a morganatic marriage with Catherine forty days after his wife’s death in the summer of 1880. Although tradition dictated a year of mourning, the attempts on Alexander’s life had intensified. He was only too aware of his mortality. He wrote to his sister, Olga, on his decision: ‘I would never have married [Katia Dolgorukova] before a year of mourning if not for the dangerous time we live in and for the hazardous attempts I expose myself to daily which can actually and suddenly end my life.’

History highlights the weaknesses of Russia’s leaders, especially its monarchs who were born, not elected, to rule. Alexander II, like Henry VIII, was blinded by lust. But here was a man who acknowledged he was to be assassinated; who was aware that eventually an attempt would succeed and his many cat-lives would run out. Peter Kropotkin wrote he was: ‘a man of strong passions and weak will.’

And so on closer examination of his flaws it could be argued that the creature most closely characteristic of Tsar Alexander was neither cat nor rat - but that of a typical human being.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can also read more on Russian history in this article on our blog about Grigori Rasputin here.

Selected References

• Pyotr Kropotkin, Mutual Aid

• Edvard Radzinsky, Alexander II: The last great Tsar

The Divine Right of Kings, Nursery Rhymes and the English Civil War

In the first of a new series, Myra King starts to tell the story of the English Civil War.

“Mary, Mary, quite contrary, how does your garden grow?

With silver bells and cockleshells and pretty maids all in a row.”

Sound like a sweet, children’s rhyme? Well it’s not.

It actually refers to Queen Mary I of England. A woman so violent and psychologically imbalanced she earned herself the name, Bloody Mary. This queen, the first child and eldest daughter of King Henry VIII, had the strange idea that her God was punishing her with infertility because she was too tolerant of Protestants. This was an unfortunate belief as her father, 40 years before, believed his God was punishing him with infertility because England was not Protestant. And so, Henry broke away from the Roman Catholic Church and changed the religion of the England. This might not sound catastrophic, but in an era when science and reason barely existed, belief in the church was all these people had. And Henry took it away from them. He replaced it with a church that saw him as the unquestioned leader. This tyrannical leader then burned monasteries, killed monks, stole their gold and hanged all those who questioned him.

Queen Mary I of England

Henry earned himself two of his own nursery rhymes, “Little Jack Horner” and “Old Mother Hubbard.” Once again, this might not seem important, but this shows us the turning tide of public opinion towards monarchs. Throughout the history of England, the question of who reigned had always been more important than how they reigned. The law called “The Divine Right of Kings” meant that the monarch was seen as God’s choice; he was a chosen person to rule over their land. Therefore, who were the commoners to question who ruled? A king was a king was a king was a king. If he wasn’t a good one, hopefully the next one would be better. And that was the end of it. The common man had no say.

Or did he?

Henry VIII destroyed his reign and the love of his people by gutting England of its long standing religion; of putting wives aside, or worse, killing them; of starving the nation for his wars; of murdering all those who opposed him. The people remember him by mocking him in rhyme. His son, and successor, did not rule for long enough to live in infamy. But his daughter, Mary, will always be remembered as the blood-thirsty, psychopath she was.

The poem, “Mary, quite contrary,” refers to Mary’s garden that in reality was the growing graveyard her religious genocide caused. Mary, unlike most of the rest of England, had never abandoned Catholicism. Upon her disastrous marriage and second phantom pregnancy, the Queen decided that England would once again be Catholic, and all Protestants should be tortured and burned. Silverbells, Cockleshells and Pretty Maids were all torture devices used heavily in her reign. Mary earned herself even more rhymes: Ladybird, Ladybird, Three Blind Mice, and Goosy Goosy Gander, as well as a handful that have not survived into modern times. Despite their sweet words, these rhymes depict the hell that Mary brought to the realm. More hated than her father had ever been, Mary lives on despite her death four hundred years ago. Although, only children, their mothers and pre-school teachers still speak of her. Rhyming happily to a poem forged in the blood and torture of the Protestants she destroyed.

Henry and Mary serve to prove the changing opinions of the English people. Their chosen monarch could be evil, they now saw. Their chosen monarch could be cruel and unjust; their policies wrong; their beliefs and rules could be against the wishes of England.

Common men of the past had quietly accepted their kings without complaint. But those kings had abused their people. Those kings had destroyed the trust put in to them.

And so when James I and his son, Charles I, insisted on the law of the Divine Right of Kings despite England not wanting that law, England no longer wanted their Kings.

You can read Myra’s first series of articles on the Wars of the Roses by clicking here.

References

• Who's who in British History by Juliet Gardiner
• British History by Miles Kelly
• Rhymes.org.uk

Vive la Resistance! An amazing photo of the WWII French Resistance – Image of the Week

Our image of the week has an amazing photo of the French Resistance from 1944.

We’ve had a few articles on the Nazis this week on the site, so thought that we would continue that theme with a twist.

The French Resistance consisted of those men and women who fought against the Nazis and the Vichy French regime during World War II. They were a disparate group and came from different backgrounds and believed in divergent political ideologies. Their shared vision, though, was to remove the Nazis from French soil. They undertook guerilla operations, published anti-Nazi materials and sabotaged operations to try to undermine their occupiers following the 1940 German invasion of France.

Our image shows three members of the Resistance engaged in a battle against the Nazis in 1944. We see a man in makeshift army fatigues to the left and a young man on the right. Then, most strikingly, we see a woman in shorts, a patterned top, and a military hat in the center. Surely all were less equipped than the Nazis soldiers they were facing, but we can only speculate on that…

What else do we have for you? Well, here is an article from earlier this week on Nazi art thefts.

George Levrier-Jones

Why steal? The Nazis, Looted Art and The Monuments Men

The film The Monuments Men in which the likes of George Clooney go in search of Nazi looted art has recently been released. Here, Georgie Broad looks at the history and motives behind this massive Nazi-sponsored art theft.

George Bernard Shaw once said “without art, the crudeness of reality would make the world unbearable.” Europe, lost in the fog of Nazi occupation in the latter part of World War II, already seemed a relatively crude and unbearable place, so the gradual disappearance of some of the world’s most beloved pieces of artwork did nothing to help the situation.

Mr George Clooney et al have endeavored to transfer R.M. Edsel’s The Monuments Men: Allied Heroes, Nazi Thieves, and the Greatest Treasure Hunt in History (2009) to the big screen to recount the history of the Allied Power’s MFAA, or the Monuments, Fine Arts and Archives programmed. This had the aim of reclaiming the art stolen by the Kunstschutz (literally translating to art protection or conservation) units of the German Army. However, the reasons behind the heroic mission of the MFAA programmed can often be overlooked or misunderstood: What actually led to the infamous art-knappings of World War II?

The Courtyard of the Old Residency in Munich - Adolf Hitler

Adolf Hitler, artist and collector… Of sorts

It is easy to forget that both the Allies and the Axis Powers had a deep respect for the art of Europe, and of art in general. Skipping back a way, to when Hitler was just a boy named Adolf, he was a painter and art enthusiast – a love that stayed with him throughout the rest of his life. Critically and technically speaking, Hitler was a rather mediocre artist, and as a result his application to the Fine Art Academy of Vienna was turned down not once but twice when he was a young, struggling artist. And although he never got over this rejection, it did nothing to dull his love of art itself.

It was in fact a subject on which Hitler had some very strong opinions. In Mein Kampf, Hitler’s autobiographical-meets-political literary legacy, he attacks modern art and movements like Cubism as “aberrations” and “morbid monstrosities.” These modern artworks were a target for the Nazis and the Kunstschutz, as they were ordered to remove them from museums and to destroy them – though many pieces were sold, or broken up, making their eventual reclamation much more difficult.

Hitler’s real love lay with the Old Masters, and especially ones of German origin. He and the Kunstschutz also went after these classical pieces, but for very different reasons. As R.M. Edsel details in his book, Hitler wanted to remake both the art world of Europe, primarily by creating a Führerrmuseum in Linz, Austria. Hitler wanted to make the biggest and most glorious art museum that he possibly could. Was it just because he loved art so much? Or was it to assert his self-proclaimed artistic prowess and show the Fine Arts Academy of Vienna what they missed out on… artistically speaking? It has been an issue of debate for a long time and it is almost impossible for us to know for sure, but to presume that it was a combination of both factors is a safe assumption.

Not all of the art that was looted was earmarked for Hitler’s museum collection. Hitler, considering himself quite the art collector, kept some of the art for his and his associates’ own personal collections, which explains why so much of it was, and still remains, lost. Greg Bradsher’s from the US Archives (Nov. 1997, “Documenting Nazi Plunder of European Art”) estimates that about 20% of Europe’s art was looted and that 100,000 pieces, at the very least, remain separated from their original owners, despite the valiant efforts of the MFAA program.

Transporting pieces of art in a war-torn town

After the MFAA

The MFAA was eventually disbanded in 1946, though the finding of the plundered art and its proper return is still very much an issue. In late 2013, the BBC reported the discovery of around 1,000 pieces of art at the home of Cornelius Gurlitt. The pieces turned out to be ones thought to be lost after the Nazi plunder and among them were works by artists such as Henri Matisse and Marc Chagall. As well as belonging to the “degenerate” type of art Hitler hated, these pieces were hugely valuable – especially the works of the Russian Jew Marc Chagall, who is often believed to be the most successful artist of the 20th century.

So, even today the effects of the Nazi art plunder can be felt throughout Europe. Whether all of the pieces will ever be found and returned is unknown, but it is important for us to remember the intentions with which some of the masterpieces of the continent were stolen while we are regaled with the epic tale of their reclamation. It wasn’t entirely through hate or destruction, but also a genuine love of a man obsessed that took a cultural wrong turn.

Want to find out more about the Nazis? Our podcast on the rise of the Nazis can be heard by clicking here.

When Tea Parties Go Wrong – Causes of the American Revolution

The American Revolution from 1775-1783 changed the world. In this article, Aidan Curran takes a unique look at the causes of the Revolution – stamps, sugar and tea. This article is part of our introductions to history series.

Thinking of hosting an afternoon tea party any time soon? Think again, you might just spark a revolution!

The Boston Tea Party in 1773 was not your ordinary tea party. There were no forced pleasantries, scrumptious pastries, or even tea being drunk. Instead, there were 60 men, dressed as Native Americans, flinging 342 chests of tea into Boston Harbor. This was in response to the British Government passing the Tea Act, which stated Americans had to buy tea from Britain only. Americans were less then pleased by this, as taxes were being placed on them, yet they had no representation in the British Parliament. This led to the cry for “No Taxation without Representation.” However, a tea party is not complete without sugar, and this was also a cause of the American Revolution. A third cause was a tax on stamps.

But before we get into tea, sugar, and stamps, it is important to understand what life was like for the colonists under British rule. Society was made up of ruling elites, from great landowners to British placemen, who were trying to make their fortune in the Thirteen Colonies. Nobody really cared about the colonists; everybody was in it to serve their own interests. Americans were restricted in their day-to-day living. The Navigation Acts stated that the most important goods had to be sent to British ports, and transported in British vessels. Turning crude iron into finished goods was also forbidden, along with selling beaver hats. Granted, not being able to buy a hat is hardly an excuse for a Revolution, but the fact remains: the colonists were serving needs other than their own, as economically they were restricted, and politically they had no influence. Upon the conclusion of the Seven Years’ War in 1763, it was colonists who had to pay the price, literally. 

The tarring and feathering of the Loyalist Commissioner of Customs, John Malcolm, January 1774, underneath the Liberty Tree. He is also being forced to drink tea. In the background, the Boston Tea Party is taking place, an event that in reality occurred in December 1773. Painting attributed to Philip Dawe.

War Debt

Why did Britain have to impose taxes on tea, sugar, and stamps? From 1754-1763, they battled with France over North American territory, which is known as the Seven Years’ War. To fight this war, Britain borrowed huge amounts of money from banks and individual investors. The colonists assisted Britain in the war by providing soldiers and economic resources, and this made Britain realize just how important the colonies were in maintaining its status as a world power.

Were the British grateful for the colonists help though? Absolutely not!

The British saw the colonists as inferiors, whose main role was to enrich the mother country. One British official even described the colonists as “fools.” In fact, the British even believed that Americans should be grateful for the continued protection they received, and so did not hesitate in making Americans pay for the war debt.

Taxing the Colonies

And now, we get to the tea, sugar, and stamps! By placing taxes on these items, Britain hoped to regain the huge amount of money that it had spent fighting the Seven Years War. In 1764, the Sugar Act was introduced by Prime Minister George Grenville, which forced Americans to pay a three-cent tax on sugar. There was also a tax placed on wine and coffee.

While, the Sugar Act was really only a new reinforced aspect of the Navigation Acts, the Stamp Act was a new matter altogether. Introduced in 1765, it placed a tax on every single piece of paper that Americans used, from newspapers to playing cards.

Now, it would seem reasonable that a person should be able to buy tea from wherever they want, don’t you think? Well, the British didn’t think so. The Tea Act of 1773 meant that if Americans wanted tea, they had to buy it from the British owned East India Company. And the colonists certainly liked their tea – they drank at least 1.2 million pounds of it every year.

The colonists were annoyed, very annoyed indeed. Not so much with the acts themselves, but the fact that Britain was making decisions without their consent. Furthermore, the colonists believed that if they were paying taxes, they should be represented in the British Parliament, and devised the slogan “No Taxation without Representation.” This simply meant that if colonists were to pay taxes, they wanted somebody in the British Parliament, who would claim their rights and fight taxation. If Americans were British citizens, they wanted to be treated as such.

American reaction to taxation

Feeling that their rights were being violated, colonists reacted to taxation with mass meetings, protests, and boycotting British goods. Everything revolved around the word “liberty.” Opponents of the new taxes went as far as to hold mock funerals, in which liberty’s coffin would be carried to the grave. At the last minute, the occupant would jump out of the coffin, and everybody would go to a tavern and celebrate. In Boston, there is a large elm tree, where protesters once hanged an effigy of stamp distributor Andrew Oliver, and this became known as the Liberty Tree. Mass meetings were also held under this tree, and this space became known as Liberty Hall.

In New York, hundreds of residents passed through the streets every night shouting “liberty.” Around this time too, the Sons of Liberty were formed, and while they were unsupported by society’s elite, they had a large following from the city’s laborers, craftsmen, and sailors. A British officer by the name of Major Thomas James infuriated colonists by boasting that he would force the stamps down New Yorkers’ throats, and the colonists reacted by destroying his home.

Faced with such resistance, the British government repealed the stamp act in 1766. However, they did proceed to pass a Declaratory Act, which dismissed the colonists’ claims that they should be represented in Parliament.

The Townsend Acts also contributed to the American Revolution. They angered the colonists even further by placing taxes on glass and paper. The colonists again protested and boycotted British goods. British troops were sent to enforce the laws, but this led to many unpleasant clashes with colonists. Indeed, on March 5, 1770, the Boston Massacre took place. British troops who were guarding a customs house, opened fire and killed five Bostonians, while wounding many more. It is believed that the soldiers panicked, after somebody began to throw snowballs.

In response to the Tea Act imposed by the British government, colonists boarded three British ships in Boston Harbor and threw $4 million worth of tea into the sea. This is event of now known as the Boston Tea Party. As the British loved their tea (and money), they were furious, and quickly and decisively enforced the Intolerable Acts. As part of the Acts, Boston’s port was closed to all trade until the tea was paid for, town meetings were banned, and colonists had no choice but to feed and house the extra British soldiers that were sent to keep order. The British realized that they had to stand firm against the Americans – to back down over the Tea Party would portray them as weak to their other colonies. Again, colonists responded with resistance and defiance to the Intolerable Acts, claiming that their rights to liberty were being violated. They went so far as to accuse the British as being “instigated by the devil.” Revolution was edging ever closer…

The Continental Congress and outbreak of war

In response to the Intolerable Acts, the First Continental Congress was held in Philadelphia from September 5 through October 26, and urged citizens to resist the new laws and prepare themselves for war. It was here that Patrick Henry made his famous proclamation: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”

The Continental Congress was the final bolt that opened the door of Revolution. By May 1775, war had broken out between British soldiers and armed colonists.

 To sum it all up

Who knew a row over tea, sugar, and stamps could contribute to the establishment of one of the world’s great superpowers? However, as has been outlined, there were many factors that led to the American Revolution and, eventually, American Independence. Colonists were tired of being seen as inferior and wanted to have the rights of an English citizen, but more importantly, they wanted the rights of a human being. They also felt they should not be made to pay for Britain’s debt resulting from the Seven Years War. In addition, they thought that they should not have to pay taxes if they were not represented in Parliament – “No Taxation without Representation.”

With the Declaration of Independence, Americans were allowed to embark on their “pursuit of happiness” and realize their goals. They could shape their society in whichever way they saw fit. Oh, and they had the freedom to buy tea from whoever they chose…

You can find out more from Aidan Curran on his site here or his Twitter feed here.

This article is the first in what will be occasional articles on introductions to history. Introductions to History will feature an overview of a major event in world history, often told in a somewhat humorous or different way!

Finally, you can find out more about the American Revolution in our podcast series here.

Selected References

• The American Revolution, Colin Bonwick
• The American Revolution, Edward Countryman
• The Limits of Liberty, Maldwyn Jones
• Give Me Liberty!, Eric Foner
• http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/patrick.asp
• http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/era.cfm?eraID=3&
• http://history.howstuffworks.com/revolutionary-war/boston-tea-party1.htm
• http://www.usfca.edu/fac_staff/conwell/revolution/tea.htm