Body snatchers and Dickens’ London – Shocking Crime in 19th Century Britain

In this article, Kevin K. O’Neill looks at crime in early 19th century London. This was an age before the birth of the police, and in this grimly Dickensian world, crime was rife. Some of the crimes committed were simply shocking.

A street scene from 19th century London.

“Napping a Tick”, “Doing Out and Out with a Pop”, and “Teased” were but a few examples of the slang used by the denizens of London’s underworld in the early 1800s for stealing a watch, killing someone with a gun, or being hung. Before the formation of the Metropolitan Police in 1829 by Sir Robert Peel, the original “Bobbie”, London was fertile ground for crime to take root and grow. Sparsely lit by gas in only a few select areas, London was dark, in some areas even by day. With the murk of burnt sea coal hanging over the docks that were busily taking in valuable goods from every corner of the world, all manner of crime was possible, crime that was abetted by this dim anonymity. With a population of about one million inhabitants in the early 19th century, London was sharply divided by class with much of the disenfranchised lower classes active only at night. The only official watchmen, known as “Charlies” because of their creation in 1663 during the reign of Charles the Second, were armed only with a stave, lamp and rattle. Often morally and physically decrepit, they were rarely effective and often the butt of jokes. Indeed, a pastime for the drunk or bored was knocking them over in their watch-boxes.

Social Issues Grow

By the mid-18th century many factors were contributing to the need for a unified police force and social reform. One of the main influences lied in the pervasive effect of cheap gin, or “Blue Ruin”, on the lower classes of England’s populace. In some areas there were unlicensed gin shops, and the crime rate was proportionate to the density of these establishment. Some gin houses, termed “Flash Houses”, were meeting spots for criminal gangs and liaisons between underworld operatives and the greater public, including law enforcement, who would drink and gather information. In 1780, fueled in part by Blue Ruin and economic disparity, peaceful demonstrations against laws emancipating Catholics turned into what history remembers as the Gordon Riots, as part of which there was mob rule during a week long orgy of window shattering and violent assault. Much was said in Parliament after these riots, but little was done.

A scene from a slum in London.

Crime was rampant in early 19th century London, with numerous types of thievery permeating many aspects of life in London. Burglary from houses was so common that elaborate precautions had to be taken before leaving home for any amount of time longer than an hour or two. Every coachman was a guard as trunks could be cut from their vehicles in the blink of an eye. Petty thievery was a threat from many vectors such as the destitute “Mudlarks”, who wallowed in the mud of the River Thames hoping for valuable goods to be dropped from ships by chance or on purpose. Swarms of pickpockets haunted the richer areas of the city. Many of the petty thieves were children as young as ten, but arrests are known of children aged six. Beggars, often living the most pitiable existence, lined many of the same streets.

This all meant that several private law enforcement agencies were formed so that businesses and citizens could protect themselves from loss. Known for their fleetness of foot, the exploits of the Bow Street “Runners”, employees of an organization created to watch and protect property on the docks, were followed by the public with sportsman’s glee as they pursued the more successful thieves before they gained safety in the dark slums or “Rookeries.” The rookeries were notoriously dangerous areas in which nobody or nothing was safe - be it life, limb, or property.  Charles Dickens once ventured into several rookeries, including the notorious “Rat’s Castle,” as the St. Giles Rookery was known, but did so only with an escort consisting of the Chief of Scotland Yard, an assistant commissioner, three guards, probably armed, and a squad within whistling distance. Perhaps more worryingly, a bold doctor who entered a rookery commented that he couldn’t even find his patient in his room until he lit a candle, despite the time being near noon.

Resurrection Men

And on to a crime that seems almost unbelievable…

Many of us are familiar with the horror movie theme of stealthy men with slotted lanterns lurking about graveyards with spades in hand in search of a fresh grave. This theme has more basis in fact than most realize as the “Resurrection Men” performed this ghoulish task on most every moonless night to supply the British medical community with fresh cadavers for study and dissection.

The story goes that as a deterrent to crime The Murder Act of 1752 allowed judges to substitute public display of an executed criminal’s body with dissection at the hands of the medical community thus giving the Resurrection Men legal elbow-room. The activities of the doctors and body snatchers were despised by many of the general public though. And mob justice was often dealt out to Resurrection Men caught performing their grim work, while patrols were increased at the upper-class graveyards and the rich bought special coffins to ensure their undisturbed rest peacefully. Finally, the public’s unease at the practice became anger with the Burke and Hare murders of 1828 in Edinburgh.

Burke and Hare, a pair of Irish immigrant laborers turned Resurrection Men, decided to expedite matters by killing sixteen people to be sold to the proxies of an Edinburgh anatomist, a doctor named Knox. The term “burking” traces its origins to the method they used for killing - the use of a pillow to smother victims. Once caught Hare turned the evidence against Burke in court. Ultimately, only Burke was convicted; after Burke’s execution, a hanging attended by thousands, he was publicly dissected in front of students at the University of Edinburgh. Those left outside without tickets demanded to be let in, until finally being led through the operating theater in groups of 50.  Never interred, Burke’s remains were doled out for medical study, with pieces of his skin being used for books and calling card cases.

There were other co-defendants in this trial and they suffered similar fates to each other. After release from prison they were hounded by mobs at first identification. All were aided by the authorities to flee in various directions in search of security through anonymity. Never prosecuted due to his insulating layer of agents and Burke’s denial of his involvement in his confession, even Dr. Knox was vilified by the populace who hung and burnt him in effigy. It is notable that Burke asked that Dr. Knox pay five pounds owed to him for his final victim’s body so he could be hung in new clothes. Trying to address both the needs of the medical community and the moral outrage of the people, The Anatomy Act was passed in 1832.  This law ended the use of executed murderers for dissection while enabling relatives to have the ability to release bodies of the newly deceased for the good of medical progress.  For those who passed without known relatives, legal custodians such as public health authorities and parish councils were allowed the same right.

Now read on to find out about more on crimes in 19th century England, including the original Tom and Jerry, and a famous death in London. Click here.

Did you enjoy the article? If so, let the world know by clicking on one of the buttons below! Like it, tweet about it, or share it in one of hundreds of other ways!

Bibliography

The Maul and the Pear Tree, Critchley and James, 1971

Thieves’ Kitchen, Donald Low, 1982

The British Village that died for Liberty – Image of the Week

This week’s image is of the small village that perished during World War II.

The following images of the week have a shocking story at their center.

Tyneham was an idyllic English village, but World War II changed that. And this eventually led to the crumbling of the village, something that our photos show. Above we see a great, boarded-up building, while below we see the ruins of buildings in the village.

​

Want to find out more about Tyneham?

Well if you have an iPad or iPhone, take up a trial of History is Now magazine and find out for free!  Click here to download the app!

George Levrier-Jones

Were the Nazis punished enough? The Nuremberg Trials

Samantha Jones looks at the Nuremberg Trials in a modern context. These trials took place in the aftermath of World War II and sought to condemn those Nazis who had committed some of the most heinous crimes in the history of the world.

A Nazi parade.

Politics tells us justice is blind, and that it is justice that is fundamentally right in our society. Yet history shows us this may not be true. In the aftermath of World War II, the Western world’s form of justice was put to the test. And looking back we are troubled with the question: did democracy fail?

As Nazi leaders were confronted with their crimes against humanity in front of an international military tribunal, the entire world learned the truth behind The Final Solution, Concentration Camps, medical experiments, and the extent of Nazi genocide. These war crimes shined a spotlight onto a new and modern form of warfare, where civilians became targets and war no longer had to be declared upon a country to invade it. It was no easy feat to punish the Nazis, as the victorious Allied Powers had to question and convict those they had caught, as well as deter future nationalists from committing such crimes again. But that is what the Nuremberg Trials attempted to do.

It is said the infamous Nuremberg Trials marked the end of the Third Reich and Hitler’s Nazi Empire. Indeed, despite the Soviet Army storming Berlin, Nazi uprisings were still a threat to the triumphant Allies. So it was decided that to ‘clean up’ Europe legally and politically, the Allies were to hold a series of trials in order to fully understand and punish Nazi criminals in a democratic setting. The trials were held from November 20 1945 to October 1 1946, in the German city of Nuremberg. This site was chosen because of the somewhat intact Palace of Justice, a suitable building for the event, and the symbolism attached to Nuremberg, after the passing of the Nuremberg Laws against the Jews in 1935.

One prosecutor, one judge and one alternative judge from the Allied Powers oversaw the trial. Those that were caught included 23 high ranking Nazi officials, including the notorious Goering, Speer and Hess. Of course the highest Nazis such as Hitler, Himmler and Goebbels were not present, as they had escaped punishment through suicide before capture.

But as the news of the devastation of the war in Europe spread to the corners of the globe, interest and attraction into the Nazis grew enormously. Because of this, the Nuremberg Trials were filmed and covered by the global media, something that was to follow in other major world events.

HOW MIGHT THE TRAILS BE DIFFERENT TODAY?

The Nuremberg Trials are a small sliver of history, particularly among the World War Two era, yet this event marks the beginning of several major practices and institutions. For example, the power and dominance of democracy, the involvement of the media, and the use of knowledge and education as a deterrent were present during the Nuremberg Trials. However, looking back, would the trails be undertaken differently today?

One theme that needs to be addressed is the arguable leniency upon the Nazi prisoners. For example, even today it is debated whether it was unjust that Albert Speer, Hitler’s architect, was sentenced to merely twenty years in prison and lived the rest of his life a free man. Despite being sentenced to death, Hermann Goering, Hitler’s successor, escaped justice by committing suicide in his cell. It remains a mystery how this was able to happen. And Rudolf Hess, Hitler`s Deputy Fuhrer, was sentenced to prison where he too committed suicide. Discussing these awful things in such a dismissive tone is not my intention. But remember the graphic pictures of the Holocaust victims and the Concentration Camps that still stand today because of these men. Just under half of those charged at Nuremberg were sentenced to death, yet it was these Nazi men that were committed to gassing, killing and removing an entire people from the face of the earth. Perhaps justice was not served, but nor was revenge.

Aside from this somewhat macabre observation, the Nuremberg Trials did make advances. The organization of evidence and the methods used to explain the Nazi occupation helped the world to understand what actually happened. The Trials also contributed to the development of international legal institutions that attempt to seek justice in global crimes, such as the United Nations and the Genocide Convention. Of course it is debated whether these institutions are successful, yet the message they stand for began in Nuremberg.

History has and will repeat itself though. Crimes against humanity have been committed on an unimaginable scale quite recently, as seen in Rwanda and with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge. Unfortunately, with these events in mind, it is hard to argue whether or not justice can remain democratic or if can it be transformed into a form of revenge.

It is easy for our generation to look back upon Nuremberg and judge those in charge for their leniency or their harshness. But equally, as time pushes the deep dark crimes of the Nazis further back into history, I wonder how future generations will judge us on what we do. Perhaps justice will be served then.

You can read about how the radical Freikorps were one of the pre-cursors to the Nazis in issue 3 of History is Now Magazine. The magazine is available for iPad and iPhone and is free for at least one month when you try the magazine on a subscription. Click here for more information!

How many Wives did King Henry VIII? Did he really have a Secret 7th Wife?

In this extended article, Rebecca Fachner looks at the story of King Henry VIII’s seventh wife – the one that got away. We venture in to the tale of Catherine Willoughby, one of the most enchanting women of her age and Henry VIII’s would-be wife.

A portrait of King Henry VIII of England from the National Maritime Museum, London.

The study of Henry VIII’s wives has been well documented, studied and even gossiped about from Henry’s era to the present day. There has even been a certain well-costumed TV series about his exploits that has brought the story into our living rooms in HD. What the series lacks in historical accuracy it makes up for in revealing clothing, but it is a useful exercise to see the drama unfold in something like real time. The way the narrative generally goes is that after five dramatic marital entanglements, Henry found himself a sixth wife and settled down to a contented, albeit brief, domesticity with her. She was as much a nurse as wife and was selected to see him though his last years placidly.

That narrative is comforting and provides a nice bookend, but there was actually more drama with Henry’s sixth wife than is generally supposed. For one thing, while Henry wanted to marry her, Catherine Parr was by no means keen to marry him. She was twice widowed already and in love with another man, Thomas Seymour, brother to Jane Seymour the late mother of Henry’s heir. Henry was not in love with her, at least not in the way he had been with several previous wives, but was hoping for someone who could be more of a helpmeet than bedmate.

In other words, this was no love match. There was presumably some affection on both sides, but more than any of Henry’s other marriages (save Anne of Cleves), this marriage was one of convenience. And if Catherine Parr was forced to marry a man she did not love, she consoled herself with the religious implications of her match. Parr was a fervent Protestant, embracing the so-called “New Learning” and the Protestant Reformation, and she considered it an honor to be the consort of the king who had freed England from Rome. She hoped that as his wife, she might be able to further his religious reformation and promote this New Learning throughout England. The problem with this idea, she quickly discovered, was her new husband. 

Henry was not at all interested in being a religious reformer, and in fact was quite conservative in all religious matters. He had broken with Rome because he disagreed with the Pope, not Catholicism. Henry had wanted a divorce, and the Pope did not grant him one, which precipitated the break with Rome, but he was no evangelical. Other than his belief that he was head of the Church in England, Henry did not deviate from the Church on matters of doctrine; indeed, he considered himself a loyal Catholic until the end of his life. From his perspective, it was the Church that had wronged him, not the other way around. It was a great disappointment to his Protestant would-be reformers, including his sixth wife, but Henry had no interest in sweeping religious change.

Despite this, or perhaps in spite of this, Catherine Parr gave her patronage as Queen to reform minded Protestants, even having a serious reformer as her private minister. She was close friends with several known reformers, including Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk. She was bravely outspoken about her beliefs, and predictably earned enemies among Henry’s more conservative ministers. It eventually got her into real trouble with her husband, to the point where he was planning on having her arrested and taken to the Tower for interrogation. There were even rumors that he had a seventh wife already picked out as a replacement.

Catherine Parr.

Rumors about a seventh wife

The rumored seventh wife was an even stranger pick for Henry than his sixth wife. Catherine Willoughby, Dowager Duchess of Suffolk, was one of the most intelligent, fascinating women of her age. She was decades younger than Henry, but that was by no means an impediment to their marriage; it was much more common and accepted in Tudor England for large age differences between husband and wife. Henry’s fifth wife was decades younger than him, his sixth was only four years older than his daughter Mary, and Catherine Willoughby had been 15 when she married her first husband who was 47. What was more problematic was that her previous husband had been one of Henry’s oldest and closest friends, Charles Brandon. Henry had known Brandon since childhood, and one of his previous wives (like the king, Brandon had many marriages) was Henry’s sister, Princess Mary. 

Another strike against the Duchess was her parentage and upbringing. She was the daughter of Maria de Salinas, the best and oldest friend of Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s first wife (to borrow a phrase from the Bard, it was indeed a tangled web they wove). She had been childhood friends with Princess Mary and very likely enjoyed the same humanist education as Mary. And although it might have been awkward, her association with Henry’s first wife would not have been an insurmountable obstacle. The real problem was that Catherine Willoughby was just as radically Protestant as Catherine Parr, more outspoken about it, and possessed of a sharp tongue and a biting wit.

It must be said that Catherine Willoughby did have several critical advantages. Henry knew her well, and so if he was indeed contemplating marriage, he must have known what he was getting himself into. She was the widow of a much older man already, so she had experience caring for an aging husband. She was young enough to bear him children, but she only had two with the Duke and therefore any failure to conceive could be blamed on her and not any possible impotence on Henry’s part. She was also wealthy and influential in her own right, and while Henry did not need her money, he could be reasonably assured that she was not the tool of a faction at court with an agenda of its own, as Jane Seymour, Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard had been. Having been burned before by grasping factions at court, Henry selected Catherine Parr by himself; it stands to reason that he would do that again. Perhaps most crucially, like Parr, she was a widow. As Karen Lindsay points out in her study of Henry’s wives, marrying a widow had distinct advantages for someone with Henry’s marital record. He had proven an imprecise judge of a woman’s virginity upon marriage, for example, thinking that Catherine Howard had been a virgin when he married her but later discovering she was not. Marrying a respectable widow made the question of virginity a moot point, which suited Henry just fine.

Catherine Willoughby was born to Maria de Salinas and William Willoughby, the eleventh Baron Willoughby de Eresby, on March 22, 1519. As her father did not have any surviving sons, she inherited his title and lands upon his death when she was seven. She grew up at court, as her mother attended Queen Catherine of Aragon, but after her father’s death she became the ward of Charles Brandon, first Duke of Suffolk and brother-in-law to the King. It was common practice to have wealthy minor children become the ward of a powerful courtier to safeguard their inheritance. She was sent to live with the Duke and Duchess at their estates, which kept her at relatively safe distance when Henry VIII decided to repudiate Queen Catherine. Initially the Duke planned to have his young ward marry his heir, Henry Brandon, hoping, not unreasonably, to keep her rather large inheritance in the family. When his Duchess died unexpectedly, Suffolk decided to marry the young heiress himself. His heir Henry died a year later, and he and his young Duchess had two more sons, Henry and Charles. The Duke died in August 1545, around the time that Henry was becoming disenchanted with Catherine Parr. 

Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk.

How serious was Henry VIII about taking another wife?

It is hard to know how seriously Henry contemplated marrying Willoughby; he did not leave any direct evidence either way. It is true that he had grown disenchanted with Parr, and he was one to look for a new wife before shedding his present one. Had Catherine Parr been executed, it is reasonable to assume he would have married again; he obviously enjoyed being married and wanted someone to care for him in his old age.

The rumors that the King was inclined in Willoughby’s favor come from letters that the Imperial Ambassador, Francis van der Delft sent to the Emperor. In Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, it is noted:

I am confused and apprehensive to have to inform your Majesty that there are rumors here of a new Queen, although I do not know why, or how true it may be. Some people attribute it to the sterility of the present Queen, whilst others say there will be no change whilst the present war lasts.

Madame Suffolk is much talked about and in great favour.

Willoughby’s biographer Evelyn Read dismisses the rumors, and claims that van der Delft was making this up, but does not offer any explanation as to why the Imperial Ambassador would invent something so specific to report to the Emperor. It may be that van der Delft was uninformed; however, his letter to the Emperor makes it appear that he is reluctant to discuss it, but feels that it is important enough to warrant a mention. Why would the Imperial Ambassador make up this story out of thin air to pass on to his employer? It seems unlikely that the Imperial Ambassador spent his time inventing rumors and gossip to impress his boss. He did not simply report that Henry was considering another wife, he named names. If the Duchess of Suffolk’s name was not attached to this rumor already, what reason would van der Delft have to falsely link her to the King’s plans? More likely, he heard the gossip somewhere at court and reported it. This does not make the rumor true, but clearly van der Delft heard this gossip somewhere credible enough to be worth reporting to the Emperor. 

Needless to say, Henry did not take a seventh wife; Catherine Parr talked her way out of the jam she was in with the King, regained his good favor, and Henry died about a year later. Catherine Parr and the Dowager Duchess of Suffolk remained close friends until the end of Catherine Parr’s life, and when Parr’s young daughter by Thomas Seymour became orphaned, Willoughby became her guardian. Willoughby continued her advocacy of Protestantism, even fleeing to the continent when Queen Mary restored Catholicism to England. And she did marry again, to a fellow Protestant in her employ, Richard Bertie, and had two more children by him, Susan and Peregrine Bertie, thirteenth Baron Willoughby de Eresby. Catherine Willoughby died on September 19, 1581 aged 60 at Grimsthorpe, the home she had inherited from the Duke. 

What do you think? How close was Henry VIII of England to having a seventh wife?

Meanwhile, you can read more about King Henry VIII and how he impacted the English Civil War here.

Bibliography

Hume, Martin A.S., ed. Calendar of Letters, Despatches, and State Papers, relating to the Negotiations between England and Spain, preserved in the Archives at Simancas, Vienna, Brussels and elsewhere. Vol. VIII Henry VIII 1545-1546. London: Mackie and Co. Ltd., 1904.

Lindsay, Karen. Divorced, Beheaded, Survived; A Feminist Reinterpretation of the Wives of Henry VIII. Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 1996.

Read, Evelyn. My Lady Suffolk; A Portrait of Catherine Willoughby, Duchess of Suffolk, New York: Alfred Knopf, 1963.

Duck and Cover - The Infamous Cold War Civil Defense Film

In this often light-hearted article Janet Ford considers the famous 1950s Civil Defense film Duck and Cover. The film uses a turtle, Bert, to teach children – and adults - how to respond in the event of a nuclear bomb.

Before you read on, you can watch the film Duck and Cover here.

Bert the Turtle in a still from Duck and Cover.

During the Cold War, but especially during the 1950s and 1960s, the US Federal Civil Defense Administration produced numerous leaflets and films that informed and educated the American public about the atomic bomb, the damage it caused, and what to do if an atomic bomb was dropped. One of the most well-known Civil Defense films is Duck and Cover, which was produced in 1951 and first broadcast in January 1952. It was produced by Archer Productions in co-operation with the Federal Civil Defense Administration and in consultation with the Safety Commission of the National Educational Association.

In this article, we will consider the film and pick out some of the most famous (and infamous) aspects of it.

So before you read on, why not watch the film here?

The use of a cartoon

Central to the film is the animation. There is animation in parts throughout the film, but especially at the beginning and end. It was used to get the attention of children, and to make the message of duck and cover easier for them to understand. The animated nature of the film also made it markedly cheaper to show a bomb explosion in the film, as shown in the still from the film below.

Animation showing the destruction of the bomb, with Bert the Turtle in the foreground.

​Unless the Civil Defense Administration visited the Nevada nuclear test site and filmed a bomb going off, it would have been nearly impossible to show a live explosion. Another point to note is that showing the damage the bomb caused can make the animation seem a little darker, but as it is a cartoon the destruction appears less real and more abstract.

The most famous aspect of the animation is the character of Bert the Turtle. He is one of the most famous icons of the Civil Defense Administration, showing the nation how to protect itself from the bomb. The main reason for having Bert in the film was to get the attention of a younger audience.

A still of Bert the Turtle.

Even though the subject matter itself could not be much darker, there is one other menacing part of the film that is found in the animation. This may not have been seen by all viewers, and it took me a few views to see it, but once you see it, you cannot fail to notice it. In a scene towards the start of the film, Bert the Turtle is minding his own business, and suddenly there is some dynamite following him; it is not a magic piece of dynamite though - it is being held by a monkey in a tree. The dynamite then goes off and Bert ducks and covers; however, the monkey that had been holding the dynamite vanishes. In fact, the monkey is blown up by its own dynamite.

Before the dynamite goes off.

After the dynamite goes off.

​Music

Another famous aspect of the film is the very catchy theme song and music. Indeed, as I am writing this, the song is in my head, and once you have heard the song, it will be in your head for a long time too.

The music itself is quite cheery and upbeat and even the lyrics are not too negative. The most menacing lyrics are 'when danger threatens him', but then it is followed by 'he never got hurt, he knew just what to do.' The images above with the monkey and the dynamite are shown over this music. This makes the theme song, unintentionally, a little darker as you have the image of a monkey being blown up while listening to the song. The song can also seem to lessen the danger of the bomb and even the process of Civil Defense, as they are linked to a cheery song.

How to Duck and Cover

The main purpose of the film was to show the public, and especially children, how to duck and cover in various situations. It shows how to duck and cover in school and at the home. But it also shows you how to protect yourself when there is no shelter around. And this is the most infamous aspect of the film.

One scene in the film features two children, Patty and Paul, who are just walking down the street. The flash of the bomb goes off and they dive into a wall and cover themselves with their coats. What makes this absurd is that ducking and covering would not do much use if the building they were by or other buildings around them fell onto of them. Furthermore, it seems that Paul smashes himself into the wall. 

Patty and Paul ducking and covering by a wall.

Another seemingly strange part of the film features a young boy called Tony who is riding his bike. He sees the flash, drives into a wall, and covers himself up. The film thus suggests that walls are a good place to go to protect yourself - although the wall would not have given much protection even if a blast was coming from the other side of the wall.

Tony ducking and covering by a wall.

However, even more bizarrely is the scene with a family having a picnic. The family are all having a lovely time until they see the flash. Then the mom and children go under the cloth, while the dad uses the newspaper for protection. It is this idea of using a newspaper or sheet as protection that seems to be the most ridiculous aspect of the film.

The father using a newspaper as protection.

Walls and covering yourself with a thin object would have given some protection from the bomb, but only if it was miles away and there was not much debris from the blast. In short, they would provide only a very small level of protection. Saying that, while we can of course look back at the film and make fun of it, when nuclear bombs were as big a threat as they were in the 1950s, the idea of an everyday object like a newspaper being used to protect yourself must have given people some hope.

Even so, there would have been those smarter souls who would have realized that a newspaper could never protect you from a nearby nuclear explosion and accepted their sad and inevitable fate.

What do you think of the video? Share your thoughts below!

References

All stills were taken from the film Duck and Cover here: https://archive.org/details/gov.ntis.ava11109vnb1

Churchill and a V for Victory – Image of the Week

Sometimes images of the week need only a line or two of explanation – such as Winston Churchill here…

World War II had been an epic war and as a symbol of victory, Winston Churchill produced his famous V for Victory. Here he is producing it complete with a classic Homburg hat!

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

George Levrier-Jones

How a Nation Was Made – Canada in World War I

In this article, Matthew Struth tells us about Canada’s story in World War I. He informs us of the fascinating colonial background and starts to share the story of a battle that made a nation, the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

What is it like to go to war?

For most of human history, going to war was seen as glorious and honorable, a civic duty. Until one hundred years ago, this was the common perspective of almost all cultures. Napoleon proudly stated that he expended 30,000 men a month, and it was still glorious. It was glorious to fight with him; it was glorious to fight against him. It was an honor and duty to fight for your country, crown, ideology, and family. War was a part of life, and one that showed the worth of those who did the fighting.

When World War I broke out, thousands were excited to go marching off to battle. Leslie Hudd, a Canadian veteran, had wanted to go for the adventure. He didn’t think about being killed; rather, he just focused on coming home and telling everyone about it. Was he crazy? Maybe. Looking back, Hudd later thought that he had been crazy. But that is hindsight. We know what happened. We know about the twelve million dead on the soil of Europe. Hudd, sailing off for battle and adventure, didn’t.    

A World War I British Empire recruitment poster.

And he was not alone. Many of the combatants on all sides of this war were not the fully trained, experienced standing armies of today, or of Rome, or of other historic militaries. These were everyday men, some still in their teens. Some were carpenters, railway workers, shoe shiners; they were all manner of people. Even the majority of the soldiers in the German army, with their grey uniforms, and discipline, and precision marching, were still just reservists. Those German reservists had probably the most training out of all the armies in that war, but few had seen true combat and even then, never on the scale that would unfold. But of course, all the major combatants had their cores of trained and experienced military professionals, however small or large they may be.

Canada didn’t though.

Canada was a noteworthy player in the First World War. The country sent hundreds of thousands of men to fight in Europe. That was a very high percentage of the total population of the country, as the country had a little over seven million people living in it.

Canada had no standing army to speak of at the time. Yes, it had its veterans who fought the Boers in South Africa, but these were men who had gone to fight when the British demanded, came home, and went back to work. Most of the men in what would become the Canadian Core had held a rifle once or twice, if they had ever even fired one. Arthur Curris, the man who would lead the Canadian army at the end of the war, was a real-estate agent. And what professional soldiers the Canadians did have were under British command. When you think of these soldiers, think less of trained and disciplined soldiers and more of the weekend warrior.

A DYING EMPIRE

Now, I am focusing on Canadian casualties and the Canadian military, but it is important to remember that other nations that formed part of the British Imperial system also fought in the war. Australians, New Zealanders, Indians, and many other silent partners suffered alongside Canadians for the glory of a dying empire that often did not care enough.

The stories of Canada, India and Australia, are stories of hardship and self-sacrifice, honor and glory. But these countries are all seen in the same “little guy” light, and so often not considered to be true players in the war. This dismissal of many contributing countries can be put down to the fact that their casualties weren’t in the millions like the major powers; we can even call it a dismissal of perceived lesser countries of the age.

Normally when you hear about the combatants of the First World War, you are told of the Allied Powers of the USA, Britain, Russia, and France versus Germany and Austria-Hungary. But with this biased attitude towards these countries, many of the important stories that have shaped our world today have been forgotten. Indeed, many of the battles waged by Canadians are forgotten.

tIn the opening of he Battle of Arras, Canadian soldiers took on the task of storming a ridge where German soldiers were entrenched. That ridge, located just outside a French town called Vimy, had been the scene of heartbreaking defeats for the French and British forces. On April 9, 1917, this unimportant place would become a symbol for Canadians to rally behind. It was the day that Canada proved itself as a nation. It was the Battle of Vimy Ridge.

Four divisions of Canadian soldiers joined together to fight a battle that would see Canadian soldiers led by Canadian generals, using Canadian battle tactics, to win a Canadian victory.  And these adventurers, these colonials, these little Canadian boys, many of whom only held a rifle, looked out to what would later go down in Canadian history as one of the country’s most important events. Nations were born in this war; Canada was born in this battle.

This story will be continued next month.

Read more about World War I’s Eastern Front in the latest issue of History is Now Magazine. Get a free trial on iPad and iPhone today - take a look here.

References

• Stats Canada.ca
• 3PPCLI.com
• Vimy by Pierre Burton
• The Pity of War by Niall Ferguson
• Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast

Henry VIII and Bloody Religious Change – First Steps to the English Civil War

In this article, Myra King follows up on her article about the Divine Right of Kings, by telling us about religious conflict in Henry VIII’s England. As we will see, this conflict would continue to simmer beneath the surface well into the 1600s; indeed, it would be a major factor in the English Civil War.

Once upon a time in a land far, far away, a regal king met the woman of his dreams. He instantly knew he had to marry her and make her his Queen. The only problem with this plan… He was already married.

When Henry VIII came across Anne Boleyn, he was already in his fourteenth year of marriage to Catherine of Aragon. Divorce was the only option. Unfortunately the pope refused to grant him one. After nearly seven years of fighting the Vatican, Henry got his Tudor breeches in a twist and decided to break away from the Roman Catholic Church. He established the Church of England, making himself the leader and instated the newly formed denomination, Protestantism. This was no simple decision as Catholicism had been the official religion of England since the Romans had brought it over one thousand years earlier. The people of England had had their faith ripped out from underneath them and they had no way to fight it. Henry’s decision to break with Rome did not end at the peaceful renaming of churches. Henry introduced an act called “The Reformation” and that was far from peaceful. Thomas Cromwell and Henry’s goons ransacked over eight hundred monasteries, literally stripping them of everything from their lead roofs, to their golden candlesticks and valuable books. The lucky monks were thrown into the street. The rest were executed for refusing to comply. The reformation brought in a ton of gold for Henry and a ton of misery for everyone else. Many of those who revolted against this act were murdered. Not only the rebellious men, but their wives and even small children were left swinging from ropes.

A strange fruit left to rot in the fields. 

King Henry VIII of England by Lucas Horenbout (c. 1526)

It wasn’t only the peasants who met their untimely deaths in the reformation. Several of Henry’s own politicians were sent for the chop. Not to mention the fact that women were subjected to torture on the rack. An act unheard of before the tyrant Henry and his church.

There was nothing peaceful about this religious change. Many suffered at the newborn hands of the Church of England. This was the start of the religious wars that would plague the country for over a century. The people of England now became the unfortunate pawns in this genocide. And they had no way to fight back.

THE END OF THE KING

In 1547, Henry finally succumbed to whatever ailment had killed him (it is heavily debated), leaving his nine-year-old son, Edward VI, as king. Edward, having been born and bred a Protestant, kept the kingdom as his father had left it. But Edward was a sickly boy and at the tender age of fifteen he was dead and buried. This left his elder sister, Mary I, as queen. Mary’s bloodlust and stupidity is almost stomach turning. Her first act as queen was to undo the reformation and return England to the Vatican. Bad idea. By this point, the Church of England was the only religion the young English knew. They had been schooled by Henry and Edward to read the bible, now Mary burned them for it. They had been taught that prayers were private, and the vanity and abuse of the Catholic Church were not their god’s doing. Mary burned them for questioning the Vatican. Mary’s second mistake was to marry her cousin, Philip of Spain. He was a money and power hungry Catholic who was anything but popular among the English. Mary had been warned by her government that marriage to Philip would be political suicide. But she did not heed their warning. And so, Philip brought his hand in marriage as well as his need to conquer an unconquerable land – France.

England owned one town in France, Calais, a town close to England on the French coast. Philip wanted more. Mary’s government begged her not to go to war with the French. England was in trouble, you see; it had done nothing but rain during Mary’s reign. The crops were ruined. There would be no food for the following year. England needed her money in order to buy food from the French. They couldn’t use that money for war. Mary would not listen though. England not only lost the war with France, but also Calais – a town that could have produced food for them.

BACK TO SQUARE ONE

In Mary’s five short years as Queen she undid the horror that her father had done; all Henry VIII’s crimes against his people had been for nothing. She burned every Protestant she could find in a land completely Protestant. She married an unpopular fool and sent her army to their deaths to do his bidding. She lost French territory. She did nothing as her country flooded and starved to death. She earned herself the nickname “Bloody Mary” and is known as the most useless monarch England has ever had. All in the name of religion. Once again, the English people were the wretched victims of a monarch’s unholy obsession with their own religious ideas. More than three hundred Protestants were burned at the stake so that she could purge the country of the religion her father had killed nearly fifty-seven thousand people to introduce.

Mary died childless in 1558, leaving her half-sister as queen. Elizabeth quickly changed the country back to Protestantism. And the only people who needed to fear the stake were the corrupt Catholic priests. No one mourned for them; no one mourned the loss of Catholicism. Her memory lives on as one of the greatest leaders in English history; she has no connection to religious genocide. Her father and sister live in infamy as atrocious monarchs hated by the people. And besides their laughable marriages, all they are known for is the suffering their religious beliefs caused. Could it be a coincidence that one is adored while the other two are abhorred?

Elizabeth died childless in 1603 and left the throne to her cousin’s son, the king of Scotland – James VI of Scotland. England’s first fear was that the Catholic king would bring his dreaded religion to England and that there would be a repeat of Mary’s or Henry’s reign. Luckily James had some smarts and left his religion in Edinburgh castle. He became James I of England and brought with him, not one, but two sons. This officially ended the Tudor dynasty and the fears of succession that Henry’s questionable virility and his childless children brought to the table. James walked a fine line though. He believed in the Divine Right of Kings that meant he answered to no one but his god. He believed it was his right to do and say whatever he wanted. The English soon got a tad sick of this behavior. He must have known the dangerous dance he was partaking in. After two cruel monarchs who hid behind the thin guise of religion to commit their atrocities, religion was now top of the suspicion list. Every pro-Catholic move James made, he put his life on the line. Equally, every anti-Catholic move he made he put himself and his family in danger.

If James wasn’t aware of the danger he was in, the Gunpowder plot definitely showed him.

I don’t think James I ever failed to remember the 5th of November.

And that's for next time...

The next article in the series is on King James I and a conspiracy related to the Gunpowder Plot. Click here to read it!

Now, if you enjoyed the article, tell your friends! Tweet, like or share it by clicking the buttons below!

References

• Who’s Who in British History by Juliet Gardiner
• British History by Miles Kelly
• Slimy Stuarts by Terry Deary
• Terrible Tudors by Terry Deary

Intrepid Americans in the Center of Chaos - China Hands by Peter Rand

In this book review, George Levrier-Jones tells us about the excellent China Hands by Peter Rand. The book tells the incredible stories of American journalists in China from the 1920s onwards.

I’m sure many of you have been watching the news about Ukraine lately. I’m sure many of you were watching the news during the Arab Spring. This got me thinking, as something that has always intrigued me is how journalists covering these events get to where they are in the world. Whether that be the reporter in Ukraine who accompanied troops as they confront each other. Or the reporter in Libya who tried to be close to the fighting in the rebel uprising against Colonel Gaddafi.

And when I say where, I don’t only mean physically. In theory anybody with the right press pass could get close to these areas. It is the mentality that also interests me. Is it bravery, stupidity, or the quest for adventure that leads to people to put themselves in often dangerous and unknown situations? Or just a desire to tell others what is happening in the world?

A dashing couple. Edgar Snow with his wife in China.

Source: Edgar Snow Collections, University of Missouri, Kansas City.

Well, whatever the case, such questions were raised in my mind once again while reading the book China Hands by Peter Rand. This book was published a number of years ago, but we heard about it recently as we were researching authors who had written about articles related to Chairman Mao Zedong, the Great Helmsman who led China for over 25 years from 1949. That led us to this book for several reasons, but key among them was the unique story of Edgar Snow. Snow went to China in the late 1920s and decided to settle there. He worked as a journalist and covered all manner of events during what was a very turbulent time in Chinese history. The Chinese Civil War was erupting as the Nationalists led by Chiang Kai-shek battled Communist forces in a long-running war. Violence also seemed to be forever close to the surface of society, even in cities.

But this book does not just tell the story of events in China. It also looks at the lives and the thinking of the people involved. And Snow had a very interesting personal life. He married Helen Foster in the early 1930s, somebody who was in many respects more ambitious, able and determined than he was. That would be a constant source of tension for the couple. Snow was later chosen by the communist hierarchy to meet Mao Zedong, the man who was of course to go on to dominate China. When Snow met him though, Mao was in a cave with his hardy soldiers, having been the victim of Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist forces.

In some ways Snow was in the right place at the right time for this famous meeting, but it also helped that he was not strongly affiliated with communism or socialism. That meant that he had more credibility in the eyes of the many in America to whom his encounter with Mao would be told. A second factor that worked in his favor was that America was not gripped by anti-communist hysteria in the 1930s – that truly started after World War II.

But as I’ve just hinted at, a number of the Americans who went to China were closely associated with communism. There was Harold Isaacs, a man who supported the rebelling communists. Equally, there was Rayna Prohme. She went to China in the 1920s, as somebody already affiliated with the communists. Prohme had a certain joie de vivre, and was noticeable wherever she went as she was tall and had striking red hair. While in China, she edited a newspaper, but perhaps more importantly, became closely involved in political machinations. She was involved with shadowy Soviet agent Mikhail Borodin, a man who was under orders to support the Nationalists more than the Communists on occasions. And amid all the chaos in China, Prohme was to make one very important trip to the heart of the communist empire, Moscow. This book recounts that tale in detail – from the luxury to the back-stabbing.

And aside from those mentioned above, there are a number of other stories and lives considered in this book.

YOU COULDN’T MAKE IT UP

In summary, this book shines a light on several areas. It provides an intriguing view of a China in chaos from the 1920s onwards. It really gives you a feel for the turbulence and fear that people had to live through. It also gives us an insight into the wider communist world. The links between Joseph Stalin’s USSR, the Chinese Communists, and the Chinese Nationalists are highlighted – and Stalin’s communists did not always support the side you may think. In addition, the book tells us of the dilemmas, complications and joys that people had to live through in unfamiliar surroundings far from home. As you can imagine, some people reacted well, others less well, in situations that you could simply not make up.

The book was years in the making and it is evident that it was a real labor of love. Above all though, Rand’s excellent writing shines through. He has the rare and great ability to make a story, even a non-fiction story, really come to life.

But at the book’s heart are the tales of adventurers, mavericks, rogues. Call them what you will. People who decided to throw off the shackles of the ordinary and report the news from an extraordinary country at an extraordinary time. Just like some people still yearn to do today.

By George Levrier-Jones

If you would like to find out more about China Hands by Peter Rand, you can click here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Finally, you can read an article by Peter Rand in the latest issue of History is Now magazine, available here for iPad and iPhone. The magazine will be available on Android imminently.

Now, tell the world! Share this article with the world by clicking on the buttons below!

“Freedom, Equality and Brotherhood of the People” – The Key People in the Rise of Italy

In this article, George Broad introduces us to three of the main people involved in the Risorgimento, the process of Italian Unification that led to the formation of the Italy that we know today.

“Freedom, equality and brotherhood of the people” – sound familiar? To those who know their European revolutions it will be ringing some rather large bells in the form of the French Republic’s tagline of “freedom, equality, fraternity.”

As the scent and spirit of revolution drifted through Europe in the late 18th through to the early 19th century, Italy greeted it with open arms. The states of modern day Italy were itching to break away from the bonds of foreign rule. So, inspired by the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Wars, the people of Italy sought to set in motion a process of revolution and unification to bring into being the Italy we know today.

The Risorgimento (literally translating to resurgence or rising again) took place during 19th century. The term Risorgimento is the one given to cover the period of the uprisings, revolts and warring of the people of Italy in their struggle to make their nation independent. Its exact start date is much disputed as many revolts had been occurring sporadically throughout Italy for many years. One thing we do know for sure is that without a certain few individuals, the Risorgimento could have taken a very different turn…


Giuseppe Mazzini

Giuseppe Mazzini (1805-1872) was a politician and journalist, and it was he who coined the aforementioned title slogan of the Risorgimento.

Giuseppe Mazzini

Mazzini’s mother, who held solid republican and democratic ideals, was in part responsible for gearing her son toward his political future; however it was during his time at law school in Genoa that Mazzini developed a strong interest in politics and became more aware of the stirrings of the people and their movements toward Italian nationalism.

Mazzini was a member of the Carbonari – a revolutionary society with strong nationalistic leanings; however he felt that their aims were too unclear and lacklustre to bring about any real change. As a result, he created the group “Young Italy,” made up of young men who sought Italian Unification in a more effective and real sense. The group believed that through organised uprisings, the rule of Italy could be changed and that Austrian governance could be ousted. It was uprisings and revolts such as this which were vital to the success of the Risorgimento.

Camillo Cavour

Camillo Cavour (1810-1861) was a statesman and renowned diplomat. He was an advisor to the King of Sardinia, and as a result was able to raise the profile of Italy’s desire to unify throughout Europe, especially because Sardinia was a very important part of the fragmented Italy.

Camillo Cavour

Unlike Mazzini, Cavour wanted unification in a monarchical form as opposed to a Republican one, and it was under the rule of the king of Savoy that the unification was announced.

Cavour founded and wrote in a newspaper called “Il Risorgimento” in which he talked of constitutional reforms and anticipated the changes which Italy was beginning to go through on its way to becoming an independent nation. Some of his articles were very controversial, and one even caused a war a few days after it was released!

Cavour’s careful planning, the military help of Giuseppe Garibaldi in the South of Italy, and uprisings inspired by Mazzini, would ultimately lead to the eventual unification of all of Italy.

Giuseppe Garibaldi

Giuseppe Garibaldi

Giuseppe Garibaldi (1807-1882) won the majority of the military victories that came about as a result of the Risorgimento.

Garibaldi was formerly a sailor and had experience in combat prior to his victories in the Unification. He quickly became involved with Mazzini’s Young Italy movement, becoming very closely influenced by Mazzini himself, and although he had a history of exile, he was eventually returned to Italy under the command of Cavour in order for him to lead a war against Austrian forces.

Garibaldi’s actions were influenced by the guerrilla wars occurring in Uruguay around the same time, and in a nod to the soldiers there, Garibaldi’s men took up wearing similarly styled red clothing. This led them to be known as the Redshirts. The men in Garibaldi’s army were also all volunteers.

Without the three men above, the Risorgimento may not have ever happened, and without the creation of the Italy we know today, the history and geography of Europe as we know it would be vastly different.

In the modern age, Italy is separated into regions – five of which are autonomous and have the power of self-governance. However, as in many European countries, there are still areas and regions that wish to become more (or completely) independent - a fine example is that of Venice wanting to split from Rome, an issue that has recently stepped back into the spotlight.

Countries are always changing, but we must never forget the truly momentous changes of the Risorgimento. Its effects and legacy were to be heard around the world, influencing politics, culture, and history both at the time and today.

This article is provided by Georgie Broad.

You can also read longer history articles with interactive content in our magazine, History is Now, available for iPad and iPhone (and Android imminently!). Read more about it here.

Bibliography

• Hearder, H, Italy: A Short History, Cambridge University Press, 1990, pp153-187
• Banti, A.M, Il Risorgimento Italiano,  Laterza&Figli, ed. 2005
• Evans, M, The Italian Unification, All About History, Imagine Publishing, Issue 10, pp36-37