The role of Women in World War II

In this article, Mary Miles tells us of the valuable contribution that women made to the British war effort in World War II – and there is even a poem that her father wrote about it.

Whenever the topic of the Second World War is mentioned, how many of us think of the likes of Amy Johnson, Princess Elizabeth (now Queen Elizabeth II), Noor Inyat Khan or the women of WASP, WRNS, and WAAF?

The answer is very few of us. Most histories, documentaries and movies about this conflict concentrate on Hitler, Churchill, FDR and Hirohito or major battles and operations. Those aspects have been analyzed in almost every possible way but very rarely do historians or the general public talk about the everyday procedures and people involved in this conflict, while the women involved are discussed even less.

World War II pilot Amy Johnson, who crashed in mysterious circumstances.

Living in Britain, knowledge of the Women’s Auxiliary Air Force [WAAF], Women’s Royal Naval Service [WRNS], the Auxiliary Territorial Service [ATS] and other auxiliary units are relatively easy to research. And due to recent developments, information on Women Airforce Service Pilots [WASP] is easier to research as well. The women on whom there is very little information are those who operated behind enemy lines, such as those of Britain’s Special Operations Executive [SOE]. The information available on the women who served in WWII gives us a very comprehensive view of the roles undertaken by them for the duration of hostilities. These women did a wide variety of military war work, except for fighting on the front lines. The women packed parachutes, undertook cryptography at Station X and its Y stations, operated anti-aircraft guns, and patrolled harbors - to name just a few of their roles within these organizations. This auxiliary work freed up men for the front line.

In the Air

The WASP and the ATA were similar organizations that ferried aircraft for military use. WASP had 1,074 female pilots and the ATA 166. The ATA transported aircraft to RAF bases; these flights were to and from UK factories, assembly plants, maintenance units, scrap yards, and active airfields— just about anywhere including transatlantic delivery points but excluding aircraft carriers. This was dangerous work in British skies when they had no weaponry to defend themselves if attacked by an Axis aircraft. The Avro Lancaster favored by RAF Bomber Command usually flew with a crew of seven men; the ATA delivered these planes using a solo pilot. The famous pioneer of female aviation Amy Johnson joined the ATA and became one of their casualties. On January 5, 1940 Amy Johnson was flying an Airspeed Oxford to RAF Kidlington, a training base near Oxford, when, due to adverse weather conditions, she was forced off course. She evidently ran out of fuel and then bailed out over the Thames estuary landing in the water. A British naval officer dived into to save her but unfortunately died along with Johnson; his body was recovered but hers never was. There is to this day speculation about the accident that caused the death of Amy Johnson as her flight that fateful day is still a government secret.

The WAAF and its counterparts were the female ground wing of the RAF. Known to the men of the flying services as the Ladies in Blue, the majority of the members of the WAAF did traditional female jobs within the service but quite a few ‘male’ jobs fell to them as well. My late father, a Bomber Command Veteran, wrote the following poem about them:

Ladies in Blue

You who were the ladies in blue?

May the living God bless you.

Though world-wise matron or immature kid

Accept our thanks for all you did

Our meals were served, our ‘chutes were packed

And you provided what we lacked

For, be very well aware

Your greatest service was just being there.

 - Jasper Miles

Although the majority of WAAFs were in these Auxiliary Roles, a few were seconded to the SOE. An example of such a person is the ‘Spy Princess’ Noor Inyat Khan, a Russian born Indian Muslim of a princely family. She operated in Northern France and Paris until she was betrayed to the Nazi authorities who, in September 1944, executed her along with three other agents at Dachau.

They’re in the Army

The Auxiliary Territorial Service [ATS] was the British Army’s female wing. These women were charged with multiple duties. Many became drivers or mechanics, driving ambulances and trucks, and ferrying around officers. The ATS incorporated the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry [FANY], the Women’s Auxiliary Army Corp [WAAC] and the Women’s Transport Service [WTS]. These women, like most of the Auxiliary Services, were paid two thirds of a man’s serving salary. And not surprisingly, the ATS had many famous members within its ranks: Mary Churchill, Odette Sansom Hallowes, Violette Szabo and the then Princess Elizabeth. As a member of the ATS, Princess Elizabeth learned to drive an ambulance and fix its engine. It is claimed Her Majesty can still strip down both an engine and a rifle and that she is a crack shot with most guns. Odette and Violette, although officially officers in FANY, were operatives for SOE so went behind enemy lines. Both of these ladies were caught, and Violette was executed at Ravensbrück concentration camp. Odette at the time was using the surname Churchill; this minor fact saved her life as the Nazi High Command at Ravensbrück thought she was related to the British Prime Minister and she was therefore used as a bargaining tool.

All Aboard

The Royal Navy’s female section was the WRNS and its members were affectionately known as Wrens or Jennies. At their height, there were approximately 74,000 WRNS members involved in all manner of roles. Being a Wren could be a hazardous occupation; crewing harbor launches in mine infested waters was almost as dangerous as the men’s roles on the front lines. One of the least known of the roles these women played was one of the most crucial: serving at Station X, Bletchley Park. Bletchley Park was the Allied code breaking headquarters and a large proportion of its operatives were in the WRNS. These women worked alongside men such as Alan Turing in order to break the Enigma code.

Remember…

This brief examination of the Women’s Auxiliary Services only touches the surface of the role of women during WWII. It has left out many other jobs undertaken by women such as working in munitions factories, nursing and medical services, and other transport services.

Next time you attend a memorial event to commemorate the front line casualities of WWII, spare a though for the ladies as well.

Now, click here to find out about the role of women in World War I.

Finally, tell the world about the article! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below.

References

http://nigelperrin.com/odette-hallowes.htm#.U0vDN1VdWSo

http://nigelperrin.com/soe-noor-inayat-khan.htm#.U0vDdlVdWSo

Minney, R. J. (1956) Carve Her Name with Pride: The Story of Violette Szabo. London: Newnes

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/auxiliary_territorial_service.htm

http://www.airtransportaux.com/history.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/insideout/yorkslincs/series1/amy-johnson.shtml

http://www.wrens.org.uk/history.php

http://www.hazratinayatkhan.org/audio2-noor-archive.php

http://www.bletchleypark.org/

Miles Jasper. (1996)  Bomber’s Bombers. Their Story in Verse. Privately Published. (Contact M. Miles) 

The unusual tale of the German military ship that arrived in the USA during World War I

In this brilliant article, Bill Edwards-Bodmer tells the tale of the Konprinz Wilhelm, a converted German ship that terrorized Allied shipping in the Atlantic during World War I. Well, until it had to dock in Hampton Roads, Virginia – so leading to a fascinating interaction, including the formation of a German village on American soil.

On the morning of April 11, 1915, residents in Hampton Roads, Virginia awoke to a stranger in their midst. Looming just off Ocean View at Norfolk was the gray, rusting behemoth of a ship, Kronprinz Wilhelm. Despite its battered appearance,Kronprinz Wilhelm was something of a celebrity, and a mystery.  For the past 8 months, the German luxury-liner-turned-commerce-raider had been terrorizing Allied shipping during the opening year of World War I. Now here it was in Hampton Roads, seeking much-needed repairs and refuge from the British navy lurking just beyond the Chesapeake Bay. 

Kronprinz Wilhelm in Hampton Roads, April 11, 1915

The Ship

In its heyday, Kronprinz Wilhelm appeared as one of the grandest passenger liners of its era, sleek black and sparkling white. Named in honor of the young heir to the German throne, the ship was launched on March 30, 1901 by AG Vulcan Shipbuilding Company at Stettin, Germany. Kronprinz Wilhelm was one of a small, but prestigious, group of ships known as “four-stackers”; renowned for their size and the fact that they had four funnels or smoke stacks (Titanic was part of this group as well). Built for speed, Kronprinz Wilhelm plied the Bremen-New York route, setting record times for Atlantic crossings. The ship was advertised as part of the “Royal Family” of the North German Lloyd Steamship Line and its lavish accommodations made it especially popular among wealthy passengers. Prince Heinrich of Prussia even chose to sail on Kronprinz Wilhelm on an official state visit to the United States in 1902. But this was no ordinary steamship anymore. On the morning of April 11, 1915, the ship presented a naval appearance, painted dark gray and stained and scarred from months of hard service at sea. 

Kronprinz Wilhelm as passenger liner

At the outbreak of war in Europe in August 1914, Kronprinz Wilhelm was docked at New York. Recently overhauled, the ship had been scheduled to make a passenger run to Bremen in early August, but all North German Lloyd passages were cancelled in late July, as tensions mounted in Europe. On August 1, Germany declared war on Russia. The next day, the ship’s captain, K. Grahn, received orders to take on supplies and proceed at once to sea, with a second set of sealed orders to be opened once clear of U.S. waters. Immediately, Kronprinz Wilhelm began to take on extra quantities of coal, food, and other provisions. At 8:10pm the following evening, assisted by eight tugs and empty of any passengers, Kronprinz Wilhelm steamed out of the harbor towards the Atlantic. Speculation mounted as to what the ship was up to. The New York Times andWashington Post both noted that the ship was officially cleared by U.S. Customs to sail for Bremen.  Both papers also pointed out that this was highly unlikely, with the Post article stating, “What she might really do after passing out of the harbor, however, was a question…”(1) Both papers surmised that Kronprinz Wilhelm was heading to refuel German navy vessels at sea.  Adding to the mystery was a large, unusually shaped crate on the ship’s forward deck, which, according to the New York Times, “might very well cover a naval gun, mounted for use.”(2) Alfred von Niezychowski, a lieutenant on Kronprinz Wilhelm, makes no mention of the mystery crate in his memoir, The Cruise of Kronprinz Wilhelm Wilhelm.   

Rendezvous and Transformation To Commerce Raider

Once at sea, Captain Grahn opened his sealed orders and saw that he was to sail to a specified rendezvous at sea with the German cruiser SMS Karlsruhe. When the two ships met on August 6, Karlsruhe transferred two 88 mm guns and other arms and ammunition to Kronprinz Wilhelm in exchange for coal and provisions. The liner also received a new captain, Lieutenant Commander Paul Thierfelder, formerly Karlsruhe’s navigation officer. With this change in command, Kronprinz Wilhelm officially became an auxiliary cruiser in the German Navy. Its mission: to hunt down and destroy Allied merchant shipping.

The rendezvous with Karlsruhe almost proved to be the undoing of both ships. As the Germans were nearly finished transferring supplies, they spotted a British naval vessel, the cruiser Bristol, heading for them. The German ships quickly pulled apart, and the chase was on. Bristol gave chase to Karlsruhe, but the wireless operator on Kronprinz Wilhelm picked up British messages and knew that other British ships would soon be on the path of the commerce raider. Niezychowski described in his memoir how the crew in the boiler room, the “fiendlike toilers,” kept up a furious pace shoveling coal into ship’s hungry fires to keep steam up and put distance between Kronprinz Wilhelm and the British ships.(3)

Once clear of danger, Captain Thierfelder ordered the crew to continue the transformation of Kronprinz Wilhelm into a war ship. Before meeting Karlsruhe,Kronprinz Wilhelm was painted a dull gray to help disguise its identity and aid in camouflage at sea. Now the crew set about removing glass and wood paneling to prevent flying shrapnel in the event of battle. Mattresses and carpeting were used to pad vulnerable areas on deck. The first-class smoking room was converted into a sick bay and the “now purposeless grand saloon, which from a chamber of palatial magnificence was thus brutally metamorphosed into a reserve coal bin.” Carrying extra coal was of particular concern as the ship burned through it at the furious pace of 500 tons a day. The crew also mounted the two 88 mm guns, nicknamed White Arrow and Base Drum, to the port and starboard sides of the forecastle. A movable machine gun, called the Riveter, was installed on the bridge.(4) Kronprinz Wilhelm was now ready to prey on Allied shipping.

First Prize

It didn’t have to wait long. On the night of September 4, the crew spotted a one-funneled steamer that turned out to be the British merchant ship Indian Prince. After a brief chase, the British ship surrendered. Passengers and supplies, including the always-needed coal, from Indian Prince were transferred to the German raider. Passengers were given rooms in the first-class accommodations on Kronprinz Wilhelm. Later accounts from prisoners taken by the German raider attest to the hospitable treatment they received aboard Kronprinz Wilhelm. And after all of that, needed supplies had been brought over, the seacocks on Indian Prince were opened, and the British ship soon slipped beneath the waves.Kronprinz Wilhelm had taken its first prize.

Over the next 251 days, Kronprinz Wilhelm steamed 37,666 miles around the south Atlantic and destroyed some 60,000 tons of Allied shipping from fourteen ships, a majority of which were either British or French.  Most ships were scuttled by opening their seacocks and/or exploding dynamite in the bottom of the hulls. On one occasion, though, Captain Thierfelder decided ramming was the best option, and set about cutting the British schooner Wilfred M. in two by plowing the massive German ship straight through the much smaller sailing vessel. Word ofKronprinz Wilhelm’s path of destruction reached Allied authorities, and the British sent several ships to the Atlantic to track down and destroy the German raider.

Crew of Kronprinz Wilhelm with souvenir from prize

Kronprinz Wilhelm approaching Wilfred M.

Kronprinz Wilhelm ramming Wilfred M.

Wilfred M. after ramming

End of the Line

Kronprinz Wilhelm was able to elude the British for months, but soon the raider’s luck, and coal, ran out. With supplies of coal and provisions rapidly dwindling and the ship’s engines needing repair from months of continuous service at sea, Captain Thierfelder decided to head for a neutral port for repairs and replenishment of coal and supplies. Thierfelder ultimately decided upon Newport News, Virginia, where another German commerce raider, Prinz Eitel Friedrich, had recently interned. 

Upon reaching the Virginia capes, Thierfelder found British ships waiting for him. Under the cover of darkness on April 10, Thierfelder made a daring dash between the waiting British vessels, which never spotted the German behemoth. Kronprinz Wilhelm anchored in Hampton Roads on the morning of April 11.  Upon arriving,Kronprinz Wilhelm had less than 25 tons of coal left in its bunkers and many of the crew were suffering the effects of beriberi, a disease brought on by lack of fresh fruits and vegetables. The ship was soon allowed to proceed to the shipyard at Newport News to receive basic repairs and receive coal. After staying beyond the deadline imposed by American authorities, the German commander decided upon internment rather than risk capture by the British Navy waiting just outside the Chesapeake Bay. Soon thereafter, the German raider was moved across Hampton Roads to the Norfolk Navy Yard in Portsmouth, Virginia, where it was interned, the same place that Prinz Eitel Friedrich was also interned.

Eitel Wilhelm

During the early months of internment, the German sailors were allowed liberal leave from their ships and mingled with the surrounding communities. However, after several crew and officers escaped, leave policy was restricted and the Germans were confined to their ships and the immediate area of the shipyard. Beginning in January 1916, men from both ships, who numbered about 1,000, constructed a miniature German village on unoccupied land in the Navy Yard from scrap materials found around the shipyard and on their ships. This little village, named Eitel Wilhelm after both ships, included not only houses but other buildings and services a typical German town of the time would have, including a church, school, gymnasium, other public buildings, and police and fire departments. The Germans also had farm animals, a small zoo, vegetable gardens, and a village newspaper. The village became something of a local tourist attraction. Visitors were charged an entrance fee, with the proceeds benefiting the German Red Cross. The German sailors also crafted toys and other souvenirs, along with baked goods, that were sold to visitors.

Despite American ties to the Allies and being future enemies, the German sailors and Eitel Wilhelm were quite popular with locals and Americans in general. Accounts of the commerce raiders and the village appeared in national newspapers and magazines, such as the Literary Digest. The story of the German raiders added a bit of romance to an otherwise very unromantic and destructive war. American resentment of British overbearing tactics, including stopping American ships, in controlling the seas contributed to the German ships’ popularity. The German commerce raiders were seen as the underdogs fighting the British bully.(5)

Familial and ancestral ties also played into the German sailors’ popularity.  Many Americans, including Virginians, were of German origin.  More immediately, a number of the German sailors had relatives who had recently immigrated to the United States. Historian Phyllis Hall has noted that many letters from relatives arrived at the State Department requesting permission for their relatives in the village be allowed to visit.  Overall, thousands of Americans visited Eitel Wilhelm over the next eight months.(6)

Eitel Wilhelm with ships in background

Windmill at Eitel Wilhelm

Tourists at Eitel Wilhelm

By August 1916, with the United States increasing its preparations for war, it was becoming clear that the village would have to go to make room for increased wartime related work at the Navy Yard. American authorities destroyed the village and the German raiders and sailors were transferred to the Philadelphia Navy Yard. When the United States entered the war in April 1917, the German sailors became prisoners of war and were moved to Fort McPherson in Georgia. The ships were confiscated by the U.S. and became troop transports during war; Kronprinz Wilhelm becoming USS Von Steuben and Prinz Eitel Friedrich becoming USS De Kalb.

You can read more about American involvement in World War I in the article: The tale of the last American World War I Battle – That took place for a bath. Click here to read it.

Finally, if you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below…

References

1. Washington Post, August 4, 1914.
2. New York Times, August 4, 1914.
3. Alfred von Niezychowski, The Cruise of the Kronprinz Wilhelm, (New York: Doubleday, Doran & Company, Inc., 1931), 24.
4. Edwin P. Hoyt, Ghost of the Atlantic: the Kronprinz Wilhelm, 1914-1919, (London: Arthur Barker Limited, 1974), 18-21; quote from Niezychowski, 28.
5. Phyllis A. Hall, “The German Village at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard,” Olde Times, v.2 no.5, Summer 1987, 5-7.
6. Hall, 5-7.

Finally, the images in this article are courtesy of The Mariners’ Museum, Newport News, Virginia.

Crime and Punishment in Nineteenth Century London

Last month Kevin K. O’Neill described some of the nefarious exploits by various criminals operating in the dim anonymity of early 19th century London. Body snatchers, thieves, beggars, conmen and other inhabitants of the rookeries, or slums, all operated relatively freely, opposed only by a few private organizations before the formation in 1829 of the Metropolitan Police by Sir Robert Peel, the original ‘Bobbie.’ This month we delve into more aspects of crime and the social ferment that characterized London at that time.

The Upper Class, Gambling, and Blackmail

The English upper class was no stranger to the indulgences and excesses practiced openly by the lower classes. Indeed many had a morbid fascination with the danger and debauchery of their lives. Steering clear of the Rookeries, the well to do often frequented the Flash Houses and successors to the 18th century ‘Hellfire’ clubs located in safer areas for reasons of gambling, gin, and women. Many young men met social demise via alcohol, venereal disease, predatory usury, or blackmail, as they were considered easy prey.  Even those that gambled their fortunes away in the higher-class clubs often turned to moneylenders of ill repute.

The Original Tom and Jerry

The allure of the well to do with the dark underbelly of London is well portrayed by Pierce Egan’s ‘Life in London or, the Day and Night Scenes of Jerry Hawthorne, Esq. and his elegant friend, Corinthian Tom, accompanied by Bob Logic, the Oxonian, in their rambles and sprees through the Metropolis.’ Released monthly at a shilling a copy in 1821, this slice of life serial proved wildly popular. Spin off serials and plays were penned while behavior such as ‘Tom and Jerry Frolics,’ became part of the linguistic landscape. The two main protagonists were from opposite ends of British society with Tom being the elegant ‘Swell’ searching for excitement, and Jerry the unworldly country bumpkin searching for the good life. Their pugnacious and bawdy exploits were eagerly read by all social classes and the pervasive slang used was popular enough to inspire the publishing of a glossary. Egan, a sports writer with a knack for satire, crisscrossed the social boundaries of London with Tom taking Jerry to fancy nightclubs for elegant affairs and Jerry taking Tom for riotous nights of gin, easy women, and street boxing

A shilling well laid out. Tom and Jerry at the exhibition of pictures at the Royal Academy.

Vivid illustrations by the Cruikshank brothers were a large part of the success of ‘Life in London’ with their appeal withstanding the test of time more than the text. One of the foremost political cartoonists of the day, George Cruikshank, also illustrated many of Charles Dickens’ works under the direction of Dickens. The influence he had on Dickens’ writing, especially Oliver Twist, is debated to this day.

Peep O’ Day Boys. A Street Row. The author losing his ‘reader.’ Tom and Jerry showing fight and logic floored

The Ratcliffe Highway Murders, Impetuous for Change

In December of 1811 murder most foul was committed in two separate attacks in the Wapping area of the Ratcliffe Highway. Seven people from two families were bludgeoned to death by a shipwright’s maul in what can only be described as a frenzied attack. While violence was common along the notorious Ratcliffe Highway, these murders were singular in that they were ‘break and enter’ murders against relatively upstanding citizens. An unfortunate soul, John Williams, and several others, were suspected and thrown in jail on little evidence.

Williams ultimately ‘cheated the hangman’ in what was deemed a suicide by the authorities, causing them to put the dead man on trial. Williams’ suicide being the main indicator of guilt in the prosecutor’s mind, he was convicted. The Ratcliffe murders were spread to the public through the ‘Penny Press,’ with the gruesome details both appalling and enthralling the public. John Williams’ burial procession was followed by a huge crowd with estimates of up to 180,000 people attending his macabre burial. Unqualified to be buried on consecrated ground because he committed suicide, Williams was buried head down in a small grave to insure discomfort in the after life, at a crossroads to confuse his soul should it wander, and with a stake through his heart. It seems likely though, that he was not the murderer; he was convicted to appease an upset populace. Whether his suicide was staged to cover up the real murderer is still not clear.

Punishment

In this period, punishment was freely dealt out with, what may appear to the modern person, an almost fiendish glee. Debtors prisons, death for petty thievery, and horrible internments were all part of the penal system in early 19th century London. Deportation, usually to Australia in the years after the American Revolution, was also used to alleviate the growth of crime in England. By the early 19th century there was a backlog of prisoners to be ‘transported’, as the official sentence of deportation was termed. These boys and men were sent to ‘The Hulks.’ Established in the middle of the 18th century, the Hulks were ships used as prisons as they were no longer seaworthy. Many sunk in the mud of the River Thames, while they were cold, damp, and rotting, with prisoners packed like sardines in their own filth. New prisoners started at the bottom and slowly graduated up through the three levels to where, if they were lucky or nasty enough to have survived, they reached the top level and were transported. Prisons, such as the ‘Stone Jug’, as Newgate Prison was known, were only slightly better than the Hulks with staged fights, trials of those that broke unwritten codes, and priestly absolutions of those to be hanged.

Another ghastly aspect to the penal system were treadmills. Essentially, they were human hamster wheels, originally developed to apply human power to industrial machinery. Found inefficient in industry these ‘shin breakers’ were relegated to the prisons to break incorrigible prisoners. The number of crimes punishable by hanging stood at around 200 early in the century and included such minor transgressions as pick pocketing and stealing food. Hangings were public and often festive; however the severe punishment of trivial offenses, such as food theft at a time of great poverty, often caused riots as public unrest at injustice broke out.

Metropolitan Police and Reforms

In 1822 Sir Robert Peel became Home Secretary. In 1829, with the Ratcliffe Highway and Burke-Hare murders still fresh in the public’s minds, Sir Robert was able to generate enough political will to establish a unified police force, despite the long standing misgivings of the populace. The people feared a unified armed force that could be used to suppress protest or maintain an unpopular government. Peel addressed these concerns with the “Peelian Principals”, a code for an ethical police force that included elements such as personal identification for officers, no bounties or rewards for arrests, public order and low crime rates as indicators of success, and total accountability to the people. Termed ‘policing by consent’ it is followed to this day by many free countries’ police forces. In 1823 Sir Robert lowered the number of crimes punishable by death to around 100.

It is difficult today to look back on London at this time without a certain amount of distaste at the casual injustices and misery. Even so, it should be remembered that London was one of the first cities to become industrialized, with massive unplanned urban growth being a major factor in the civic confusion that defined the era. Out of this societal chaos good men, such as Sir Robert Peel, created laws and a political ethos that defines much of the free world today.

Want to read more on this subject? Well, you can read about Charles Dickens and poverty 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!

Bibliography

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

Thieves’ Kitchen, Donald Low, 1982

Image Source

Engravings by George and Robert Cruikshank from the 1869 reprint of Life in London, Pierce Egan, John Camden Hotten, Piccadilly, 1869. Image source here.

Now free on Android! History is Now Magazine

If you haven’t heard, we are very happy to announce that History is Now magazine has been launched on Android! And what’s more you can get your first copy for free instantly…

Click here for more information and to take up a free trial!

You will in fact get access to the magazine for 31 days, which will mean that you get two issues for free if you take up our offer today.

And to give you a taste of the latest issue, here is what our editor says…

We have a special issue that has a focus on empire. More specifically, we’re going to be looking at a range of views and stories on empires. And unfortunately for those who think that empire was good for the world, the views expressed are often less than positive. We have an article on the British in India in which the intriguing customs that sprung up in British India are considered. The article also looks at the importance of women in British rule, as well as the often racist views that underpinned the system. Following, we have another article by somebody who had less than flattering views on empire – famed writer George Orwell. He spent time working in British Burma and grew to loathe empire. Then we have a piece on the remnants of American Empire and how a colonial legacy has left one island in limbo.

Finally on empire, we have an article by somebody who did like empire. We explore the Ashanti Wars and the views of George Clarke Musgrave, a journalist who accompanied the British military to West Africa. There he came face-to-face with a brutal king and saw his beloved Britain regain control of a troublesome region.

But there is more inside the magazine!

Click here for more information and to take up your free trial

With all that and more, come and join us inside! Simply subscribe to the magazine and it will be free for 31 days. And if you’re not completely satisfied, just cancel the subscription within the first 31 days and you pay nothing. We can’t be any fairer than that…

Just click here for more information!

 George Levrier-Jones

San Francisco’s Infamous Prison – Image of the week

Our image of the week is from a very (in)famous prison.

Alcatraz, or The Rock, is located in San Francisco Bay. It has a long and intriguing history stretching back to the nineteenth century and earlier, but is most famous for the prison perched on its top

The above image is a classic image of Alcatraz from 1900, a military site at the time (source: UC Berkeley: Bancroft Library). The site was a military installation for many years, and included a military prison, although it became a federal prison in the 1930s, and would remain a prison until the 1960s.

Our second image below is a more modern image from 2006, and shows the intriguing island bathed in sunlight. And just looking at that photograph, it is no wonder that it was hard to escape from it.

Source: Christian Mehlfuhrer.

Now, have you heard about our “brilliant” magazine? It has a range of fascinating articles about modern history! And what’s more, it is free for one month… Take a look by clicking on one of the links below!

Click here for more details: Android | Apple iOS

The President who needs a Spin Doctor? In Defense of Ulysses S. Grant

Ulysses S. Grant is an often maligned president; however, a closer examination of his presidency reveals that he did a lot of good, especially around policies related to Native Americans and African Americans. Here, Rebecca Fachner argues why his presidency needs to be reexamined.

Ulysses S. Grant needs rehab. Actually, he doesn’t need anything, he’s dead; but his reputation and legacy deserve a reexamination. There is a lot to admire and like about Grant, but for some reason he has been consigned to some obscure corner of American history, not forgotten, but not properly remembered either. During his lifetime, he was almost as popular as Lincoln, but has fallen into ignominy and near obscurity since his death. Everyone agrees that he was a great general, of that there can be no doubt, but somewhere between taking the Oath of Office as President and his death, he meandered into a historical gray zone from which he has yet to emerge. 

The Peacemakers, c. 1868. William Sherman, Ulysses S Grant, Abraham Lincoln, and David Porter on the River Queen in March 1865.

Grant was a true American success story, rising from obscurity and failure to become commander of the largest army on the continent and later President of the United States. Grant attended West Point and served in the Mexican War, but did not make it as a peacetime soldier. Grant was working as a clerk in a tanner’s shop in Galena, Illinois when the Civil War began, having also failed in private life. The stories of Grant’s military successes in the Civil War are well known, and they propelled him to a successful bid for the White House in 1868, just three years after the end of the war.

He was not a perfect man, and certainly not a perfect president, but he was actually much better than history gives him credit for being. He was quite popular while he was in office, partly because of his moderate positions on the two most important issues of the day. Those two issues were Native American policy and African American policy, and are probably more responsible than anything else for Grant’s subsequent fall from historical favor.

A BELIEVER IN EQUALITY

Grant was President during the Reconstruction period after the Civil War, and was a staunch advocate of citizenship and equality for African Americans while in the White House. He was instrumental in the passage of the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which gave all men the right to vote regardless of their race.  Grant also helped to pass a series of laws that were known as the Enforcement Acts, designed to help protect African Americans and their right to vote. He even sent federal troops to restore order when white Southerners began to use violence to prevent former slaves from voting. In the end, Grant’s policies of Reconstruction were hampered not because he lacked the will, but because the voters did.  As time passed and the South was reintegrated into the Union, support for Reconstruction gradually diminished. With the onset of an economic panic in 1873, voters just lost interest in Reconstruction. 

He presided over what author and historian James Loewen has called the “Springtime of Race Relations,” a brief period of reconciliation and equality that followed the Civil War. As Reconstruction sputtered to an end, white Southerners took the opportunity to quell this nascent bloom in race relations, and gradually reinstituted a policy of segregation and discrimination. By the mid 1890s, the US had entered into what is known as the nadir of race relations, a period that saw a new low point in relations between blacks and whites. As this nadir went deeper, it began to reshape American history. Suddenly, Grant’s pursuit of equality for African Americans became a liability to his legacy, rather than an attribute. His accomplishments began to be discredited, and the sense that Grant had been a failed President comes from this period of American history, not Grant’s own.

Regarding Grant’s Native American policy, he was moderate and even compassionate in his dealings with Native Americans. He pursued what was called the Peace Policy, hoping to bring Native Americans closer to the United States, to eventually integrate them and make them into citizens. He advocated decent treatment for all Native peoples, addressed corruption in federal Native American affairs, and appointed a Seneca Indian to be the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, Ely Parker, the first major non-white political appointment. Grant sought to house Native American tribes on reservations and wanted to help them become farmers. From a modern perspective Grant’s Native American policy leaves much to be desired; however during his time this represented a tolerant and liberal view.

In the end, Grant’s Native American policy was perhaps more well meaning than well executed, but there is an important caveat to this. In the summer of 1876, as Grant’s second term was drawing to a close, the Battle of Little Bighorn occurred in what is now Montana. The battle is better known now as Custer’s Last Stand, where Lakota and Cheyenne warriors wiped out George Armstrong Custer and his Seventh Cavalry. News of the defeat stunned the nation, and war hawks were eager to use the opportunity to paint all Native Americans as dangerous and bloodthirsty. Calls for revenge rang out all over the country and Grant’s conciliatory policy toward Native Americans suddenly looked like weakness. His peace policy was quickly abandoned in favor of a continuation of the harsh repression and removal that had been going on for decades.

GRANT IN PERSPECTIVE

It is true that Ulysses S Grant was no politician; he disdained the political process and wanted the Presidency to be above party divisions. He did not understand, nor did he wish to learn about the business of politics, and his administration suffered for this. Although his motives were good, his actions as President were uncertain and underwhelming. As natural a leader as he was in battle, somehow this just did not translate to the political realm.

Grant’s administration is often accused of having been one of the most corrupt in American history. While it is true that his second term was plagued with scandal and several of his cabinet members were accused of corruption, there was no implication, then or now, that Grant was involved. Corruption charges were never levied against him, he was never a target for investigation, and his honesty was never impugned. The charge that can be laid at Grant’s door was that he proved to be a very bad judge of character, and remained doggedly loyal to the men he appointed to cabinet positions, even after it was clear that they were corrupt. 

His reputation suffered as a result of the scandals in his cabinet, and in 1875 he announced that he was not going to seek a third term as president. In 1880, however, the Republicans strongly considered nominating Grant to a third term at their convention that year, so he couldn’t have been too unpopular. Ultimately, the Republicans decided to go with James Garfield, and Grant died of throat cancer in 1885. 

Ulysses S. Grant is interred in New York City, and the story of his tomb provides an interesting parallel with his legacy. He was given the largest tomb in North America and a million and a half citizens turned out to watch his funeral procession. In the twentieth century, however, the tomb was largely forgotten, falling into disrepair, covered in graffiti and trash. It wasn’t until the early 1990s that a campaign was started to force the National Park Service to improve the conditions of the site and restore the tomb and surrounding area. Grant’s Presidential legacy underwent a similar downward spiral, but has yet to experience a true reexamination.

This article was provided by Rebecca Fachner. You can read Rebecca’s last article on the mystery of King Henry VIII’s ‘seventh’ wife by clicking here.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

Bibliography

Loewen, James. Sundown Towns; A Hidden Dimension of American Racism. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2005.

“American President; Essays on Ulysses S. Grant and His Administration,” Miller Center, accessed April 20, 2014, http://www.millercenter.org

Was Guy Fawkes’ Gunpowder Plot actually a secret, Protestant-led conspiracy?

In this series on the English Civil War, Myra King follows up on her articles about the Divine Right of Kings, and Henry VIII and bloody religious change, by telling us about the Gunpowder Plot. Was it really carried out by Guy Fawkes or was there a conspiracy led by somebody who thought that King James I was too tolerant towards Catholics?

“Remember, remember the fifth of November, the gunfire treason and plot. I see no reason why the gunfire treason should ever be forgot,”

I do.

On November 5, 1605, Guy Fawkes and his twelve co-conspirators put the final nail in the Catholic coffin. Their idea had been to use thirty-six barrels of gunpowder to blow the British Parliament sky high. Their plan was to kill the king, kidnap his nine-year-old daughter, force her into Catholicism, and crown her their dummy queen. The king, James I, had caused great disappointment in the tiny Catholic community by refusing to reinstate the old denomination. Under James I’s predecessor, Elizabeth I, Catholics had lived safely enough but had been fined for practicing their illegal religion. James had abolished these fines, creating a more tolerant kingdom. But juggling all the different strands of Christianity eventually became too much for the king and he abandoned his tolerant attitude. Catholics, as well as Puritans, were to be fined for practicing anything but Protestantism. They were now also banned from obtaining degrees, holding certain jobs, and sitting in parliament. Sure, they were the minority, and if they really wanted, Catholics could practice in secret, but there would always be troublemakers. Thirteen to be exact.

A depiction of plotter Guy Fawkes from "Guy Fawkes - The Fifth of November a Prelude in One Act." The play was performed in 1793 at the Theatre Royal, Haymarket, London.

A CONSPIRACY BEHIND THE GUNDPOWER PLOT?

According to legend, the plotters rented a house next to parliament and carried thirty-six barrels of gunpowder down to the cellar where the explosives expert, Guy Fawkes, was waiting to light the fuse and send the building to that great fireworks display on the other side. But as luck would have it, the cellar was searched the night before and our pyrotechnist was found. He was tortured and confessed the whole plot. He and his cohorts were then executed.

That is the famous version of the story. Many modern historians believe it to be far more sinister than that though.

Firstly, let us go back to James’s predecessor, Elizabeth. The Tudor lady wasn’t necessarily queenly material. In fact she had a foul temper and very bad manners. But something she did have was the knowledge to put others in charge of areas she knew nothing about. One such man was Robert Cecil, her chief advisor. Cecil was a brilliant politician (but not in the utterly-useless-but-hides-it-well way); he knew how to run a kingdom like a well-oiled machine. England was the envy of Europe under his (er, Elizabeth’s) reign.

Cecil had the grave misfortune of outliving Elizabeth though, and this meant that he had to mold himself to the new king. Unlike Lizzie, James had always been heir to a throne, therefore always groomed for a life of leadership. As an already ruling king of Scotland, James arrived with no need for advisers either. Cecil had to retreat to the shadows, but James’s tolerant attitude to Catholics was more than Cecil could bear. Unlike the new king, Cecil knew of the violent religious history of England and he knew that it was just a matter of time before all hell broke loose in the kingdom. Religious freedom could not be allowed, as the extremists would always take it too far. And Guy Fawkes proved Cecil’s fear.

Supposedly.

The information surrounding the gunpowder plot does not add up however. How would known Catholics have been able to rent a house right next to parliament? That was illegal. How would they have even gotten the barrels of gunpowder into parliament? Surely they couldn't have just walked in. CCTV didn't exist yet but the idea of having no security at parliament is absolutely ridiculous. Not to mention, from where did they get this gunpowder? The only people to sell gunpowder would have been the government. Why would the government have sold thirty-six barrels of gunpowder to known Catholics? Unless the government - most notably William Cecil - wanted these Catholics to have gunpowder. It was no secret that King James was terrified for his safety. As the only heir of Mary, Queen of Scots, he had seen his fair share of death threats and even a kidnapping. So what would happen if somebody decided to use that fear against him? Could Cecil have orchestrated the entire plot in order to demonstrate how dangerous and untrustworthy Catholics were? Could he have hired the thirteen men, given them the idea of the plot and the gunpowder, and then simply waited for the end result? Cecil was no longer in charge, so if he wanted something done, he would have to find another way to do it. It is at least very suspicious that Cecil constantly talked about the danger of Catholicism, ‘miraculously’ the king was almost killed by Catholics, and suddenly Cecil’s word was law... Could he have staged it all?

THE PLOT THICKENS

The most damning of all the evidence is, I think, the ‘Monteagle Letter.’ One of the plotters, Francis Tresham, was a cousin with a man named Lord Monteagle. On October 26 a mysterious stranger came through the night bringing a letter to the Lord’s home. A letter with a very dark message. It was a warning to Monteagle that under no circumstances was he to go to Parliament on November 5. It simply, and without embarrassment, stated that parliament would receive a blow and all present would be killed. This letter was personally addressed to Monteagle but instead of reading it in private as protocol dictated, he had his servant read it out loud. Why was this done? And how, oh how, did Monteagle just magically have a letter delivered by a servant who could actually read? That alone is a bit of magic as this was a time when only the wealthy could read. Was the “servant” put in place to read aloud so that Monteagle had a witness? Does this mean Monteagle knew what the letter contained? Well, it is rather interesting when you take Monteagle’s next action on board... The Lord then took the letter straight to (surprise, surprise) William Cecil. Why him? Cecil then ordered a search of parliament and, low and behold, Guy Fawkes was found.

Tresham appears with more conspiracy later in the plot. Technically it is his fault the co-conspirators were caught. But while Guy Fawkes and the rest of the plotters were tortured to reveal information and then hanged, drawn and quartered, Tresham was simply locked in the Tower of London. Why? He was also locked in the cell by himself and was later found dead. Official records state he was poisoned. Who had poisoned him and why? Tresham obviously had vital information that spared him the wrack and the noose, but ultimately cost him his life. Was that information the damning truth of the so-called gunpowder plot?

Whether you believe the gunpowder plot was an inside job or you believe it truly was just another act of religious hatred, the fact still remains that this plot showed the scary depth of religious hatred and lack of love for the monarch. The gunpowder plot was just one more step closer to a war against the king and all who stood for him.

We continue our story of the English Civil War and problems with King Charles I here.

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

Charles Dickens, Poverty in Britain and Racism

In this article, Jennifer Johnstone continues her look at Charles Dickens and poverty in Victorian Britain. She considers his impact on social change, and then thinks about something that you may not know – his perhaps racist views.

In part one of this two-part look at Charles Dickens and poverty, we considered how Dickens may have viewed social inequality and poverty in modern Britain. We reflected on how he might have viewed the Welfare State, and looked at some of his works, including Oliver Twist. In this concluding part of ‘Dickens and Poverty’ we will explore Dickens further. I want to examine whether or not he was a true social critic of inequality at heart, by reflecting on what Dickens’ impact was on Victorian Britain. Was he the social reformer that we often think of him? Then we will look at a less favorable aspect of Dickens, a Dickens that we don’t often see when he is critiqued. But before that, I begin by looking at his work Little Dorrit. 

A caricature of Charles Dickens. L'Eclipse, June 14, 1868.

Little Dorrit

Little Dorrit is a story about debt and imprisonment; it is also a condemnation towards the government and society. Dickens portrays his characters in Little Dorrit as people being down on their luck, while the characters analyze themselves in relation to poverty. By analyze, I mean that they feel shame or guilt for being in poverty. As such, Dickens touches on a theme that is in Oliver Twist - poverty breeds crime. Little Dorrit is about different social classes, and how these classes are seen within society. Indeed, a major theme of Little Dorit is social stratification, and instead of valuing a person for who they are, and what impact they have on others, Victorian society is portrayed as a shallow society, obsessed with material goods.

Dickens’ highlighting of this shallowness, and the focus on unimportant material objects, is a valuable contribution by the writer because it highlights that people often value material possessions more than they value people. But, what impact did Dickens have in the real world, outside his writings?

Dickens’ limited impact?

Although Dickens was a vocal critic of parts of Victorian society, the influence Dickens had in changing Victorian attitudes towards poverty is debatable. Some argue that Dickens did not reform Victorian Britain very much, that he did not influence social change. Perhaps there is something to be said for this. After all, true social reform and the Welfare State were not introduced in Britain until much later, after Dickens death. If you were poor in Victorian Britain, then the government did not look after you; instead, you had to rely on charities, or you became destitute. It was only in the year of Dickens’ death, 1870, that we were beginning to see the early stages of a welfare state. But, it can be suggested that it is mere coincidence that the reforming Education Act (1870) coincided with Dickens’ death, and had nothing to do with Dickens’ vocal condemnation on deprivation and poverty. Rather than the Education Act being about Dickens, it was more about the politics of the time, military politics to be precise. This argument is given further credence when we consider that little else was reformed socially in Britain until the early 20th century.

There are two important reasons that can be suggested for why Dickens’ work did not have much of an influence in Victorian society. The first is illiteracy levels. With such high levels of poverty, and a lack of education for the poor, Dickens’ audience was not the poor, but the rich. That leads to the second reason why he did not create the social reform he sought; many of the rich did not want to share their wealth with the poor, something that is suggested through laws such as the ‘The Poor Law.’ So, we can perhaps say that part of the reason that social reform arose much later than 1870 was that in later years the poor became better educated, and could read Dickens’ work.

Dickens and Poverty

Charles Dickens had sympathy towards the poor because he was one of them. He was a man who worked in the factories he portrayed in his novels, and who despised those same factories. He was born into poverty, but he was treated unfairly and harshly just for being poor. Therefore, he knew what it was like to be in the position of the poor; whereas most of the unsympathetic and immoral upper classes, had no such reality check. But, the upper class being out of touch with the poor, was as much a problem in Victorian Britain as it is today. And, I think that Dickens would have condemned this today too.

Researching Dickens has led me to conclude that he was ahead of his time. Instead of seeing human beings, the upper class Victorians vilified the poor. Essentially, they made their life a living hell. But this was not only a period of suppressing the poor British people, but a period of colonization, and the suppression of other people, in other nations.

Dickens and Native Americans

Analyzing his views about other cultures, we see a different side, a darker side, to Dickens. For example, Dickens essentially expressed racist views about Native American people. Indeed, in The Noble Savage, he expressed a hatred of their existence. We can even go as far to say that Dickens did not oppose the genocide of Native Americans; for example, he writes that they could be ‘civilized out of existence.’ One could argue, that by Dickens using the word ‘civilized’, he means to humanely remove Native Americans. It is clear that he is explicitly stating that they should be wiped out, however much flowery connotation there is to his language. As you can’t really remove a culture out of existence, without using force, or even brutality. In effect, Dickens seems intolerant of the Native American’s way of life. The Noble Savage projects a dark side of Dickensian ideology, and that is one of contempt for other ways of life, contempt for another race. What it shows is something that is not often discussed when we look at the history of Dickens; his racist attitudes.

It is important to look at how Dickens viewed other races and cultures. This is because, if we can see that Dickens was as opposed to the oppression of other cultures and races as he was to his own, then it would show that he is all an all round good character, condemning suppression, whether in relation to poverty our not. Dickens did a very good job at highlighting the poverty in his own country, but Dickens failed in applying his message universally - that you should stand up for the underdog, and the suppressed, whoever they maybe.

In sum

In conclusion, it seems to me that Dickens was a very interesting character, much like the characters he created. Not only that, but an odd man too. Odd in the sense that for someone who chastised the rich of his own country for treating the poor like dirt, he was a supporter of oppressing other groups. So, many of the attitudes that Dickens held in contempt, and was vocally opposed to, were the very attitudes which he expressed to other peoples. In short, Dickens was not a very consistent character; he was as complex as the characters he portrayed.

Dickens, though, stood up for the impoverished in a way that nobody else of his time did. But, there is more that Dickens could have, should have, expressed in his works; the suppression of other people, in other countries.

If any words could be expressed to Dickens about himself, suppression, and poverty, they would be ‘’Please sir, I want some more....’

In the meantime you can read more about crime in 19th century Britain here.

Now, if you enjoyed the article, please like it, tweet about it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html

http://classiclit.about.com/od/dickenscharles2/a/aa_cdickensquot.htm

http://exec.typepad.com/greatexpectations/dickens-attitude-to-the-law.html

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/diniejko.html

http://orwell.ru/library/reviews/dickens/english/e_chd

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16907648

http://www.dickens.port.ac.uk/poverty/

http://www.victorianweb.org/authors/dickens/bleakhouse/carter.html

http://charlesdickenspage.com/twist.html

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/2012/jan/12/welfare-reform-charles-dickens

Little Dorrit: http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/dickens/LittleDorrit6x9.pdf

Olive Twist: http://www.planetebook.com/ebooks/Oliver-Twist.pdf

A Christmas Carol: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Dickens/Carol/Dickens_Carol.pdf

The Noble Savage: http://www.readbookonline.net/readOnLine/2529

The British in India and Native Soldiers – Image of the week

Our image of the week shows an impact of British colonial rule in India, the use of Indian soldiers as British forces.

The British ran India – or at least parts of it – for hundreds of years. This led to a number of, shall we say, interesting outcomes. From bizarre social customs to ‘White Mughals’, there were a number of fascinating results.

Another of these interesting outcomes is shown below in our image of the week.

The image shows us a group of redcoats, British soldiers, but with a twist. Rather than coming from Britain, these soldiers were Indian. Known as sepoys these troops were very important to British rule in India. Indeed, without them it would have been nearly impossible to run a country the size - and with the population - of India.

In the painting we can see troops in a variety of different-colored clothing, turbans, flags in their hands, and a variety of facial hair! Behind them are troops high-up on camels. A fascinating scene.

You can find more about the British in India in the new issue of History Is Now Magazine. The magazine is free now for one month or more on both Android and the iOS store.

Click here for more details: Android | Apple iOS

Image source

http://history1800s.about.com

The tale of the last American World War I Battle – That took place for a bath

In this sadly fascinating article, Robert Walsh considers an American battle that took place on the last day of World War I – and the absurd and terrible reason behind it.

You’re a General, a Divisional commander no less. You have 10,000-12,000 soldiers under your personal command. You know the war is hours away from ending, that a peace deal has been agreed. It’s just a matter of ordering your men to hold their positions, keep their heads down and wait until the war officially ends. So you would, wouldn’t you? After all, there’s no sense in ordering your division to attack and cause heavy casualties, on both sides, when if you wait a few more hours they can march through former enemy territory without a shot fired.

This is exactly what US Army General William Wright, commanding the 89th infantry Division, DIDN’T do.

General William Wright, who ordered his 89th Infantry Division to take Stenay so they could take a bath.

Even more bizarre than committing his division regardless of there being no military need was his stated reason for ordering his men to take the French town of Stenay. Stenay was the last French town captured by American troops. It was (and still is) just a pleasant-looking town of no real military value and didn’t have much worth fighting over. It did have public bathing facilities, though, and it was so his men could have a wash and shave that Wright sent them to take the town.

Yes, with only hours left in the war, Wright sent an entire division risking their lives so the ones who didn’t die taking Stenay could have a bath there. Orders being orders, they didn’t get to choose whether or not to risk dying so they could have a soak in the tub. They were simply handed their orders and sent into battle even after they’d been told the Armistice was only hours away. Pershing knew about the Armistice. Wright knew about the Armistice. Everybody down to the newest Private in the Division knew about the Armistice, but they were sent anyway. Assuming the attack wasn’t repulsed, assuming the Americans captured Stenay without being wiped out, assuming that the public baths hadn’t been destroyed and that they actually had enough water to cater for a division of tired, cold, wet, filthy soldiers who’d been in the line for nearly two weeks, any American who wasn’t killed capturing the baths could get to sit in one. The 89th Infantry Division would have the distinction of taking the last objective to fall to American troops during the First World War. Their commander would have the distinction of ordering one of the most pointless attacks in military history.

THE BATTLE FOR A BATH

Despite the fact that the war was within hours of ending, Stenay wasn’t what you’d call a soft target. Although the German Army was a shadow of its previous size and effectiveness the troops holding Stenay had artillery, machine guns, large numbers of infantry and the infantryman’s most feared and hated adversary, snipers, who were operating in numbers around Stenay. Plus, Stenay was on a hill overlooking the Meuse River. American troops would have to cross the Meuse in single file, on improvised walkways, under heavy artillery, rifle, machine gun and sniper fire because the bridges had all been blown before they arrived. Stenay wasn’t in the league of the Hindenburg Line, but it certainly wasn’t a walk in the park either.

So, regardless of it being totally unnecessary, likely to cause heavy casualties on both sides and the actual objective being entirely absurd, the 89th went forward and captured Stenay. From starting their advance towards Stenay at around 8am on November 11, 1918 until the official start of the Armistice at 11am, the 89th Infantry Division suffered 365 casualties. 61 men killed, 304 wounded, just because the Divisional commander thought those who survived might want to have a bath and a shave. It’s perhaps no coincidence that, while the attack on Stenay was the last action fought by the 89th, it was also the last day in command for General Wright. On November 12, Major General Frank Winn (one of the 89th’s previous commanders) arrived at Divisional HQ and immediately replaced Wright as the 89th’s commander.

When Wright’s decision to attack and his reason became public knowledge there was an outcry back home. Americans, not least the friends and relatives of the soldiers killed attacking Stenay, demanded to know exactly why Wright had made so dreadful a decision. Despite a public inquiry into events of November 11 and the pointless attacks ordered by Wright and some other American commanders, Wright himself was never disciplined. Following the war, General Wright became the Executive Assistant to the Chief of Staff of the United States Army and acting Army Chief of Staff, and then commanded IX Corps. Before his retirement in 1923 he commanded the Department of the Philippines. In retirement he resided in Washington, D.C. It isn’t just that he wasn’t disciplined over Stenay, he was rewarded with plum Washington postings.

With Remembrance in mind, it would be unfair and ignorant not to acknowledge the full scope of Wright’s culpability. The 365 Americans killed or wounded were attacking on Wright’s orders. Wright’s stated objective had no military value, the Americans could simply have waited a few hours and then walked into Stenay without so much as a shot fired. And let’s not forget the German casualties. The Germans also suffered significant casualties during the fighting around Stenay. Those Germans died within hours of the Armistice, and they died in a totally unnecessary battle that only General William Wright seemed to think was a good idea.

This article was provided by Robert Walsh from robertwalshwriter.wordpress.com, an enjoyable and diverse site.

If you want to tell others about the article, please like it, tweet about it, or share it! Click one of the buttons below.