The 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Pandemic and the Boy Scout Movement

The 1918 flu pandemic, or ‘Spanish Flu’, lasted from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919. With many Americans in Europe to fight in World War One in 1918, sometimes other groups stepped in to help. Here, Joseph Connole tells us how the Boy Scouts of America provided much needed assistance during the pandemic.

Boy Scouts helping to distribute food and medicine to houses during the 1918 influenza epidemic.

The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was the worst public health crisis of the 20th century; however, some public officials were reluctant to acknowledge the extent of the pandemic because of the First World War. As a result, the virus spread through communities across the world and the US, killing an estimated 650,000 Americans in just less than two years. Local authorities responded differently to the outbreak, in some cities the authorities shut down businesses, schools, and churches. In others, little was done.[i] The outbreak of the flu in 1918 was different though; it killed those who were in the prime of their lives. To complicate matters, the U.S. was fighting a war. As the U.S. war effort started, the government instituted a draft taking millions of men away from homes to fight in Europe. Yet, across the country, young men in the Boy Scouts of America sprang into action to help those suffering from the influenza.  At the start of the First World War, there were 150,000 men in uniform. At the same time, in 1918, there were over 400,000 Scouts and Volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America.[ii]  The Boy Scouts of America were the largest uniformed body in the country. Scouts helped the nation’s war effort by holding parades, selling war bonds, and establishing victory gardens. During the Spanish Influenza, they helped by handing out health guides, serving as informants for local health officials, serving food, and working with local hospitals to provide help. 

How the Scouts helped

In cities across the country, local Boy Scouts came to the aide of local health officials, hospitals, and the Red Cross. They distributed literature, ran kitchens, and helped in a variety of other ways.  Between October 1918 and July 1919, the Boy Scout official magazine for volunteers, Scouting Magazine, recorded how Scouts from across the country answered the call for assistance as the nation was paralyzed by the flu.[iii]

The image of Scouts during the second decade of the twentieth century is one of young men marching in parades, selling liberty bonds, and planting gardens. But during the Spanish Influenza outbreak, Scouts heard the call of local officials in need of help and selflessly came to their assistance. In the October 24, 1918 edition of Scouting Magazine, the Boy Scouts took out several pages to address the Spanish Influenza outbreak in the United States. They declared, “Scouts and Scout officials are not only, definitely concerned, but have a distinct opportunity for service by reason of the nation-wide Spanish Influenza epidemic.”  This call for action would be heard by Scouts across the nation. Scouts would go on to serve as junior health officers and in at least one instance, a Scout served as an intern in a hospital. The movement warned Scouts to be on their guard due to the highly contagious flu and implored Scouts to receive permission from local health officers before undertaking any risk to themselves or their families.[iv] The same issue of the magazine went on to discuss the best ways to prevent infection. 

In Shoshone, Idaho Scouts distributed some 7,500 pieces of literature to residents and met trains as people came off and distributed masks,[v] while in Topeka, Kansas, Scouts were sworn in as junior health officers. Scouts took the following oath before taking on their official duties:

In assuming the duties in the Topeka health service, I agree to hold myself responsible for the distribution of all notices and literature in my district requested by the commissioner of health. 

I further agree to gather any information that may be desired and to report on the health and sanitary situation in any district when asked to do so. 

I agree to assist the Topeka health department in every way I can, with the understanding that I will not be called upon to perform any duty that will interfere with my school or endanger my health.[vi]

In a time well before the Internet, one of the most effective ways for local health officials to get out notices to people was through the Scouts in their communities. But in some special circumstances, Scouts were also called upon to do more. In St. Paul, Minnesota, Scouts were tasked to report on violations of local health orders which would then be investigated by a health officer.[vii]

Doing their duty

In other instances Scouts took on even more advanced roles than were found in Topeka and St. Paul. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Morgan, New Jersey, Scouts provided help by guiding and manning ambulances, escorting nurses or acting as orderlies, and serving as messengers or telephone operators. The Elizabeth Daily Journal praised the work of Scouts saying, “The work of the Boy Scouts received the warm praise of all the older workers, who found their assistance almost invaluable.”  It went on to report, “They carried cots, ran errands, acted as escorts to the refugees, served the food, stood guard over families, cared for the babies and acted in almost every capacity.”[viii] In every instance where Scouts assisted local health officials or hospitals, their work was praised according to Scouting Magazine. 

The most impressive effort made by Scouts came in Morristown, New Jersey. In one instance, a Boy Scout acted as an intern for the hospital and “he did all of the work which is usually performed by a grown man” for two weeks. Another Scout drove a supply truck three times a week for the Red Cross between Hoboken and a convalescent hospital for soldiers in Mendham. And yet another worked for a week inside a children’s home where nearly sixty of the children were sick. That Scout carried water up four flights of stairs, prepared and served meals, and did various other tasks required of him.[ix]

The Scouts who performed these duties showed unparalleled courage. In each instance of the Scouts helping in their respective communities, they were well received by the local officials and hospitals that they served. Their contributions helped save an unknown number of lives and they did it without desire for public recognition.

What impact do you think the Boy Scouts had on the Influenza Pandemic? Let us know below.

[i] https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities

[ii] Boy Scouts of America. Annual report of the Boy Scouts of America: Letter from the chief scout executive transmitting the annual report of the Boy Scouts of America ... as required by federal charter. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off. 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000054452598&view=1up&seq=8  Accessed 5/1/2020. P. 18

[iii] All citations of Scouting stories during the Spanish Influenza pandemic come from Scouting Magazine in the Porta to Texas History unless otherwise noted, individual issue citations are given. Scouting Magazine in The Portal to Texas History. University of North Texas Libraries. https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/SCOUT/ accessed March 18, 2020.

[iv] Boy Scouts of America. Scouting, Volume 6, Number 24, October 24, 1918, periodical, October 24, 1918; New York, New York. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth282984/: accessed March 18, 2020), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Boy Scouts of America National Scouting Museum. p. 5

[v] Ibid., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 5

[vi] Ibid., Volume 7, Number 11, March 13, 1919. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283026/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 8

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Quoted in, ibid. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283061/: accessed March 18. 2020, p. 70

[ix] Ibid., ., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p.7

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 2: How Henry’s Efforts to Overturn the Marriage in the Courts Failed

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  In part 2 of the series, Victor Gamma considers how Henry tried to overturn the marriage through the English courts and then via the support of universities across Europe.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here.

King Henry VIII of England. Portrait by Hans Holbein.

Back to Henry VIII’s arguments for the divorce…

Henry’s second argument related to the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II. A dispensation is an exemption from the usual rules. The King argued that the dispensation for the marriage was null because no pope could not set aside the law of God as found in Leviticus. According to canon law, closely related couples were forbidden to marry. In other words the degree of affinity, or kinship, would present an impediment to the marriage. In Henry’s situation, he and Catherine were technically related since Catherine had been married to his brother. Also, Henry argued that the pope’s dispensation was invalid because it was based on the belief (which Henry repudiated) that Catherine’s marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. In Medieval thinking, it wasn’t a real marriage if it had never been consummated. 

Henry Goes to Court

So how did Henry VIII’s case hold up? In 1527, the King was summoned to Cardinal Wolsey's palace in Westminster. The issue of Henry's relations with his brother's widow was to be the subject of an official pronouncement. Several experts in canon law were consulted. Much to the king’s chagrin, they overwhelmingly held that Henry’s marriage to his brother’s widow did not violate God’s law and therefore, Pope Julius' dispensation had been valid as well. After a thorough study of both scripture and the Church Fathers, ecclesiastical leaders such as Bishop John Fisher declared that no prohibition against such a marriage existed. Henry’s attempts to get Pope Julius’ original dispensation for his marriage to Catherine declared invalid did not fare any better. The current pope, Clement VII, would not agree to this. First, to declare an earlier pope’s dispensation mistaken would undermine respect for the office of the papacy. Moreover, he was at the time threatened by Emperor Charles V, Catherine’s uncle. Not wishing to offend Charles, Clement could do no more than grant Henry’s wish for a commission to investigate the case. Wolsey made one last effort to argue that Julius II’s dispensation contained technical defects. This, too, failed.  

In the spring of 1529 at a Legatine court at Blackfriars, London, the public inquiry into the validity of the marriage took place. It was to be an inquisitorial procedure, attempting to discover the truth of the matter through questioning and investigation. The purpose of the court was to determine whether the marriage of Henry VIII to Catherine was valid according to Divine Law. Cardinal Campeggio, the pope’s legate, and Cardinal Wolsey, heard the case. It did not go well for Henry. Early in the proceedings he asserted that all the bishops shared his doubts about the marriage and had signed a petition to investigate the matter. At this point the indomitable Bishop John Fisher violently protested that he had not signed any such petition and that his name had been forged.  As to Fisher’s credibility, one contemporary wrote of him: "He was in holiness, learning and diligence in his cure (care of souls) and in fulfilling his office of bishop such that of many hundred years England had not any bishop worthy to be compared with him.” The bishop himself commented on the effort he put into the divorce issue: "The matter was so serious both on account of the importance of the persons it concerned, and the express command of the king, that I gave more labour and diligence to seeking out the truth lest I should fail him and others, than I ever gave to any other matter."

Henry brushed Fisher’s protest aside only to face another unexpected resistance. His wife Catherine, upsetting the procedures of the court, knelt before the king and eloquently pleaded her case. After finishing her speech she then left the court, never to return. In her absence testimony was heard regarding the issue of whether consummation between Catherine and Arthur had taken place. Much of it was flimsy. The Earl of Shrewsbury, for example, assumed that prince Arthur had consummated his marriage because he himself had done so at the age of fifteen. Another witness based his opinion on Arthur’s “sanguine complexion” after his wedding night. Others testified of comments Arthur made which implied the couple had marital relations. One had to ask why this ‘evidence’ was not brought up during the time Pope Julius was examining the case in order to grant a dispensation. Great caution must be exercised for this ‘evidence’ which mysteriously appeared only when the King needed it. The hard fact was, whether or not the queen was a virgin when she married Henry was impossible to prove. 

The court dragged on until Cardinal Campeggio, the papal legate, adjourned the court for the summer recess in July of that year. The court never re-convened nor did it ever issue any ruling. While the court was still in session, pope Clement rejected Henry’s annulment petition.

Henry Changes Tactics

Still lacking a resolution in his favor, Henry next appealed to the Universities of Europe. Henry prided himself on his scholarly abilities and felt confident in a positive result. Did the universities’ response help prove or disprove his case? Their findings generally reflected the wishes of the rulers they served. In France, for instance, they found in favor of Henry because it served the political purposes of King Francis I. Likewise, Oxford and Cambridge lent their support to their own King Henry. Enormous sums of money were spent to bribe scholars to find in favor of divorce, making many of the verdicts questionable. The Spanish scholars weighed in against divorce and in Italy opinion was divided. In short, the stalemate continued. In the war of pamphlets that accompanied this debate, John Fisher emerged as the chief opponent of the king’s argument. He so thoroughly shredded the arguments of the king’s supporters that Henry’s followers began to focus on another line of attack on another front - the original dispensation of Julius II Ad Librum Secundum issued in 1503.

How did Henry fare on this front? First of all, pains were taken to avoid the mistake of bestowing the sacrament of marriage on a couple that had an impediment. In the late Middle Ages, such dispensations were common, particularly amongst royal families wishing to preserve the bloodline. And in such a case as Henry and Catherine the impediment of affinity was not normally held to be a violation of divine law. Moreover, the king would by implication, be condemning dozens of papal dispensations granted during the previous two centuries. Despite this, Henry argued that "The marriage [to Catharine] is against human and divine law. If the papal dispensation is put forward as an argument, it may be answered that the pope's authority does not extend to degrees prohibited by divine law.” In other words, the pope had exceeded his power. But Bishop Fisher effectively destroyed that argument in a letter to Cardinal Wolsey:

"(I) Cannot see any sound reason to show that it is prohibited by divine law for a brother to marry the wife of a brother who has died without children; and considering the fullness of authority given by our Lord to the pope, who can deny that the latter may give dispensation to that effect, for any serious cause?. . . As the pope, therefore, has more than once by his act declared that it is lawful to dispense in this case...this alone should determine the question....that the dispensation is within the pope's power."

Additionally, Fisher brought up the bull of Innocent III, Deus qui Ecclesiam, in which Innocent had allowed converted Latvians to remain in marriages with their brothers' widows, providing the brothers had died childless. That effectively buried Henry’s case against Pope Julius II’s dispensation. 

Now you can read part 3 on Catherine’a case for the divorce here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below. 

Sources

Campbell, Phillip.”The Canon Law of the Henry VIII Divorce Case,” Senior Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Social Studies Department of Madonna University, Livonia, MI. Presented June 14th, 200.9

Fraser, Antonia, The Wives of Henry VIII. New York:Vintage Books,1994.

Guy, John, Tudor England. Oxford University Press, 1988. 

Haig, Christopher, The English Reformation: Religion, Politics and Society Under the Tudors. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993 

Lehman, H. Eugene Lives of England's Reigning and Consort Queens. 

"June 21 - Catherine of Aragon steals the show" The Anne Boleyn Files and Tudor Society, June 20, 2019 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mV9DknPWlJA

McGovern, Thomas, “ Bishop John Fisher: Defender of the Faith and Pastor of Souls,” Catholic Culture.org, 1987.

Afro-Cubans in the USA During the Cold War

The Cold War and the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s led to permanently altered demographics in Miami, Florida and New York due to several influxes of Cuban immigrants in the years and decades after. Studies of this tend to focus on key players such as John F. Kennedy, political tensions between the USA and Cuba, and specific immigration issues, for example, the Elian Gonzalez scandal. 

Still, a question begs for attention: how did race and politics influence the lives of Cuban refugees in America during the Cold War? The answer is most obvious when we look to the experiences of Afro-Cuban refugees. Lietty Roig explains.

A boat with Cuban refugees arrives in Key West, Florida in 1980 as part of the Mariel Boatlift.

Afro-Cubans have not only been underrepresented and understudied in the literature of the Cold War, but they have mostly been included in the tales of how others experienced their arrival. Research shows a clear pattern that initially Afro-Cubans often settled away from Miami, Florida because the racism was so unbearable. During the first wave of migration in the 1960s only between 3 and 9% of individuals were Afro-Cubans. Under the assumption that those figures are accurate, their absence from the early scholarly literature makes sense. Still, a more practical explanation for migration further north than Miami rests on the practical reason that they would be very far away from the feared bombings and military activity of the era. During the later waves of migration, some Afro-Cubans did settle in Miami. However, these individuals struggled to fit in with white Cubans, who they shared a nationality with, and African Americans, who they shared African roots with. As a result, Afro-Cubans created their own space in the greater Miami area: Allapattah, the point between Little Haiti and Little Havana. 

What is interesting about the Afro-Cuban experience during the Cold War is that it was not universal. During the early waves of Cuban migration, Afro-Cubans enjoyed government aid, and a higher socio-economic status in New York City. In 1980, the last wave of Cuban mass migration took place through the famous boatlifts. This group of immigrants did not receive government aid, and society labeled them as criminals. So, that last wave of Afro-Cubans was met with the same discrimination as the early refugees, only this time they were stripped of their identity. By the late 1980s, Afro-Cubans were grouped with African Americans in Miami, and Puerto Ricans in New York. That triggered a crisis of identity for all the demographics involved. For one, African Americans and Afro-Cubans have African roots in common, but their histories are quite different. A similar divide can be established between Puerto Ricans and Afro-Cubans.

Yet, to think that race alone influenced their experience is naïve. Politics was a driving force in everything. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant about relocating many Cubans away from Miami to reduce the overflowing population. Still, that is the tip of the political iceberg.  Obviously, the United States lived in fear of communism, and so did the white Cuban refugees from the early waves. So, an “ideal” Cuban refugee was created in the United States: anti-communist, mostly republican, and white. However, Afro-Cubans struggled to fit in this mold not just because of race, but because many of them – at least initially - supported Castro. The fact of the matter is that the early wave of Cuban refugees was fleeing Castro’s ideologies, and one of those promises was racial equality. If you are at the top of the totem pole, you want to stay at the top; it is a natural reaction, whether we like it or not. Yet, those Afro-Cubans were lulled into favoring Castro because of that promise of racial equality - until they saw what reality under his rule was like. Then no one wanted to be there because there was only one person on top of the pyramid: Castro. 

While it would be easy to say that Afro-Cubans were excluded from the narrative because of racist writing, it would also be ignorant. Afro-Cuban refugees made up only a small portion of immigrants during the early years of the Cold War. During the later waves of migration, Afro-Cubans struggled with a self-identity crisis, and were not quite sure how they fit in their new surroundings. It would also be ignorant to say that discriminatory experiences started in the United States, because Afro-Cubans experienced their fair share of racism in Cuba.

What do you think about the experience of Afro-Cubans in the United States? Let us know below.

References

Benson, Devyn S. "From Miami to New York and Beyond: Race and Exile in the 1960s." In Antiracism in Cuba: The Unfinished Revolution, 122-52. University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Current, Cheris Brewer. "Normalizing Cuban Refugees: Representations of Whiteness and Anti-communism in the USA during the Cold War." Ethnicities 8, no. 1 (2008). 

Grosfoguel, Ramón, and Chloé S. Georas. "Latino Caribbean Diasporas in New York." In Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City, by Laó-Montes Agustín and Dávila Arlene, 97-118. Columbia University Press, 2001.

McHugh, Kevin E., Ines M. Miyares, and Emily H. Skop. "The Magnetism of Miami: Segmented Paths in Cuban Migration." Geographical Review 87, no. 4 (1997): 504-19.

Queen Elizabeth I of England: Was she Really the 'Virgin Queen'?

Queen Elizabeth I of England (1533-1603; reign as Queen 1558-1603) was a child of King Henry VIII and Anne Boleyn, and remains one of the most famous English monarchs.

Nicknamed Gloriana, and reigning for nearly fifty years, Queen Elizabeth is important in British history. However, why was this queen so adamantly against her supposed monarchical duties of providing an heir? And why was she so infamously portrayed as the ‘virgin queen’? Hannah Rooney looks at the rumors and explains why she really may have been a ‘virgin queen’.

Queen Elizabeth I Ddancing with Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Bisley boy

Elizabeth’s lack of an heir makes her an intriguing subject of discussion. Ranging on varying aspects of absurdity, one conspiracy was begun by the author of the novel Dracula, Bram Stoker. Allegedly, on visiting a small English town named Bisley, Stoker found out that on May Day, the traditional ‘May Queen’ would be dressed as a boy (rather than a white gown and crown), and upon research, Stoker uncovered the story of the ‘Bisley boy’.  This said that during bouts of the plague, a young Elizabeth was sent to the town for security and safety. However, she became deathly ill and supposedly died whilst there. Known for his wild temperament and tendency to sentence, Elizabeth’s governess, terrified, frantically searched for a resembling girl, but only came across a young boy of the same age and some likeness. When Henry came to visit, the deception had worked. As a rather cold father, he was distant and visited infrequently, and in combination with Elizabeth’s usual shyness toward her father, the secret was kept. Over 300 years later, whilst undergoing building work, a stone coffin was found with the body of a young girl in an Elizabethan dress. In the years after this, there were other signs towards this theory. Furthermore, her tutor Robert Ascham described her as being “endued with a masculine power.” Her striking use of wigs and thick, white makeup which would take hours to apply is also used as an indicator, as it was said she would not be seen without it unless to her servants and maids. Even in her dying moments, she was adamant she would not receive an autopsy. 

This theory is widely used as to why she would never marry. However, it has many faults-Elizabeth was inspected by doctors to ensure that her ‘child bearing’ abilities were adequate, to which the results were affirmative. Furthermore, a potential suitor, Philip II of Spain, had asked of her fertility to her laundress, having heard rumors, who reported with a wide indication of menstruation. Arguably, it is a misogynistic perspective used to imply that a woman of the 1500s could not be so powerful, so must have been a man, and her masculine features and perspectives towards leadership are supposed ‘evidence’.

Lord Robert Dudley

The ideas do not end here, though. Supposedly, the ‘virgin queen’ may not have been virtuous at all. Lord Robert Dudley, born in June 1532, befriended Elizabeth during the reign of Queen Mary I, a time of impending danger for the young Elizabeth, and on Elizabeth’s ascension in 1558, she appointed him master of her horse, and the two remained close at court, often dancing, horse riding, and hunting. Dudley was married to Lady Amy Robsart Dudley; she was almost never in court, with Dudley’s bedchambers moved next to Elizabeth’s private rooms for their meetings. In 1587, after rumors swirling around the country viciously, a man named Arthur Dudley arrived at Philip II’s court in Spain and claimed to be the illegitimate child of Dudley and Elizabeth. His supposed conception in 1561 was eerily linked to the time Elizabeth had been bedridden with an illness which had resulted in her body “swelling.” Matters were made worse for the supposed couple when in 1560, Dudley's wife Amy was found dead in her residency, at the bottom of a flight of stairs with a broken neck, the circumstances for which were regarded as suspicious - and Robert Dudley felt the brunt of it. For almost 50 years, their relationship was filled with turmoil, yet Elizabeth always described him as her ‘sweet Robin’, and had accordingly been brought to tears for several years after his death in 1588, upon anyone saying his name. So perhaps she never married due to a sweet childhood romance, a lost case of love, though she solemnly swore on her deathbed that ‘nothing unseemly had ever passed between them.’ No physical evidence accounts for otherwise too. 

A real Virgin Queen?

Most notably, Queen Elizabeth could have actually been a “virgin queen.” Her complex relationship with her father likely had a large impact on her chastity - losing her own mother at two years old to the hands of her father would have had an inevitable impact on the young girl, particularly being indoctrinated with the wild accusations and defamation against her own mother, as a ‘witch’ and ‘conspirator.’ Her stepmother, Catherine Howard, who was allegedly very warm and kind to Elizabeth, suffered the same fate of execution via beheading. Elizabeth was just eight at the time, and supposedly uttered, that she would ‘never marry.’ Her perspective likely linked matrimony to ideas of pain, loss and death.

Personally, I see it in the sense that it was a choice made by Elizabeth. There was a deep requirement for marriage during her reign and she knew it: being an unwed queen held her at an incredible risk of losing credibility as a ruler, especially with rival Mary, Queen of Scots, announcing her pregnancy and eventually conceiving a young boy, who would become King James VI of Scotland and King James I of England. And it wasn’t like opportunity was sparse: countless suitors presented themselves, such as Philip II of Spain, Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, Prince Eric of Sweden, and a plethora more. To me, it is likely that the incredibly intelligent and sharp queen disliked the idea of sharing her own political power, or risking her country with dependency on others. She cunningly used the incessant possibility of her hand in marriage as an opportunity to prevent uprisings and ensure increasingly civil foreign affairs. Devoted and unwavering, Queen Elizabeth remained, ultimately, ‘married to her country.’

All of these speculations will fly around for the rest of history, but what’s more inspiring to believe? A queen, defiant of societal constructs and unwilling to conform to 16th century stereotypes - that sounds pretty amazing to me. Throughout her father’s inevitable dismissal, determination for a male heir and half sister Mary’s doomed marriage, Elizabeth proved to be a successful and hearty leader, without the need of a man, and arguably, even for her rival and cousin, Queen Mary, she proved the misogynistic John Knox incorrect on his views of female monarchs. The perfect summary would be her Tilbury speech to the troops for the Spanish Armada: ‘I know I have but the body of a weak and feeble woman; but I have the heart of a king, and of a king of England, too [..] we shall shortly have a famous victory over the enemies of my God, of my kingdom, and of my people.’

Why do you think Queen Elizabeth I of England never married? Let us know below.

The Life of Princess Olga ‘Olishka’ Nikolaevna, the Eldest Daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia

Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, ‘Olishka’, (1895-1918) was the eldest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Russia’s last Tsar. While many of us know how Nicholas II and his family were killed by the Bolsheviks so ending the Romanov Dynasty, many of us know less about Nicholas’ children. Here, Jordann Stover tells us about Grand Duchess Olga, the lives of the Imperial children, and the tumultuous events in Russia during her life.

You can also read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II here.

Princess Olga (right), with her younger sister Tatiana.

There is something fundamentally heartbreaking about being the eldest sister of a family. As the first child of one’s parents, it is through them that said parents learn and grow— that is a daunting task for a baby just learning how to toddle around a nursery. Eldest sisters look out for the little ones; the diaper-clad girl with chubby, unsteady legs must set an example for those that come after her. She’s supposed to be inherently nurturing, almost like a second mother to her brothers and sisters. A great deal of pressure comes down on these children making the fits of anxiety and outbursts that often dominate the child’s personality understandable. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna was the eldest sister to end all other eldest sisters. This blonde haired, blue-eyed little girl came into the world as the first child of the last Tsar of Russia. After her birth, four more imperial children would follow. Olga’s parents put a great deal of pressure on their children, especially their firstborn who was to guide the other children in matters of behavior and their studies. This task was difficult for the little girl, she was sensitive and temperamental, a girl with a strong sense of right and wrong. Her life is often overlooked or forgotten in the chaos that was her father’s reign and subsequent fall which is, undeniably, a shame. Olga, as well as her sisters, were more than just royal children. They were fascinating beings in their own right. Their assassination was brutal, the details so gruesome that it is nearly impossible to stop reading fact after dreadful fact when studying this family. Behind the bloodstained wall and crudely crafted, unintentional bulletproof corsets that served to elongate their suffering during the last few moments of their lives were individuals of great character. Olga had a mind of her own; her heart ached with the pain that accompanied teenage crushes and thumped with anger when arguing with her sisters. Studying the young woman behind the stories is remarkably interesting, her innocence paired with an almost unfounded wisdom utterly captivating. 

Before Olga’s birth

Before Olga was even conceived, the controversy that would eventually aid in the end of her family’s dynasty and the family itself had already been in the works for years. Her parents were Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, and Alexandra Feodorovna (formerly Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, a small German duchy). Nicholas’ father had not believed in his son’s ability to rule, never training him as he should have. So, when Nicholas’ father died suddenly while only in his forties, Nicholas was nowhere near prepared for the job he had no choice but to accept. Alexandra married the Tsar quickly, the two of them being moved around at a dizzying pace because of the unexpected death of the previous Tsar. Once settled into their palaces, it became quite obvious that Nicholas was even more unprepared than they’d feared and that his new bride was not someone they were very fond of. Alexandra, a rather shy woman who had suffered a number of tragedies in her short life, was often withdrawn or sullen. The people of the Russian court did not like her and they made sure that she knew it; this only added to her nervousness, leading the Tsarina to hide away in her rooms whenever possible. As these personal, royal issues caused whispers within palace walls and aristocratic circles, nation-wide tragedies and despair flourished as well. The country was suffering, the working class starving, they were unimpressed with wars they deemed unnecessary and leaders that seemed to ignore their plights. The world in which Olga would be born into on November 15, 1895 was not the picture perfect Russian world Grand Duchesses of the past had the luxury of living in— Olga’s bruised and beaten Russia was heading very quickly toward revolution. 

Birth

The day of Olga’s birth was one of celebration for the royal couple and their country. Olga was a beautiful, healthy baby girl, confirming that the couple could indeed conceive of and deliver an heir. They were sure that a healthy son could follow. While a boy was certainly what had been hoped for by the royal couple, they loved their little “Olishka”, Nicholas himself stated in his diary entry the day of Olga’s birth that it would be “A day [he] will remember forever”. Olga was a large baby, weighing over ten pounds. She had piercing eyes and dark blonde hair, the lightest hair of anyone in her family consisting of brunettes and redheads. Her tutor, Pierre Gilliard met Olga when she was ten years old. He described this meeting in his book Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. The Grand Duchesses’ tutor stated that Olga was “very fair…[with] sparkling, mischievous eyes ... she examined [him] with a look...searching for the weak point in [his] armor, but there was something so pure and frank...that one liked her straight off." Olga was a lovely child and the Imperial Family was happy to have her despite what the rest of Russia might have been thinking.  Nicholas and Alexandra wanted to have a close knit, happy family. They wanted some semblance of normal life for Olga and themselves. Alexandra had been raised in a close, loving family back in the small duchy of her childhood and wanted that for her own children. Their closeness was not something common among royal families of the time; little intimacies such as breastfeeding or bathing the children themselves even further alienated the Romanovs from royal tradition.

Olga was not an only child for long-- Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia followed within just a few years. The four of them were incredibly close, closer than any other group of princesses. Olga and Tatiana, nicknamed “the Big Pair”, shared a bedroom while “the Little Pair”, Maria and Anastasia shared another bedroom. Together, the four sisters often signed their letters or referred to themselves as OTMA (Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia) as opposed to writing their full names. While Nicholas and Alexandra loved their girls, they needed a son for dynastic purposes. Russia had an incredibly strict Salic law which forbade female descendents from inheriting the throne. The law dated back to the times of Catherine the Great, her son having hated his mother so much that he put the law in place after the Empress’ death. In the meantime, Alexandra and Nicholas focused on creating a loving family life for their four “girlies”. They raised them to be humble people, girls used to sleeping on plain beds and having simple toys instead of having a lavish life most grand duchesses would have had. The four had a thorough education, studying different languages, history, art, and more. Pierre Gilliard, the aforementioned tutor of the children, stated that Olga “emanated such a feeling of purity and sincerity that she immediately gained [his] sympathy.” She was intelligent and dedicated to her studies, the young girl often lost in analytical thoughts about both herself and the world around her. This deep introspection was almost certainly inherited from her mother. Alexandra was known to be the same, a trait that had been solidified by the loss of her mother and sister from diptheria and her brother from a fall at a young age. The young girl who had once been joyous became a shell of herself, carrying out courtly duties that her mother had once performed all the while grieving for the world she once knew. Olga, like her mother, was deeply religious and critical of herself. Alexandra’s mother, who died when Alexandra was just six years old, instilled in her the importance of helping others, something Alexandra would then instill in her own daughters. She was taught, as is common for most eldest sisters, that she must set an example for her siblings. Olga was expected to be well behaved and set the standards for her three little sisters. The Tsarina who had been sickly her entire adult life, often emphasized the importance of such behavior to Olga by making it seem as though Alexandra’s health was contingent on a lack of stress from her daughters. She would write letters to the Grand Duchesses to be delivered to their nurseries when Alexandra was ill. She would often ask Olga to be good for her sisters, that she was feeling ill and negative reports about her girlies would only worsen her condition.

A different upbringing

Olga had been aware of her place from a very young age. Being the daughter of the Tsar of Russia meant that she had responsibilities that any other girl of her age could not have fathomed. Her studies took up an incredible amount of her time. Academics aside, there were affairs of state, public relations appearances, and more. This little girl knew how to speak with ministers and military leaders when young girls nowadays may be mastering the art of speaking with a waitress when out for a meal with their family. At the same time, she and her sisters were incredibly sheltered. They could speak French and interact with their father’s colleagues but they were blind to the rest of the world that existed beyond the yard of the Alexander Palace. By the time the girls were young women, they were far more immature than they should have been. The girls might have been able to keep up with their contemporaries around Europe when it came to academics, but their social skills were severely lacking. They did not know how to properly interact with anyone that existed outside of the small inner circle of their family’s trusted friends. 

As a child, it was always noted by tutors that Olga was the most intelligent of her sisters. She was very critical of herself as well as any work that she may have been doing. Tutors noted that she was studious but her knack for self analysis could often impact her studies. With her natural intelligence came a sense of frankness and even anger at times-- she was known for having a temper and an inability to hold her tongue. Margaret Eager noted an example of those characteristics in her book, Six Years at the Russian Court which accounts her years as a governess to the four Grand Duchesses. Eager states that Olga once snapped at an artist after his portrait was proving to take a great deal of time; she said to the man “You are a very ugly man and I don't like you one bit!". Despite pre-adolescent outbursts, Olga was known for her kind nature. She cared deeply for those around her and studied the lives of others to better understand the ever changing world. She worked tirelessly for wounded soldiers during the First World War and took up her sickly mother’s duties quite often. She accompanied her father to official business, the young girl having to learn from a young age the importance of charming officials and courtiers alike. All of this responsibility, the pressure no young woman should have to carry on her shoulders, got to her at times. After the stress of working with wounded soldiers during the First World War, she was noted by Maria in her diary as having broken a number of window panes with an umbrella. Valentina Chebotareva, another woman working with Alexandra and the Big Pair in military hospitals, recounted in her memoir a time in which Olga flew into a rage and destroyed many items in a hospital closet. It was clear that the work was becoming too much for the young woman of only nineteen years. She still cared deeply for her soldiers, one of which she fell madly in love with despite the fact that such a relationship could never be, but had to let her nursing work go. Instead, she did office work for the hospital and visited soldiers to try to lift their spirits while her mother and sister, Tatiana, continued to work in the operating room. 

Revolutionary times

Russia was a country on the cusp of revolution which left the lives of the royal family in perpetual imminent danger. Nicholas and Alexandra feared for their children, the assassination attempts aimed at Nicholas’ father and the successful assassination of his uncle made the royal couple even more paranoid about their safety. Alexandra was especially worried, refusing to allow her children (or husband for that matter) anywhere without a trusted group of guards in their presence. They rarely made public appearances save for a few that they simply could not miss such as the tricentennial ceremony celebrating the Romanov dynasty in 1913.

The whole dynamic of the Russian Imperial family as well as their ideas of protocol changed in the summer of 1904 when Alexandra finally gave birth to the son that everyone wanted from her. Tsarevich Alexei was born and for a brief period of time, it was bliss for the family. Nicholas and Alexandra had their four girlies and a new heir, the baby being showered with love from his parents and older sisters. Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia loved the little boy - they understood the importance of his birth for the dynasty but more than that, he was a new little one to play with and dote on. The happy little bubble that the family lived in did not take long to burst. It was discovered after a considerable period of unprompted bleeding from the infant’s navel that he had inherited the deadly disease of Hemophilia from his mother. Recent scientific studies have proven that the Tsarevich suffered from the more dangerous Hemophilia B, a genetic mutation in which the blood does not clot properly. Alexandra had inherited the mutation from her mother who inherited it from her own mother, Queen Victoria of the UK. Women are usually only carriers of the disease, while men suffer greatly. This is because the genetic mutation impacts the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes and men have one, inheriting the chromosome from their mother. If one’s mother is a carrier of the mutation, a son would only receive her afflicted X chromosome whereas a daughter would have another X chromosome to balance the hemophilia chromosome. This mutation meant that any little bump or fall could cause bleeding in the joints and possibly death for the Tsarevich. The Tsar and Tsarina were in constant fear for their little one’s life which led them to the infamous Grigory Rasputin who was, in the flesh, more menacing than anything 20th Century Fox could have animated. He was a Siberian peasant believed to be a holy man by many. He was, through sheer coincidence, psychology, or faith if you believe in such miracles, able to ease the Tsarevich’s pain. He seemed to be able to heal the boy with prayers alone. Nicholas and Alexandra, both loving parents and rulers well aware of their need for a healthy heir, became fiercely loyal to the man who, in their eyes, could save their son. Many extended members of the royal family and the majority of the country did not approve of Rasputin’s influence over the Imperial family. He was a drunk who was sexually promiscuous and violent. He had free reign in most parts of the palace, even having access to the children’s nurseries when they were in their bed clothes. There is no evidence of him being indecent with the young girls who were quickly blossoming into young women but that did not stop the rumors from persisting. Rasputin was hated by the people but needed by the family who by now viewed him as a friend and savior. Because of Alexei’s condition and the subsequent hatred of their favorite Siberian monk, the tight circle of trusted friends became smaller, and the family became more reclusive than ever. Alexei’s condition was kept from the people, a decision made to hopefully prevent fears of instability within the Romanov line of succession. 

Growing problems for the Imperial family

This decision was an interesting one. It seems as though the Imperial Family had no clue what it was that actually worried their people. Russia had fallen from a time where the populous worshipped the Tsar as infallible, a caring father-figure. By this time, the Russian people were far more worried about the lack of food and horrendous working conditions. As the animosity toward the Imperial family intensified, perhaps knowing of Alexei’s condition therefore humanising the royal bunch could have altered the eventual outcome. When looking at the fall of this family, it is impossible now, through a modern lense, to deny that they were a loving family. We can see the benevolence in them that the Russian people could not. If the family had allowed their people in just a little more, let their vulnerability shine through at times, the populace may have been more patient with their shortcomings. If these two groups were not so separate, those in charge could have seen clearly how the Russian people were suffering. Nicholas was not necessarily a malicious man; his unfavorable decisions usually preceded advisors giving an unqualified man information. Alexandra had a kind heart that was plagued with the belief in autocratic rule that had been drilled into her from the moment she was born. These leaders were not inherently bad people. They were bound to a system of government that was both outdated and deeply flawed that ultimately made any sense of human goodness further lost in the minds of their people who were suffering horribly. Alienating their family in the midst of this only intensified the growing hatred for anything imperial.

The end

All of this chaos and sense of impending doom came to a head when, on March 15, 1917 Olga’s father, Tsar Nicholas II, abdicated the throne for both himself and Alexei. Revolution was in full swing, different factions competing and people desperate for a change of any kind. A provisional government was put in charge of the Romanovs’ vast and aching Russia while the family was placed under house arrest. They would go from the Alexander Palace to Tobolsk and then finally to Ekaterinburg. With each move, their imprisonment became more strict, their lives becoming darker with every passing day. In their last prison cell, the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, it was noted that Olga was keeping to herself. She was quiet, had lost weight. No one can know for certain if she had any idea of what was to come but she certainly knew that life as she knew it would never again be the same. After a grueling 78 days of house arrest surrounded by anti-tsarist soldiers who often became drunk and rowdy, of having guns aimed at their heads and windows boarded up, the Romanov family was told they would be leaving the Ipatiev house. They had been awoken in the night and told that an army of revolutionaries were nearby meaning the family had to be moved to safety. They gathered what little of their belongings they were allowed, including family jewels sewn into the bodices of the girls clothes, and made their way to the basement. Once standing in what must have been a dirty, musty basement, a death order was read aloud and bullets began bouncing off of the walls. What followed was a brutal execution of the Romanov family and their few companions. The children undoubtedly  suffered the most, the jewels protecting them from the gunfire. They watched as their parents were murdered and cried helplessly for escape until bayonets and bullets to the skull ended their lives.

What if?

Something about Olga that will always be fascinating are the things that will forever remain a mystery due to her tragic end, the ‘what ifs’ that accompany her story. What would have happened if Olga had been married off to a foreign prince as tradition called for? If her parents had put more pressure on her to find a marriage prospect, could she have survived the Russian Revolution? Perhaps she could have used her influence as Queen or Princess Consort to get her family back in Russia to safety. She could have brought them to her new home, hiding them away from the assassins determined to end them. Or perhaps her new husband would have refused, forcing the girl to watch in horror as her family’s land fell into chaos and her family was murdered? If that were the case, would she have even wanted to survive? Would the young woman have wanted to die alongside her beloved family and friends? Could things have ended differently if she had married one of the wounded officers she’d fallen for? Could that choice, the Tsar allowing his daughter to marry a commoner, have changed the way the Russian people saw their royals? What if Olga had married and given birth to a Romanov heir? A little boy free of hemophilia with Romanov blood flowing through his veins- what would that have meant for the beaten and battered country coming out of the First World War? Would Olga have hidden the boy away to keep him safe or would he have tried to claim the throne that was rightfully his from the Soviets? We’ll never know the answers to these questions but they are interesting enough to consider.

It is nearly unimaginable to consider the amount of change that happened in just a few years following the Russian Revolution. The world in which Olga had lived had been completely eradicated, leaving a country that the Romanovs never would have recognized in its place.

What do you think of Princess Olga? Let us know below.

And remember, you can read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, here.

References

Azar, Helen. 2014. The diary of Olga Romanov: royal witness to the Russian Revolution. Yardley, Pennsylvania : Westholme.

Eager, Margaret. 2016. Six years at the Russian court. SoHo, NY: Gibbons' Rare Books.

Gilliard, Pierre. 2016. Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. 

Massie, Robert K. 1967. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Atheneum.

Rappaprt, Helen. 2014. The Romanov Sisters. New York, St. Martins.

Vyrubova, Anna. Memories of the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org.

The Draft Lottery in the Vietnam War and its Impact on America

The Vietnam War is remembered for many reasons: the military and civilian casualties; the turmoil and bitter division of American society; the ignominious outcome. From 1965 through 1972, the military draft profoundly affected the lives of millions of young men, inducting nearly two million and pressuring many more into volunteering for service. Often overlooked in the legacy of the war is the long-term impact of the draft system on the young men who escaped military duty, often by changing their lives to deliberately manipulate the Selective Service System.

Here, Wesley Abney tells us how the draft lottery worked and the wider impact on society and millions of young American men.

You can also read Wesley’s book on the Vietnam War Draft Lottery, available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) drawing the first capsule as part of Selective Service System draft, Dec 1, 1969. Available here.

NIGHT OF THE LOTTERY

December 1, 1969.  Nearly two million young American men were asking the same question: what will my number be? That evening the Selective Service System held the first draft lottery of the Vietnam era, to determine who would be next to fight in the distant and unpopular war. Overnight, arbitrary chance forced the "winners" to make a choice that helped shape the future of a generation, from combat to conscientious objection, from teaching to prison, from the pulpit to the Canadian border, from public health to gay liberation.

Despite the potentially life-changing drama of the drawing, the ceremony at Selective Service System (SSS) headquarters employed only a drab stage with a large tote board, some folding chairs and a cylindrical glass bowl to hold the lottery dates. Each of the 366 days of the year (including the extra leap year date of February 29) had been printed on a small rectangle of paper, tucked inside a blue plastic capsule, and placed in a box to await the lottery. The SSS had chosen “youth advisory” delegates from across the country and brought them to Washington, D.C. to draw out the capsules, to show that men of draft age were involved in the process.

The 1969 lottery was the first to be nationally televised, as CBS pre-empted the regular broadcast of Mayberry RFD to join news correspondent Roger Mudd for live coverage. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, long-time director of the SSS, introduced the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee (which had oversight responsibility for the SSS), Rep. Alexander Pirnie, R-New York. After the capsules were dumped from the box into the glass container, Congressman Pirnie drew the first capsule which contained the date of September 14. That date was stuck to a tote board beside the numerals 001. Thus every man in the lottery born on that date would be in the first group called for duty in 1970. Then the youth delegates took over the task of drawing the capsules, until all 366 random sequence numbers (“RSN”) were affixed to the board. According to Roger Mudd, four or five of the youth delegates refused to pick numbers on the grounds they were being used by the Nixon administration to give a false appearance of approval by American youth.

Later probability studies of the 1969 lottery results indicated that the selection process was not as entirely random as intended, in that birth dates occurring late in the year were disproportionately likely to be chosen early. This was due most likely to insufficient mixing of the capsules. A court challenge ensued but the lottery results were upheld. The SSS procured the expertise of statisticians for the subsequent lotteries of 1970, 1971 and 1972, which were fully randomized.

DRAFT LAW CHANGES

President Nixon signed changes to the draft law on November 26, 1969, just days before the drawing. In the year since his election, the war effort remained bogged down, while the public had grown increasingly doubtful of its outcome and skeptical of its worth. His presidency was as troubled by protest and dissension as Lyndon Johnson’s before him. He wanted to eliminate the draft as soon as possible and transition to an all-volunteer force, but had no immediate means to scale back troop strength in an amount sufficient to permit that change. In the meantime, he took several steps to ameliorate widespread criticism of the draft.

In May, 1969, in a message to Congress, he proposed to adopt two long-debated changes to the draft system: reversing the age-order of call such that 19-year-olds would be inducted first; and implementing a process of random selection by lottery. Congress approved both changes in draft law amendments passed in late November 1969.

Nixon viewed the lottery as a means to return at least a perception of fairness to the draft as well as deflate campus-based peace demonstrations. At first glance, an impartial method to set the order of call, such that every man of draft age, rich or poor, black or white, would be assigned a priority number based on a random drawing of birthdates, appeared fair and unbiased. Yet the lottery itself did nothing to change the draft law’s existing system of deferments and exemptions, and so did nothing to equalize the draft vulnerability between a man with a deferment and a man without. By this time, deferments for most graduate students had been eliminated, as well as deferments for married men, but many protected categories remained. A deferred undergraduate student, farmer, father or trained scientist could draw a low number and still avoid the draft, at least as long as the deferment continued, while someone with no deferment who drew the same low number was bound for service. Thus the new random selection process mainly affected those men without a deferment or whose deferment was ending, deciding among only them who would be drafted and who was safe.

A perhaps more significant change in the draft law was reversing age priority and limiting the period of time during which a man would be vulnerable to the draft. Instead of taking the oldest men first from the 19-to-26-year-old eligible range, the revised draft would take the youngest men first. Most men’s uncertainty over draft status would be considerably shortened. Instead of waiting up to six years to learn his draft fate, every man would get a lottery number by age 19, and would be primarily vulnerable only during the year to which the lottery applied. Anyone whose number was not reached in the course of that year would be clear of the draft and free to move ahead with normal plans for work and family without the lingering cloud of possible induction. Likewise, those with a deferment would be vulnerable only for the year after the deferment expired.

For the transition-year lottery of 1969, which set the order of call for 1970, everyone aged 19 to 26 (born from 1944 through 1950) who were already classified as available for induction (I-A and I-A-O), or were emerging from deferred status, or were not yet classified, participated in the lottery, a total of 1,893,651 men. The next lottery in 1970 applied only to men born in 1951; in 1971 only to men born in 1952; in 1972 only to men born in 1953. Because the draft was abolished in 1973 without any draft calls that year, no one subject to the 1972 lottery was drafted.

MAKING A CHOICE

Men whose lottery number fell into the definite-to-probable range for call-up had to immediately choose among the few available options: 1. Get drafted for two years’ active duty, often in the combat zone; 2. Volunteer for service in the military or National Guard (and probably avoid combat duty); 3. Try to qualify for a deferment; or 4. Defy the law and hope to avoid a felony draft evasion charge by going “underground” or leaving the country. 

At the time of the first lottery, deferments were still available for those who flunked the fitness test, or worked in various jobs deemed to be essential (including agriculture, teaching, the ministry, and defense industries), as well as for students (undergraduate and certain graduate schools), fathers with a child at home, and conscientious objectors.

GENERATIONAL IMPACT

The hard choices forced on young men by the draft and the lottery steered the major life decisions of millions, helping shape the future of a generation.

Work. Jobs with a likely deferment, such as engineering and teaching, exerted a magnetic pull on draft-age men, such that those fields became glutted with recent college graduates by the late 1960s. In 1969, 85% of New York City teaching trainees were draft-age men. A survey in the 1970s found that the career choices of 10% of draft-age men were influenced by the availability or lack of a deferment.

Education. The U.S. Census Bureau in 1984 observed that men who came of age during the Vietnam War accumulated more college education than those maturing before. A detailed study in 2001 concluded that the rate of college attendance in the late 1960s rose by 4% to 6% due to draft avoidance alone, affecting about 300,000 young men. A separate study of enrollment in Protestant seminaries showed an increase of 31% from 1966 to 1971, compared to a rise of only 3% from 1960 to 1966.

Paternity. Before the war in Vietnam, the U.S. birth rate declined steadily each year after the peak baby boom year of 1957. However, with the draft system back in effect, including the paternity deferment, the pace of decline slowed between 1966 and 1968, and the birth rate actually rose again in 1969 and 1970 before resuming its decline in 1971.

Conscientious objectors (COs). During World War II, when the military inducted 10.1 million men, only 37,000 (or .36%) were classified as COs, and were required to serve either in a non-combat military role, or perform alternative service. During the Vietnam War, when 1.86 million men were inducted, 171,700 (or 9.23%) were classified as COs, a rate 25 times higher than during WWII. Only about one-third of all COs performed alternative service rather than active military duty during WWII. During the Vietnam War, 80% of COs chose alternative work, usually in a hospital or forestry project at least 50 miles away from their home town, performing menial, low paid tasks for the required two years.

Draft evasion. During the course of the war, 209,517 young men were referred by the SSS to the Department of Justice for prosecution in the federal courts, due to violation of the draft laws. However, the DOJ had to dismiss over half of those cases due to procedural errors by the SSS, and another 76,000 men agreed to accept induction in lieu of criminal prosecution, such that only 25,279 were actually indicted. Even so, draft evasion offenses were the fourth largest category on the federal criminal docket by late 1969, and made up 21% of all pending federal prosecutions nationally by June 1972. A total of 10,055 draft offenders went to trial, where 8,750 were convicted by verdict or guilty plea. Of those, 3,250 served time in prison, for an average of twenty-two months. As convicted felons, those men lost the right to vote and were often disqualified for desirable job opportunities.

Immigration. Some men made the momentous decision to flee the country, leaving behind their homes, friends and family. The best government estimates show that about 40,000 young men left the U.S. during the war, with the majority crossing the border into Canada, at an average of 5,000 to 8,000 per year. After the war, an estimated one-fourth to one-half of the exiles chose to remain in their adopted country, even after they were granted amnesty by President Carter in January, 1977.

What do you think of the Vietnam War draft lottery? Let us know below. 

You can also read about the stories of men who were subject to the draft at Wesley’s site: vietnamwardraftlottery.com.

References

“Amnesty: Repatriation for Draft Evaders, Deserters,” CQ Almanac 1972, 1.

Baskir, Lawrence M. and Strauss, William A., Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War and the Vietnam        Generation(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

Card, David and Lemieux, Thomas, “Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War,” The American Economic Review 91, no. 2 (2001), 101.

“CBS News Special Report: The Draft Lottery 1969,” YouTube video, 9:41

“College Enrollment Linked to Vietnam War,” New York Times, September 2, 1984.

Dennis, Lloyd B., “Draft Law Revision.” Editorial Research Reports 1966, vol.1, 431-69.

Fletcher, John C., “Avoidance and the Draft,” Washington Post, February 25, 1992.

Hagan, John, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Kamarck, Kristy N., The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress (CRS Report No. R44452), 2016.

“Living in Peace in a Time of War: The Civilian Public Service Story,” Mennonite Central Committee, March 28, 2017.

Mansavage, Jean A., “Obvious Inequities: Lessons Learned from Vietnam War Conscientious Objection,” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M, 2000).

 “President’s Draft Lottery Approved by Congress,” CQ Almanac 1969, 350-55.

Selective Service Act of 1948 (Elston Act), Pub. L. 80-759.

Selective Service Amendment Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-124.

Selective Service System, “Induction Statistics.”

Selective Service System, Semi-Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service for the Period July 1 to December 31, 1969; July 1 to December 31, 1972.

Starr, Norton., “Nonrandom Risk: The 1970 Draft Lottery,” Journal of Statistics Education, vol. 5, no. 2 (1997).

32 C.F.R. 1622 (1967).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1968, Table 194; 1969, Table 188; 1971, Table 198; 1973,Table 211, 1974, Tables 67, 68.

Van Sant, Rick, “Paying Price Every Election Day,” Cincinnati Post, September 21, 1993.

Zeidler, Maryse, “40 Years Later, Remembering Jimmy Carter’s Pardon for Draft Dodgers,” CBC News, January 21, 2017.

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon - Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 1: Background to the Divorce

King Henry VIII of England’s divorce, or annulment, of Catherine of Aragon in 1533 is one of the most infamous separations in history. And while we nearly all know the end result of the divorce proceedings, in hindsight who had the stronger case?  Victor Gamma considers this in part 1 of the series.

Note: Part 2 on how the method’s Henry used to overturn the divorce failed is here and part 3 on Catherine’s case is here.

Catherine of Aragon pleads her case against divorce from Henry VIII. Painting by Henry Nelson O'Neil.

“ . . . the unlawful divorce was and is the very seedwoman of all the miseries and evils, of all the heavy and hateful heresies which of late have most pitifully overwhelmed the realm. . .” These words, written from a safe distance many years after the death of King Henry VIII, reflect the furious passions aroused by the decision of the second Tudor monarch to set aside his wife and, by so doing, break with the powerful Catholic Church. By the time King Henry decided to end his marriage with Catherine of Aragon, he was a powerful monarch used to getting his own way. Men who did not dare contradict him surrounded the King. Opposing him was his wife, Queen Catherine, in her own right a woman of stoic conviction and considerable learning. The stage was set for a momentous contest between two strong-willed personalities that would determine the course of English history. Both the King and Queen made their case forcefully. Each could count a host of powerful supporters. Both were equally implacable in their convictions and both could marshal convincing arguments. Although intertwined with politics, this article examines the cases of Henry and Catherine in view of the arguments from theology and canon law of the 16th Century and attempts to avoid issues of politics and motives as much as possible. The case became incredibly convoluted as King Henry’s servants exhausted every contrivance possible to force the Pope to see things their way - but for our sakes this article will focus on the basic facts.

Henry’s challenges

The determined King would have preferred that this delicate and all-important matter go smoothly. However, the path to his goal of divorcing Catherine, remarrying and having the son he so desperately wanted was strewn with obstacles. First, since only the pope could grant an annulment, he had to somehow convince his Holiness that an annulment was necessary and proper. But the political situation in Europe constantly thwarted Henry’s plans. For this reason repeated attempts to obtain an annulment of his marriage and a dispensation to remarry failed. Additionally, Catherine would not budge from her position that she was his wife and queen in the eyes of both God and Man. Before making it a public spectacle, Henry made a final attempt to find an easy way out and ordered Catherine to go to a nunnery. It was a good political move. Catherine had very powerful relatives. She also had much support in England, where she was held in high esteem for her piety and character. If it would look like she voluntarily went to a nunnery, there would be less chance of opposition to the annulment. Henry hoped that his normally dutiful and submissive wife would comply. She did not. All this forced Henry to engage in a systematic effort to justify his actions and to articulate a defensible position. Although royal separations were by no means unknown, Henry knew he had to build a solid case to win over support for his divorce. Since Catherine would appeal any decision to invalidate the marriage to Rome, he also had to contrive a divorce that would not be overturned on appeal to the Curia.

Henry's Case

What exactly did Henry want? It must be pointed out that, although frequently discussed as a divorce, what Henry was seeking was not a divorce but an annulment. The Catholic Church absolutely forbade divorce so that wasn’t even an option. The king was careful to seek an annulment because that meant declaring that the marriage had never been valid and thus, in the eyes of the church, had never existed. Since at that time the laws governing marriage were completely under the control of the church, the divorce had to appeal to canon, or ecclesiastical, law and the Bible. This meant he was running up against the entire canonical rules of the Catholic Church regarding both the starting and ending of marriage. In Henry’s case this involved the teachings on what were termed impediments and dispensations. An impediment occurred when a couple would not be allowed to marry, for example, if they were too closely related. Also, although perhaps rare, the possibility existed wherein a couple unknowingly entered into a marriage in which an impediment existed, such as marrying a first cousin. Once the couple realized their mistake, canon law ruled that they either have the marriage annulled or have the impediment removed through a dispensation. 

So what was Henry’s case? It was two-fold: First, that an impediment had existed in his marriage to Catherine. He had married his brother Arthur’s widow and for this God had cursed him. After a decade of marriage he and Catherine had six children, only one of which, a daughter, survived. This was evidence to the King that they were being punished by God. Second, that the dispensation granted by Pope Julius II to allow Henry and Catherine to marry was wrong. 

Henry’s favorite evidence came from the Bible. The scriptures Henry used in support were Leviticus 18:16: ‘Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother's wife: it is thy brother's nakedness’, and Leviticus 20:21: ‘And if a man shall take his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother's nakedness; they shall be childless’. The king asserted that since Catherine had been married to Henry's brother, Arthur, his marital relations with the widow were a sin. Henry, therefore, was simply trying to right a great wrong. Also, it must be remembered that Henry's status was unique. He was an anointed king. This meant he had a special relationship with God. He truly believed that God was displeased with the marriage and that something must be done about it. The lack of a male heir proved, in his mind, that God had withheld his blessings.  

You can read part 2 on how Henry VIII tried to get the marriage overturned here.

What do you think of Henry VIII’s divorce of Catherine of Aragon? Let us know below. 

5 Weird Facts about the Ancient Olympics

The Ancient Olympics were held in Greece from 776 BC until they were stopped in 393 AD; however they were very different to the modern Olympics. Here, Adrian Burrows returns and tells us five odd facts about the Ancient Olympics.

You can read a past ancient history article from Adrian on The Weapon that Conquered Ancient Egypt here.

A 19th century depiction of Olympia, Greece in ancient times.

Notwithstanding a short break (what’s a millennia and a half between friends ay?), the Olympics have been a part of humanity’s story for the last 2,800 years – ish. The start of the Ancient Olympics is usually attributed to the year 776 BC - that’s when the first Olympic Games took place in the town of Olympia; situated somewhere between the city-states of Elis and Sparta on the west coast of the Peloponnese. The first Games consisted of only one event, the Stade race, in which runners had to run 280 meters (or a Stadion, the word we derive ‘stadium’ from). The race was unremarkable, should 20 competitors decide to run a Stade race today it would be remarkably similar to a modern sprint – other than the fact that male competitors would all be naked of course. Which would certainly make for some unflattering media coverage, or perhaps a 21st century resurgence of the Stade race would make the Olympics more popular than ever? 

There are many other ways that the Ancient Olympics differ to our modern Olympics but this list represents by far the weirdest.

Only Men Could Compete

The Ancient Olympics was both primarily a religious event and also a strictly man only affair. That’s not to say that women couldn’t take part in their own sporting events - they could compete in the Heraean Games, though many of the finer details of this event have been lost to the mists of time – but they were forbidden from entering the Olympics. In fact, if you were a married woman you were prevented from even watching the Olympics. The punishment for ogling the jiggling glutes of the male competitors for a wed woman was severe - if you were caught you’d be thrown off a mountain.

That’s not to say that a woman never won the Olympic Games however. Who achieved this seemingly impossible feat? That would be a Spartan woman called Kyniska, daughter of the Archidamos. Oddly, the winner of a chariot race was not the rider, rather it was the owner of the horses who received the glory – enabling Kyniska to win the event, without actually being there. The rider - despite being in command of a rickety chariot pulled by four muscle bound horses over some 12 laps and 14,000 metres – received a grand total of zilch for their efforts. 

They Were Stinky. Very Stinky

Today, a country fortunate enough to hold the Olympics must invest millions into creating custom built stadiums. Not only are they perfectly constructed in every conceivable way, providing the ideal environment for the athletes competing within them, they also offer comprehensive comfort for the spectators. Offering food, drink, seating and – most importantly – lots and lots of toilets. 

The spectators of the Ancient Olympics had no such luxury, Every four years (that’s an Olympiad) over 50,000 people descended on the ordinarily virtually uninhabited Olympia (a few priests kept things ticking over but that was about it). 50,000 people sat in the hot sun with only a river to poop in. Just imagine the stench. Add to that the fact that 100 oxen would be sacrificed and burnt on the Alter of Zeus in the middle of the festival. There’s one thing for certain though - no candle manufacturer will ever be making an overpriced candle infused with the scent of the Ancient Olympics.

A Dead Person Won the Olympics

The Ancient Olympics were a brutal affair, boxing and wrestling were much more violent than the modern versions we are used to seeing on our televisions today. Though both these blood soaked spectacles paled in gore levels compared to Pankration – the mixed martial arts of the Ancient world. Pankration had only two rules, no biting and no poking out anyone’s eye. Other than that, anything went!

One remarkable account details the final fight of Arrhichion of Phigalia. Arrhichion was trapped in the vice like grip of his formidable opponent. Arms like steely vein covered greasy oil coated pythons were wrapped around his neck, and try as he might Arrhichion could not free himself. As his vision began to fade Arrhichion stamped as hard as he could on his opponent’s foot. The pain was so intense that this unknown fighter released Arrhichion and submitted. The crowd went wild, Arrhichion had overcame the odds and won. But while the crowd went bananas Arrhichion remained unmoving on the sand and dirt. He was dead.

That didn’t dampen the celebration however. Despite being very deceased, Arrhichion was crowned the victor and returned to Phigalia a hero.

More Gore than Ever Before

Arrhichion’s final victory was not the goriest event to take place in the Ancient Olympics, instead that honour would fall to the boxing match between Damoxenos and Creugas. In Ancient Boxing there were no weight classes and the matches were randomly picked. So you could end up with a bout in which one fighter had a significant size and weight advantage over the other. Which reportedly was the case when these Damoxenos and Creugas, two undefeated champions, went up against each other. 

Damoxenos was a massive slab of humanity, whilst Creugas was smaller but incredibly nimble. And a good thing too, with no boxing gloves fighters instead just wrapped their fists in leather; one punch from the giant Damoxenos would have levelled Creugas, and with no rules stating otherwise, the bigger man could keep on punching Creugas in the head – regardless of whether or not he could defend himself. Either way power vs agility had led to a draw, meaning a ‘klimax’ was enforced. Here each man takes it in turns to hit the other with full force; this is an unprotected blow taking at their liberty. Like some sort of blood soaked penalty shootout the fight ends when only one man is left standing. 

Creugas went first, he punched the bigger man in the head as hard as he could. But to little avail, Damoxenos just shrugged off the assault. Then it was Damoxenos’ turn, Creugas braced himself as this terrifying beast punched him with full force with straight fingers into the bread basket. Damoxenos clearly needed a manicure as his sharp nails ripped at Creugas’ skin. Damoxenos then ripped his fingers once more along Creugas’ abdomen, gutting the fighter like a pig and causing his innards to come tumbling out like meat and potato from a freshly bitten pie. 

It was all over, Creugus had won. That’s right, Creugus. Damoxenos had been disqualified as the rules of the ‘Klimax’ state one punch at a time only. Sure, Creugas’ guts were getting a sun tan but it was all worth it for that laurel wreath.

The World’s Greatest

These days, in every Olympic event, multiple world records are smashed. Athletes are lucky to hold on to their world record for a decade but it is rare for a competitor to hold a record for fifty years, let alone a hundred. Yet there was one ancient athlete who held his record for over two thousand years. Yes, TWO THOUSAND YEARS. This phenomenal specimen of a Homo Sapien was Leonidas of Rhodes. 

He first competed in the Olympic Games of the 154th Olympiad in 164 BCE, where Leonidas captured the laurel wreath in three different races; the stadion, the diaulos (a foot race of 400 metres) and the hoplitodromos (a diaulos where the runners wear armour – talk about exhausting!). He then went on to win these three events over the next three consecutive Olympiads. Bear in mind that in the Ancient Olympics there was no second or third place, you were either a winner… or a massive loser.

This astonishing act, of winning twelve individual Olympic victories, was unmatched until 2016; when Michael Phelps, the American swimmer, won his 13th Olympic Gold.

Adrian is a co-owner of Imagining History workshops. Imagining History provides educational history workshops for primary schools that captivate and entertain.

Their interactive sessions combine role-play, storytelling, demonstrations and drama and performance to bring history to life for students.

Imagining History offer loads of free digital history resources for teachers and parents. You can find content on Ancient Greece, Ancient Egypt and more at www.imagininghistory.co.uk/blog.

You can also check out their biweekly Youtube series ‘Headlines from History’. 

7 of the Most Influential Female Writers of All Time

If you want pointers for how to become a better writer, it is only natural to look to those who achieved significant success before you in literature. While it may be hard to get these people to share advice directly with you, you can read their books and try to understand what made them influential and well-known. In this article, we have gathered 7 of the most influential women writers of all time – influential in terms of their effect on literature and society. George Maybach explains.

British writer Virginia Woolf in 1902.

Jane Austen (1775-1817)

Jane Austen is known for being one of the first female authors to achieve significant fame and success while making women the central figures of her novels. She greatly influenced English literature in her own time and continues to do so today, as her works remain the object of numerous literary studies because of both their historical context and Austen’s literary techniques. Austen's most famous books include Sense and Sensibility, Pride and Prejudice, and Mansfield Park. And no doubt if today you could ask Jane Austen for help to “write my discussion post,” it would undoubtedly be a great post!

Mary Shelley (1797-1851)

Mary Shelley is best known as the author of Frankenstein, or The Modern Prometheus, an early Gothic novel and the work that probably influenced this genre and modern horror fiction more than any other book. However, her literary exploits are not limited to Frankenstein, although her other works are not nearly as well known. She wrote other novels, short stories, biographies, travel journals, and did editorial work.

 

Emily Dickinson (1830-1886)

The author of some 1,800 poems, Emily Dickinson is considered to be one of the most important American poets, greatly influencing the poetic tradition of the country and defining the direction in which it developed afterwards. However, only 10 of her poems were published in her lifetime, in part as Dickinson’s writing was highly unconventional for the period.

Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

Ayn Rand is the pen name of Russian-born American writer Alisa Rosenbaum. Most famous for two novels, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, where she expressed her views on the economy and philosophy, she was a strong proponent of reason, rationality and laissez-faire capitalism as well as the founder of the philosophical system Objectivism. Her books, both fiction and nonfiction, tend to cause either adoration or virulent hatred in those who read them – while you may dislike her and her message, you have to agree that she is one of the most influential and controversial authors of the 20th century.

Agatha Christie (1890-1976)

The author of more than sixty novels and numerous short stories, plays, poems and other works, Agatha Christie is primarily known for her murder mysteries, especially those featuring two iconic characters, Hercule Poirot and Miss Marple. She became one of the most influential authors of murder mysteries and crime fiction, helping to cement the tropes, imagery and conventions of these genres. Her influence remains obvious even now, as many murder mystery books follow her conventions, and her own work remains an important part of popular culture, finding new representation in films, plays, radio shows and video games. She even wrote the world's longest running play, The Mousetrap. Her most famous book is probably Murder on the Orient Express.

Ursula Le Guin (1922-2018)

Ursula Le Guin is one of the most important writers in the genre of speculative fiction, on the same level as J.R.R Tolkien, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein. Author of more than twenty novels and a hundred short stories, she also wrote works of literary criticism, poetry and books for children. In her work, she touched upon topics as diverse as religion, gender, and social and environmental issues in ways aimed at both children and adults. It would not be an exaggeration to say that she, to a significant degree, determined how speculative fiction (both fantasy and science fiction) has developed for the last few decades. Two of her most famous books are A Wizard of Earthsea and The Left Hand of Darkness.

Virginia Woolf (1882-1941)

Virginia Woolf is a British writer who became one of the most iconic modernist authors. In her work, she used streams of consciousness – the same narrative technique that is used in Joyce’s Ulysses – and helped popularize it among 20th century writers. A few of her most famous books are Mrs Dalloway and A Room of One's Own.

Of course, these are not nearly all the female writers who made and continue to make a significant impact on literature, intellectual life and the ideas of this world. Feel free add in the names of your favorite female authors in the comments!

Finally, if you need to write about any of these authors, or indeed other male or female writers, you can ask a writing service expert here to help guide you in your endeavors.

Editor’s note: The article contains external links that are not affiliated in any way with this website. Please see the link here for more information about external links on the site.

The Greatest Trick of WWII? How Operation Fortitude Fooled Nazi Germany and Enabled the D-Day Landings

Almost anyone with even a passing interest in the Second World War knows of Operation Overlord (D-Day) and its immense importance. Yet, far fewer have heard of another great military operation that helped to ensure Overlord’s success: Operation Fortitude. Here, Nathan Richardson explains what happened in the 1944 operation to fool the Nazis and make them think that the D-Day landings would take place in Calais, France and Norway – and not in their actual location of Normandy.

A dummy British RAF aircraft in October 1943. Source: The National Archives, available here.

In 1944, the combined British and American military chiefs, along with their various allies, were intently planning an invasion of Western Europe. They all knew Hitler’s “Fortress Europe” must be breached if the Western Allies were to bring the war effectively to Nazi Germany and take the pressure off of the beleaguered Russians. Fighting in Italy had taken a terrible toll on the Allied armies. Regrettably, Italy had not turned out to be the “weak underbelly” that Churchill had thought. Though the operations in Sicily and Italy had successfully forced the fascist Mussolini out of power and switched Italy over to the Allied side, German troops barred the Allies from crossing the Alps into Europe proper. The Allies decided that they must find another invasion route into Europe.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff, the Allied generals made up of both British and American commanders and headed by General Eisenhower, determined that an amphibious assault must be made from Britain into Western Europe. Where and when were the only remaining questions. Ultimately, Normandy, France and June were the location and time decided upon. Yet, keeping this information from the Germans could very well decide the success or failure of the invasion. Churchill, though convinced of the necessity of an invasion, nevertheless greatly feared its results if it turned out to be a disaster, which it very well could have been (Keegan 164-5). 

However, Eisenhower, who held the gut-wrenching last word on when the invasion took place, went to impressive lengths to keep the Germans as much in the dark as possible. That an invasion was coming, the Germans knew for a fact—it was inevitable that the Allies would attempt to retake Occupied Europe. Indeed, Hitler had been making enormous preparations on his coastal defenses, stretching from Norway in the north, down the whole coast, all the way down the English Channel. However, this impressive length of coastline defenses was never completed, and never lived up to its propaganda—nor did it live up to the faith that Hitler placed in it (Esposito 66). Naturally, the Germans knew they must decide which areas were most likely to be assaulted, and to build their best defenses there. Deciding that the Allies must need a port to sustain an invasion, the Germans centered their heaviest weapons and fortifications at port-cities such as Cherbourg, Calais, and Antwerp (Weinberg 685).

Not illogically, the German High Command decided that the most likely invasion point was the Pas de Calais, with its port close at hand, and it being the closest point between Europe and England. Why would the Allies travel farther than necessary? Would not the Allies enjoy greater air cover from their powerful air forces the closer they were to England? Thus, the Germans centered the bulk of their divisions in the West around Calais, and there put their best forces, ready to repel at this likely invasion site (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88). However, this was exactly why the Allies knew they must not attack where the Germans expected them. Eisenhower knew he must keep the Germans from knowing the true invasion point. In order to do that, he made sure the Germans found evidence that seemed to confirm their preconceived ideas. The Germans must be convinced that Calais was the true planned site of the invasion, and that any other attack was just a diversion (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82, 88). To accomplish this trickery, the Allies employed some truly ingenious schemes.

German Spies Flipped

World War Two was a war of spies and espionage. In an age of rapidly advancing weaponry and innovative tactics, spies were absolutely essential in keeping the commanders on both sides knowledgeable of the enemy’s capabilities and plans. Yet, the Allies were able to effectively deprive the Germans of their ability for espionage, and turn any German spies into Allied agents, who would turn around and feed the Germans false information about the Allies. How was this done? The British Secret Service identified German spies and carefully evaluated them. If German spies were deemed suitable (i.e., most likely to cooperate with the Allies), they were convinced to turn ‘double-agent’, and to report to the Abwehr (the German military intelligence) exactly what the British wanted them to know. Those spies who were not deemed suitable or who did not cooperate were either executed or imprisoned. This system was known as the Double-Cross System. Thus, not only did the Allies control the German spies, but with the ability to intercept German coded radio transmissions due to British code breaking (known as ULTRA), the Allies could confirm that the Germans were receiving the information the Allies wanted them to receive, and could also confirm whether the Germans believed what they were being told (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 77). This system of turning German spies into double-agents had carefully been built up since the beginning of the war. Yet, British intelligence knew that using the Double-Cross System to the Allies’ advantage could likely only be used once, since the Germans would eventually realize they had been duped, and the Allies would never have such an opportunity again. So, the British were forced to sit by and patiently wait to use this weapon until the perfect time. That time was D-Day. Until then, the British carefully fed the Germans true and valuable information to ensure the Germans trusted and valued their agents, while also taking care not to feed them information that would be militarily damaging (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 78).

Operation Fortitude

The last thing the Allies wanted was for the Germans to realize that their spies had become compromised. The Germans must see tangible evidence that what their spies were reporting was true. Enter: Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude was designed to fool the Germans into believing that the Allies were attacking at Calais, France and southern Norway, which would hopefully cause the Germans to concentrate their best defensive efforts at these points - and away from Normandy (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82). 

A seaborne invasion, of course, necessitates a massive buildup of men and materials. Shipping of all sorts must be concentrated at the embarkation points. Supplies of every sort, including a massive number of vehicles, such as tanks, trucks, and jeeps. Fighter and bomber aircraft, ready to provide air support for the attackers, must be kept in readiness at airfields close to the invasion beaches. For a Normandy landing, this massive buildup must be assembled in and around ports in the south of England, at important port cities such as Plymouth, Dartmouth, Portland, and multiple others (Esposito 67). How could these preparations be kept hidden? They could not fully keep them hidden, despite the Allies’ best efforts. No amount of care and camouflage could keep German scouting planes from picking up the U.S. 4th Infantry division near Plymouth or the British 50th Armored Division west of Poole or the Canadian 3rd Infantry division near Portsmouth (Esposito 67). The location of these troops, if spotted, would show the Germans that Normandy was a more likely invasion site. Contrarily, the empty fields and ports of southeast England around Dover (the closest point between England and France), would indicate that Calais was not the target. Despite all of the Allied efforts to hide and disguise their readying of forces and to muzzle or flip the German spies, the Germans might still catch on, and the result might lead the Allies to an enormous defeat. 

Thus, the only way to keep the Germans from guessing the true invasion point, was to provide a distraction. This distraction was Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude was a dummy Operation, involving dummy formations of troops. In Scotland, the completely fake British “Fourth Army” was stationed, ready to assault southern Norway. In the southeast of England, the bogus First United States Army Group (FUSAG) was stationed, across from Calais, right where the Germans expected to see such an Army Group stationed (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82). To make FUSAG look like a real army group to the Germans (from far enough away at least), the Allies built poorly camouflaged dummy landing craft and fields of papier-mâché tanks. To make the tanks look more legitimate, jeeps were used to drag chains around the tanks to create “tank tracks” and to kick up dust, indicating movement. Hitler’s spies obediently reported all of these fraudulences as the real thing (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84). Fake radio traffic was also broadcast around the assembly areas for these fake armies. The British Fourth Army, which was entirely fictional (FUSAG was made up of some real units, though not all were even in England yet), knew that the Germans, due to their expertise in intercepting and decoding their enemy’s radio transmissions, were able to geographically pinpoint the location of the Fourth Army headquarters (which was Edinburgh Castle), as well as locating and identifying divisional and corps command posts (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82-3, 85). The Allies would use the Germans’ proficiency against them with great effect. 

The already-famous General George S. Patton was placed in command of this force, giving further credence to the Army Group he supposedly led, since the Germans believed him the best Allied general. In reality, Eisenhower considered Patton more in his element when the time came for an impetuous drive across France, so Patton was given this unconventional role and saved for later (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 85). With control over the German spies in Britain, the Allies could control in large part what information the Germans received, and what they did not receive. Also, with the ability to read the German codes, the Allies could see the Germans’ react to the false reports, and could tell whether the Germans were buying it or not. Even if some information indicating Normandy as the main landing area came into German hands, this information would be buried amidst a far greater volume of reports that said the Allies were getting ready to attack Calais (Weinberg, 682).

Dummy landing craft used as decoys in south-eastern England harbours in the period before D-Day, 1944.

The German Defenses Affected by Fortitude

Operation Fortitude worked so successfully that the Germans believed not only that the Pas de Calais was the main target (which Hitler and General von Rundstedt, the commander in the West, both agreed would be the case), but that the Allies actually had far greater capabilities than they actually possessed (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84, 87). From the intercepted and decoded German radio messages, the Allies could tell that the Germans figured Eisenhower had twice as many forces as he actually had (the Germans counted eighty-nine Allied divisions, rather than the forty-seven Ike actually had), and that he had four times as many landing craft, which were actually in very short supply (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 87, 83). Believing that Eisenhower had so many men and landing craft at his disposal, the Germans easily believed that Ike had enough power for diversionary assaults in addition to the main assault—which, in the end, kept the Germans from reacting swiftly and with enough force against the Normandy assault. In fact, the lie that Normandy was just a diversion for a Calais assault lasted until nearly two months after the Allied invasion, well after the beachhead had been secured and the push inland accomplished (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 100; Esposito 83). Fifteen German divisions, the bulk of the Fifteenth Army, which were the best-equipped the Germans had in France, were kept out of the fight in Normandy altogether, awaiting another threat that never came (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88, 100). The distraction caused by the bogus British Fourth Army was no less successful. Hitler was so convinced that an attack was coming that he reinforced the Norwegian garrisons, leaving them with thirteen divisions—twice as many troops as were needed for the occupation. An additional 90,000 naval and 60,000 air personnel were also left to guard Norway, along with an armored division—all of which would have served a far better purpose in Normandy (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84).

Conclusion

In summary, Operation Fortitude, which masterfully employed the resources that the Double-Cross System provided, managed to utterly fool the Germans into believing that the main attack was coming anywhere but Normandy. It can even be said that if Operation Fortitude had not succeeded, Operation Overlord would have failed. The Allies simply did not have the means to transport enough men to France quickly enough to meet the full force of the German occupation troops in the West if Fortitude failed to hold them back (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88-9). Eisenhower wrote frankly in February of 1944, just months before the great invasion, that “The success or failure of coming operations depends upon whether the enemy can obtain advance information of an accurate nature” (Ambrose, D-Day 83). The success of the Normandy invasion was just the first step in the freeing of all Europe from the terror of Nazi occupation. Thus, Operation Fortitude did incalculable service in the Allied effort to rid the world of Nazism.

What do you think the significance of Operation Fortitude was? Let us know below.

References

Ambrose, Stephen Edward. D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II. Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Ambrose, Stephen Edward. Ike’s Spies: Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment. Doubleday, 1981.

Esposito, Vincent J. The West Point Atlas of War. European Theater. Tess Press, 1995.

Keegan, John. Winston Churchill. Viking Penguin, 2002.

Weinberg, Gerhard. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1994.