Lessons from the 1918 Influenza Epidemic: Part 1 – ‘the threat of an outbreak you may not have experienced’

With the current Covid-19 pandemic causing upheaval the world over, can we look to the past to learn lessons? Here, Mac Guffey starts a series considering lessons from the 1918 Influenza Epidemic, an epidemic that infected around a third of the world’s population and killed some 40 million people (exact estimates vary from 15 million to 50 million or more). He will consider the question: Can something that happened over a hundred years ago in a society so vastly different from today provide any useful guidance regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic?

The first article in the series considers what happened during the 1918 Influenza Pandemic and the lessons we can draw on the economy today, namely the current controversy about reopening the economy after only several weeks of quarantine.

US troops with influenza in 1918 at U.S. Army Camp Hospital No. 45, Aix-Les-Bains, France, Influenza Ward No. 1.

On December 1, 1862, President Abraham Lincoln wrote some advice for the nation’s legislators in his Second Annual Message to Congress. 

The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew. [1]

Embroiled in the chaos of America’s first and only civil war, Lincoln’s advice to Congress to do what today we call “think outside the box” was almost futuristic in its suggested application. But to think outside the box requires one to know what’s already IN the box.

That’s where the world is right NOW in 2020 – trying to think anew and act anew - as the Covid-19 Pandemic upends the entire globe medically, socially, economically, and politically. 

But humanity is desperate. 

We don’t have the lives to waste on actions that merely repeat past failures or the time to ignore proven medical measures to chase quack medical solutions or the economy to endure all these haphazard plans born of desperation or political expediency.

But do we actually have any idea of what has gone before? Do we know what’s been tried and failed or what’s been tried and worked or what was never tried at all during a pandemic of THIS magnitude?

Ironically, we do – the 1918 Influenza Epidemic. 

In 2008, Thomas Garrett, then an economist with the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, published a study on “Pandemic Economics: The 1918 Influenza and Its Modern-Day Implications”. The third paragraph of his study contains this common sense recommendation.

Certainly an event that caused 40 million worldwide deaths in a year should be closely examined not only for its historical significance, but also for what we can learn (in the unfortunate chance the world experiences another influenza pandemic). [2] 

But the relevant question is: Can something that happened over a hundred years ago in a society so vastly different from today provide any useful guidance regarding the Covid-19 Pandemic? 

With Garrett’s suggestion as a goal, this article is the first of a four-part series to answer that question. Using the 1918 Influenza Pandemic as our foundational model, this series will examine that event using the three top issues or questions that have emerged during the 2020 crisis. We’ll see how the government and the people in 1918 handled similar challenges, and what, if any, lessons from the past can help us in the present.

Starting with the current controversy about reopening our economy after only several weeks of quarantine, we’ll also take a look at two other 2020 issues: healthcare and government leadership in the 1918 pandemic. 

The final article in this series will present some conclusions from the lessons of 1918 and offer some anecdotes that give voice to those who experienced this same type of crisis more than a hundred years ago. 

If we must think anew and act anew, then we must do so with knowledge – not ignorance.

Lesson One: ‘the threat of an outbreak you may not have experienced’

The United States (and the world), due to social distancing and stay-at-home restrictions during the Covid-19 Pandemic, hasn’t come near the mortality levels of the 1918 Influenza Epidemic. In fact, we’ve even flattened the rate of infection and mortality curves projected by most, if not all, of the statistical models used for the 2020 crisis.

Because of this good news, public health experts, state governors, the Trump administration, business owners, and Americans from all walks of life are now debating the question uppermost in everyone’s mind: How long do the restrictions need to continue before we can reopen the economy?

Despite the statistical success, Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said on CNN’s “State of the Union” that the answer to reopening the economy “depends”.

“It is not going to be a light switch. It is going to be depending where you are in the country, the nature of the outbreak you’ve already experienced, and the threat of an outbreak that you may not have experienced.” [3]

Whether Fauci intended it or not, the end of his statement - “and the threat of an outbreak that you may not have experienced” – actually contains a double meaning. For 2020, it means those areas of the country that were spared the Covid-19 virus thus far, which was his point.

But the unusually deadly 1918 epidemic suggests a far darker meaning for us – the possibility of another wave of outbreaks that could be far more murderous than the first. What made the 1918 Influenza Epidemic so unusual - and so devastating for humanity - were those two subsequent waves of infection in the fall of 1918 and the winter of 1919.

The first wave – spring 1918 

The great influenza pandemic first hit Europe, the United States, and Asia, in 1918 and raged across the globe for two years from January 1918 to December 1919. [4] However, early reports of the virus were almost dismissive.

On page one of the February 6, 1918 Malone, New York newspaper were several updates on area residents at home and abroad. One of the updates was about Lieutenant Clarence M. Kilburn, an infantry officer serving with the First Division in France.

Letters received by his wife and mother – the last one dated Jan. 14th - stated that the lieutenant was still in a hospital in France. He had been in the hospital since Thanksgiving, first with an infection of the bowels and then with influenza which followed. [5]

The April 4, 1918 Port Jervis, New York newspaper – The Evening Gazette – had an article on page six about new U.S. recruits training and marching at Camp Dix - the new World War I military training and staging ground built in New Jersey in 1917. Tucked away at the very end of that article was a short blurb about the March health report for Dix, the largest military reservation in the Northeast. 

Camp Dix. . . The March health report was a setback for the high health mark maintained at the camp for six months. Weather of considerable variance in temperature and humidity coming and going suddenly was responsible for the increase in pneumonia cases, according to Lieutenant Colonel G.M. Ekwurzel, division surgeon. The sudden changes in temperature, coupled with a week of consistently damp weather in early March when the sun failed to break through for days, brought on a camp wide attack of influenza. Many of the pneumonia patients were among those first bothered with influenza. [6]

These initial outbreaks had all the signs of a seasonal flu. But there were two important differences; this particular strain was highly contagious and particularly virulent.

Camp Funston, Kansas reported outbreaks of influenza in early March. A military installation of 54,000 troops, Camp Funston reported that within the first two days of the outbreak 522 men reported sick and by the end of the month, 1,100 troops were hospitalized and thirty-eight of them died from pneumonia complications. [7]

The virus continued spreading throughout Europe, but the number of cases from that spring outbreak of influenza in the U.S. dwindled over the summer. But the first wave was actually a warning of things to come. Unfortunately - like 2020 - these early warning signs were minimized, dismissed, or ignored - because things got better.

Or so the world thought.

The second and third waves 

In August 1918, an even more virulent strain of the influenza virus appeared simultaneously in the shipping ports of Brest, France, Freetown, Sierra Leone, and Boston, Massachusetts. Medical historians now believe this strain was caused by a mutation of the initial virus.

For the next three months – September through November – the virus killed millions worldwide. An estimated 195,000 Americans died in October alone. [8]

The last - but no less deadly - wave started in Australia in January of 1919. This one, however, spread more slowly because World War I was over, but it, too, eventually reached the U.S. in December.

After three waves of this pandemic, an estimated thirty-three percent of the world’s population was infected and the worldwide death toll stood at over 45 million people - 675,000 of whom were Americans. [8]

Contributing factors to the high mortality rate

What made the 1918 Influenza Epidemic so devastating for humanity - were those two subsequent waves of infection in the fall of 1918 and the winter of 1919. 

Why were they so deadly?

While there are a host of biological reasons for the virulence of the virus, war and human decisions also played key roles in exacerbating the spread.

Like all wars in America’s history to 1918, disease killed more soldiers than battles. Recruits in all those wars came from every part of the nation, and they were crowded together in training camps, winter camps, and on ships. They brought with them their own local viruses and immunities, as well as their susceptibilities to other local viruses to which they’d never been exposed. 

But this war was the first truly WORLD war – one that involved soldiers from every continent on the globe. This international mingling increased every soldier’s exposure to a host of local viruses from other soldiers to which they had no immunities. Combine these human petri dishes with crowded training camps and trench living conditions, and it’s a recipe for a medical pandemic. This exposure is similar to that found on public transportation, cruise ships, and during air travel in 2020.

As these soldiers in 1918 went abroad, came home, or went on liberty, they infected civilian populations with similar results.

Many cities and states tried to enforce some degree of social distancing restrictions in 1918 by passing regulations regarding public gatherings and travel in attempts to stay the epidemic. In many places theaters, dance halls, churches and other public gathering places were shut down – some for over a year. One U.S. town even outlawed shaking hands! [9]

Quarantines, however, were few and those that existed were enforced with little success. Some communities were so desperate to isolate themselves that they put armed guards at the town limits to turn back any travelers who might bring an infection. But on the whole, the efforts were unsuccessful. [9]

One historian, Dr. James Harris, who studies both infectious diseases and World War I, came to this conclusion: The reluctance of public health officials to impose quarantines during the first two waves was partly to blame for the high mortality rate.

“Little was done those first two thirds of the pandemic. There was the wartime context, pushback to social distancing, people moving around the globe on a massive scale.” [7]

The failure of public health officials to do what they knew was in the public good because of sensitivity to political or public opinion further endangered the lives of the very people they were hired or elected to protect. 

Philadelphia, in 1918, provides a graphic example. 

By mid-September 1918, the virus was running rampant throughout the various military installations, training camps and staging areas in and around Philadelphia. Despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, Philadelphia’s director of public health, reassured the public. The September 14th edition of the Harrisburg Telegraph reported on page six that “Dr. Wilmer Krusen, Philadelphia health director, does not see any danger in the Spanish influenza at present.”  [10]

Then came the Fourth Liberty Loan Parade.

Scheduled for September 28, the parade and a subsequent concert were organized to promote the sale of “Liberty Bonds” – a way to get the public to buy war bonds to help the government finance the war.

However, as the date approached, the medical community of Philadelphia pleaded with Dr. Krusen to cancel the parade and concert. According to Sam Dunnington’s 2017 post on the blog site: HiddenCity: Exploring Philadelphia's urban landscape:

Dr. Wilmer Krusen found himself under pressure from the city’s medical establishment to cancel the event. Krusen was Philadelphia’s director of Public Health and Charities. Several doctors had called on him earlier that month to quarantine 300 sailors that had recently arrived at Philadelphia’s Navy Yard. The servicemen had come from Massachusetts, where a virulent outbreak of influenza had already caused the Army to cancel a draft call. Krusen refused to quarantine the men. As concerns about influenza grew, the medical community encouraged the cancellation of the Liberty Loan parade in the interest of avoiding crowds and ideal transmission conditions. [11]

Again, Krusen refused. On September 28, over a hundred thousand citizens and soldiers watched or took part in the parade and concert.

Within seventy-two hours, Philadelphia’s hospitals were overrun with influenza cases. Between October 1 and November 2, the city registered 12,162 deaths from influenza - a number that does not include those that died from underlying conditions while fighting the virus. [11]

Dunnington concludes:

Krusen could have lessened the death toll by mandating a quarantine or canceling the parade, but he operated in an environment that made such decisions almost unthinkable. . . With Krusen, Philadelphians experienced the pandemic under a public health official that could not act in their best interests without risking becoming an enemy of the federal government. [11]

History NOW

The controversy about our current pandemic now raging across the United States is whether the social distancing and stay-at-home restrictions need to continue since the rate of infection seems to be tapering off.

Gerard Tellis, Neely Chair of American Enterprise, director of the Institute for Outlier Research in Business (iORB) and his research partner Ashish Sood of UC Riverside, along with Nitish Sood, a cellular and molecular biology student at Augusta University, have released a paper that parses the possibilities.

"The U.S. faces a unique challenge. All states have still not ordered lockdowns. So states that have and contain the disease may suffer contagion and relapse from those that don't or were late to do so. A uniform federal policy seems imperative." [12]

Our experiences during the 1918 Influenza Epidemic indicate that underestimating the first wave of an outbreak and continuing to yield to public and political pushback against quarantines and social distancing may lead to much higher mortality rates. 

As Fauci said, it’s “the threat of an outbreak that you may not have experienced” that should guide our decision-making - not politics or boredom.

Food for thought.

Now, read part 2 here: Lessons from the 1918 Influenza Epidemic: Part 2 – Healthcare – Two cities - Two outcomes - One reason

What lessons do you think we can learn from the 1918 Influenza Pandemic? Let us know below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al. eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln – Volume 5. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, p 538.

[2] Garrett , Thomas A. (2008). “Pandemic Economics: The 1918 Influenza and Its Modern-Day Implications”. Federal Reserve Bank Of St. Louis Review - March/April 2008. p.76. 

[3] Sonmez, Felicia, Taylor Telford, Elise Viebeck. “Public health experts urge caution about push to reopen the economy”. The Washington Post – April 13, 2020, First edition.

[4] Rosenwald, Michael S. “History’s deadliest pandemics, from ancient Rome to modern America”. Washington Post – April 7, 2020, First edition.

[5] The Malone Farmer. (Malone NY), February 06, 1918. p.1. Lt. Kilburn recovered, survived the war, and returned home to Malone. He was elected to Congress in 1940 to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Wallace E. Pierce (R-NY). Kilburn served in Congress from February 1940 until January 1965.

[6] “Four-Week Recruits at Rifle Practice: Next Seven Days for 7,000 Soldiers Will Be One of Busiest and Most Interesting”. The Evening Gazette, (Port Jervis, NY) April 4, 1918. p. 6.

[7] Roos, Dave. “Why the Second Wave of the 1918 Spanish Flu Was So Deadly”. History Stories - March 3, 2020; Updated March 30, 2020. HISTORY. Archived April 2, 2020 from https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-second-wave-resurgence

[8] Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “1918 Pandemic Influenza Historic Timeline”.  CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Archived April 4, 2020 from https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/pandemic-timeline-1918.htm

[9] “1918 Flu (Spanish flu epidemic)” About Avian Bird Flu - The Avian Bird Flu Survival Guide - May 21, 2008. Archived April 4, 2020 from http://www.avian-bird-flu.info/spanishfluepidemic1918.html

[10] “Well Known People”, Harrisburg Telegraph. (Harrisburg, Pa.) September 14, 1918. p.6.

[11] Dunnington, Sam. “A History Of Leadership During Philadelphia’s Epidemics”. HiddenCity: Exploring Philadelphia's urban landscape – July 21, 2017.

[12] Tellis, Gerald, et.al. “How long will the COVID-19 quarantine last? Business research provides insight”. Medical Xpress, April 8, 2020. Archived April 18, 2020 from https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-04-covid-quarantine-business-insight.html

Henry VIII's Divorce of Catherine of Aragon – Who had the Better Case in the Great Divorce? Part 3: Catherine’s Case for the Marriage

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 3 of the series, Victor Gamma considers Catherine’s arguments - and how Henry’s arguments related to consummation and the Bible were not terribly strong.

You can read part 1 on the background to the great divorce here and part 2 on how Henry’s efforts to overturn the marriage in the courts failed here.

An 18th century painting of Catherine of Aragon.

Catherine's Case

From the start Catherine of Aragon refused to entertain the slightest notion that her marriage to the king was anything but holy and entirely acceptable.  Moreover, she indicated that she would not accept any decision not coming from the Roman Curia or the Pope himself. Nonetheless, she appeared at the Blackfriars tribunal. On June 18, when both king and queen were present at Blackfriars, Catherine presented her case publically. When the clerk called out "Catherine. Queen of England, come into the court," she did not answer. Instead she went to the King directly, kneeling before him. In an unforgettable scene, Catherine pled her case before the king and the assembled court officials and nobles gathered that day. She knew that everything depended on her words and actions. She may never again have another chance to sway the mind of her husband and sovereign, King Henry VIII. In a "posture of absolute submission" Catherine ignored court protocol and knelt before Henry;

"Sir, I beseech you for all the love that hath been between us, and for the love of God, let me have justice. Take of some pity and compassion, for I am a poor woman, and a stranger born out of your dominion. I have here no assured friends, and much less impartial counsel."

Then in a brief but eloquent speech, she laid out her case. It included four main points. First, she reminded him and all those present that she had been a dutiful, good wife and had given no cause for offense. Second, lack of a male heir was not her fault. Third, she had been a virgin when she had married Henry and finally, she indicated that the court was biased against her and that she needed counsel.

Catherine’s supporters

But Catherine was not alone. Numerous supporters had come to her aid. Their arguments will be considered hers. Bishop Fisher, on behalf of the queen declared "this marriage of the king and queen can be dissolved by no power, human or divine." During the Blackfriars tribunal, the effort to build Catherine’s defense began in earnest. One argument was simply the insincerity of the king; “the idea of separation originated entirely in his own iniquity and malice” averred the Spanish ambassador, Eustace Chapuys. Furthermore he asserted that “The King’s passion for the Lady, (Anne Boleyn) combined with his obstinacy were such that there was no chance of recalling him by mildness or fair words to a sense of his duty.” Chapuys here referred to the fact that at this time King Henry was deeply involved with another woman, Anne Boleyn.

As to the character of Catherine, since no direct evidence existed, the character of the witnesses counted for much. Those who knew her were universal in their high opinion of her. Eustace Chapuys noted of Catherine that she was ‘so virtuous, devout and holy, so truthful and God-fearing’ that it was unthinkable for a lie to proceed from her pious lips.’ 

Consummation claim

The critical point of debate was over whether Arthur and Catherine's brief (four months) marriage had been consummated. In the words of the catechism, “the marriage bond has been established by God Himself in such a way that a marriage concluded and consummated between baptized persons can never be dissolved.” In Medieval thinking, an impediment of affinity only existed if the marriage had been consummated.  If the marriage had never been consummated then it could be considered not legally binding, thus for Henry to marry his brother’s widow would upset no precepts of Biblical or Canon law. Henry strove mightily, then to prove the marriage had been consummated. He could then more easily make the case that he and Catherine had been living in sin. The queen insisted that she was a virgin when she married Henry. Catherine had begun asserting this as early as 1502, within months of Arthur's death, and stood firm on this point to the end of her days. There is no record of Arthur's opinion on the subject. Catherine, known for her extreme piety, had sworn on the sacrament that her four-month marriage to Arthur had never been consummated. Rather than believe his saintly wife, Henry insisted otherwise. Despite this, Henry VIII himself had stated that he had found her a 'maid' on their wedding night and he never publicly called Catherine a liar, indeed he even publicly admitted she was right.

In October 1529, when his wife once again publicly proclaimed her maiden status, Henry shouted “I am content, but you are not my wife for all that.” Furthermore, the 'bedding' of Catherine and Arthur was a ceremonial part of a royal marriage process and did not require consummation. In marriages of state, the wedding and the consummation did not necessarily go hand in hand. Additionally, the health of the bridegroom was taken seriously. Arthur was frail and physically immature. Soon after the wedding ceremony to Arthur it was arranged that Catherine stay in London under the tutelage of her mother and grandmother-in-law while Arthur did some more growing up without the distraction of a wife. As to witnesses; after his wedding night, Arthur is reported to have asked for ale to quench his thirst "for I have been in the midst of Spain last night." These words indicating consummation repeated seventeen years later are doubtful. In each case they were most likely the self-serving claims of courtiers who wished to win their sovereign’s favor or the nervous, youthful boasting of the Prince who wished to hide his failure to consummate his marriage.  

Biblical claim

Now for the biblical grounds. Here Catherine’s cause was helped by several facts. First, whether the marriage of Arthur and Catherine was consummated or not does not bear on the scriptures of Leviticus that relate to the issue. The verses in Leviticus do not mention anything about the status of the relationship at the point it was violated. 

Another weakness with Henry's argument was that the verse states the offending couple shall remain childless. It said nothing about sons. Since Henry and Catherine had a daughter, he thus could not make a valid argument that God was punishing him. Henry argued that the Greek had been improperly translated into Latin. "Liberis" - "children," should have been rendered "filiis" - sons. However, in Leviticus 20:20, the verse before the one Henry used, a curse is placed on a couple if a man had relations with his uncle's wife. The same Hebrew term "childless" is used in verse 20. It is highly unlikely that a translator would use a different term just one verse later. 

Even more damaging to his case was Deuteronomy 25:5 that specifically stated a man's obligation to his brother's widow, namely, that he must marry her and raise up children so that his dead brother’s name would continue. The brother is not simply encouraged but commanded to fulfill this obligation. To marry Catherine King Henry had brushed aside this seeming contradiction to his interpretation of the Leviticus verses as an example of Jewish custom rather than Divine Law. But, as was pointed out, one cannot simply decide which verse is Jewish custom and which is Divine Law arbitrarily. Leviticus or Deuteronomy are silent as to any such distinction. Sound Biblical exegesis demands the two verses be harmonized. Bishop Fisher argued that a brother is never to marry his sister-in-law with one exception: that in Deuteronomy of the brother dying without children. The light shed by comparing scripture with scripture further withered Henry’s argument. The Old Testament contains multiple occasions in which someone is enjoined to fulfill this very duty. In Genesis 38:8 Judah twice orders his sons to perform this obligation with his daughter-in-law Tamar. In fact, when Judah’s son Onan refused to comply, he was struck dead by God! Here and in many other places it is clear that this was a well-established custom of the Jews, codified in the Law. In the New Testament, John the Baptist’s condemnation of Herod for marrying his brother’s wife was due to the fact that his brother was still alive. This clearly demonstrates the common Jewish understanding that the prohibition applied only in that case of a dead brother dying without offspring. If that weren’t enough, all the great Catholic theologians including St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, Thomas Aquinus, and others had analyzed the apparent contradiction between Leviticus and Deuteronomy and stood squarely opposed to the King.

Henry VIII’s solution

Ultimately, King Henry VIII solved his problem not with canonical or Biblical argumentation but a unilateral solution in which England would act independently of Roman law. As for Clement VII, he finally got around to ruling against Henry in 1533. He then went further and ordered him to take Catherine back and, finally, excommunicated him for not doing so. But at that point, the English no longer recognized his authority anyway.

Having reviewed the opposing sides, who do you think had the better case? Let us know below.

Reflections on the Vietnam War: George S. Patton and the Reasons for the Vietnam War

George S. Patton, son of legendary World War II general of the same name, served three times in the Vietnam War. In this major piece, Robert McBroom considers Patton’s thoughts on the Vietnam War, including the reasons for the conflict and how to fight the Viet Cong. To produce the article, Robert has worked closely with the Patton homestead archive in Hamilton, Massachusetts and met and interviewed George Patton’s wife Joanie Holbrook Patton.

George S. Patton in 1977.

“The war in Vietnam was unwinnable lost before the French expeditionary force fired its first shot, before the south fielded its first soldier in the national Army of Vietnam, before the first U.S. advisor set foot in country.  An idea independence and unity would triumph over bullets. “[1] Colonel William C. Haponski, who served with Major General George S. Patton would go on to explain what he believes is the result of the conflict in Vietnam.  When the White House got involved in Vietnam, they had zero control during the conflict and had no real foundation of why our boys were fighting in a foreign land.  George would later reflect on Vietnam by saying, “There was an absence almost total of a national strategy.”[2]  Despite victories on the battlefield, the conflict in Vietnam had no end goal.  The Vietnam conflict has had many different perspectives and historians for years have tried to develop an understanding for all.  Historian Mark Philip Bradley would explain the Vietnam conflict as “there were many Vietnam wars, among them an anti-colonial war with France, a cold war turned hot with the United States, a civil war between North and South Vietnam and among southern Vietnamese, and a revolutionary war of ideas over the vision that should guide Vietnamese society into the post-colonial future.”[3]  The Vietnamese people had been fighting a war of independence since the very start of their existence and have used guerrilla warfare to their success against colonial powers.  The separation of North and South Vietnam started with French missionaries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and would rule Vietnam.  While the French would rule the South, China and other communists’ countries supported the revolutionary groups in the North, thus the separation was created at the 17th parallel which was a boundary created by the military in 1954.  All of this would make the conflict in Vietnam like nothing this country had seen before, historian Christian G Appy would say that “there has never been a war quite so frustrating as Vietnam.”[4]  However, Congress had not technically declared a war since 1942.  His frustration is one that is felt by historians of Vietnam.  Colonel Harry G. Summers Jr. who was a graduate and an illustrious man of the Army War College, while also being a veteran of Korea and Vietnam would go on to explain to Nguyen Don Tu that, “you know you never beat us on the battlefield.”[5] While his counterpart of the North Vietnamese Army, Colonel Nguyen Don Tu would say “That may be so, but it’s also irrelevant.”[6]  Creating this frustrating for all who were a part of Vietnam and the scholars who study the conflict.  This paper will examine his experience as a United States advisor in Vietnam, which would end up being his first of three tours involving the conflict.  Lieutenant Colonel George S. Patton would reflect on the Viet Cong and their guerilla warfare, and how the United States could find a weakness but also what made the North Vietnam Army so strong along with their leaders and their philosophy in his Army War college thesis.

Major General, George S. Patton IV, was the son of old blood and guts, Gen. George S. Patton, Jr. who was a veteran of both World Wars, would go on to explain what he believes is a cause of the conflict in Vietnam and the history of the area is a direct result of the French rule over time in the region and a lack of leadership from America political leaders.  The Major General was born December 24th, 1923 and would later drop the IV legally in 1947 after his father’s passing.  George would explain to historian Bill McCloud that, “Lyndon Johnson failed to mobilize either the armed forces or the people at home.”[7]  In any time period of war and or conflict, the President of the time must mobilize both the efforts at home, as well as being clear cut orders for the military, which Lyndon Johnson failed miserably at doing so.

After his graduation at West Point a man is famously known for saying “You’ll never be the man your father was but congratulations.”[8]  Never less Patton would become a veteran of two significant military conflicts during the second half of the century, the conflict in Korea and the conflict in Vietnam.  Historian Lewis Sorley would discuss an incident with General Abrams and Patton to show how understanding a person and soldier George was.  “When he arrived Patton could see he was in a foul mood…When he neared it, he asks Patton, you got any whiskey?  Paton said he did and got Abrams a scotch and soda.”[9]  George knew not to antagonize General Abrams; he was simply there to listen and support his fellow soldier who had just returned from the combat zone.  James Dozier, a friend of George's who served with him in the 11th Armored Cavalry regiment known as the Blackhorse regiment would later reflect on Patton’s career by saying, “he just had an instinct for doing the right thing at the right time in combat and many American soldiers are alive today because George Patton was their boss.”[10]  George had the instinct that many military leaders of his time did not have and many veterans of the conflict are thankful for George for being their boss.   

Vietnam became a large cemetery because of their history of conflict with outsiders was the reason for that.  The only way the American political leaders and some military leaders could see success was by body count of the enemy.  “To obtain the attrition rate, enemy bodies had to be counted.”[11]  Chief intelligence William Westmoreland stated.  The Vietnamese wanted nothing more than their culture and lifestyle, but with the strong outside forces controlling the Vietnamese people, Major General George S. Patton would describe it as an open door for communism.  “These powerful forces set up the stage for the entry of communist ideology.”[12]  A long history of injustice for the people of Vietnam was the issue at hand while George would go on to say that “Most humble were confronted by Frenchman holding exact the same or lower jobs but being paid two or three times more.  Thus, the French janitor at Hanoi received a base pay that was slightly higher than that of a Vietnamese professor with a PHD from Paris.”[13]  This George believes is one of many reasons for a communist ideology to spread in a place like Vietnam and also a cause for a revolution for the Vietnamese people, the disbalanced democracy that favors a person’s background and not the education of an individual who went to school in a western country.  “The French concept of divide and rule which kept the five colonial dependencies politically separated, were contributory to today’s dilemma.”[14]  Having the separation between North and South Vietnam all these years, George believes is also a direct cause of the conflict America had become a part of.  Vietnam was unlike anything his father had faced before along with military personnel of his time. “In Vietnam there were no lines, Patton pointed out.  “It was more a war of the people.  And we did not understand that war nor did we have a clear-cut national strategic objective.  It was not clearly defined by the leadership of this country.”[15]  Our military members during the time did not have a understand why we were their just like the American people watching in their living rooms. 

I. Leaders of the Vietnam Conflict

Patton would write several versions of his Army War College thesis on the Viet Cong forces and how they endured their history, and how he viewed success in Vietnam along with his beliefs on the Vietnamese people.  Unlike Westmoreland, George did not believe that a body count of the enemy was the simple solution with the conflict in Vietnam. Patton would state that “This early failure to establish a viable political base which would include these important ethnic minorities was to prove costly.”[16]  The idea of counting the enemy in body bags, was a cover up for American political problems with not creating a political base for the South Vietnam People.  Thus, Communism which was an easy quick government to set up, seeps through and into the Vietnamese lives. 

After his first tour in Vietnam, George S. Patton would examine his enemy, the Viet Cong and how Vietnam has been shaped over time and in history.  “The very existence of Vietnam as a separate country and the survival of the Vietnamese as a distinct people must be regarded as a miracle for which scores of historians have satisfactory solution.”[17]  Vietnam had been under colonial rule since the French got there in 1887 and continued to be under rule for much of their history, yet the people of Vietnam were never going to give up.  “Vietnam has everything that others want both geographical and historical should have made the absorption of Vietnam by the Chinese empire and inescapable fate.”[18]  The Vietnamese people had no problem with outsiders coming to their homeland, they just did not want to be controlled.  George would go on to explain that “They did not mind the French so very much.  They just didn't like always being occupied and working for the French.”[19]  If the Vietnamese people and the French could have lived together with equal opportunity, they’d be no conflict.  Let the Vietnamese have their culture and ways of life, that had been taking away from them for so many years.  This unbalance democracy allows for Communists countries to intervene on Western beliefs in Vietnam both North and parts of the South.   

II George’s view on the Conflict

When the French backed away and the United States would now take over with the help of the Democratic party of South Vietnam, that had now been established.  It was still not going to kill the Viet Cong heart and soul, that their leader Ho Chi Minh and others have put forth to them with Propaganda and radio broadcasts over the years to get the outsiders out, a tactic known as psychological warfare.  Revolution had been a part of Vietnam’s history since the people could remember and the Viet Cong used that to their advantage.  Their country had been under foreign rule whether it was the Chinese empire, or the French or America acting for western democracy ideology.  ”From the perspective of the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, it was a war to end foreign domination and reunite the two Vietnams.”[20] The people in North Vietnam were under a nationalistic uprising, while the people of the south was in conflict within the Saigon government.  Both the North and the South had major issues within their own governments.  The United States military was simply trying to make life better and help get the Chinese out of Vietnam, as they were supporting the North Vietnam army.  “You fools Don’t you realize what it means if the Chinese stay? Don’t you remember your history?  The last time the Chinese came, they stayed for one thousand years![21]  Ho Chi Minh would explain to his pro Chinese counter part of the North Vietnam Government.  “As for me I prefer to smell French shit for five years, rather than Chinese shit for the rest of my life.” This confusion within the government led the Vietnamese people to a conflicting point of view on both sides of the government in both North and South Vietnam.  Some of the Vietnamese people saw American’s as the enemy because of the psychological pressure put on the people by propaganda, put forth by the communist party in North Vietnam.  Patton would discuss a situation about his men helping a local village.  “Our generosity was often overlooked, “says Patton. 

“One time, in a village called Bing Co, elements of the 919-engineer company, which was organic to Blackhorse, were laying foundation for a new school and playground.  As a vehicle carrying water and food for the army troops approached, it hit a mine buried in the road, wounding two soldiers and destroying the vehicle.  The mine location must have been well known to some of the villagers. Yet, within thirty minutes of the incident other dedicated engineers were back outside to finish the playground job even without orders.”[22]

Despite the political views on either side, the military had developed a reason to be there in Vietnam, and that was helping the people.  Try to fix the constant destruction upon it because of the country’s history.  Helping the South Vietnamese people was not put forth by the United States government, but rather acts of kindness by Veterans.  “Few American’s arrived in Vietnam with a deep-seated commitment to help the people of South Vietnam, but most were convinced that helping the South Vietnamese was a central purpose to their mission.”[23]  The simple act of helping them build schools and Patton would go on to say that any operations that was happening in Vietnam, was a chance within itself.  “These were very delicate operations and any time one realized that the chances of success were perhaps 50 percent or less.”[24]  The Military members never asked questions, and always did what they were told and no matter how difficult the operation sounded, they did it with no questions asked.  Marine Lance Corporal Steven Shircliff who was a member of the Third Reconnaissance Battalion, would reflect on a call to battle his platoon got to return to the battlefield where they’d just fought, by saying “I can still remember those insane words to return.  Not only I, but everyone else who was left were in tears, shock, and disbelief.  It was unbelievable that we were being ordered back into the same hell we had just managed to survive.  But we followed orders.”[25]  Whether the political leaders of the time, kept sending our military service members back into the Jungle, or the massive media hit the service members got by having the war televised in America’s living room.  They could not see what Patton and many other veterans of Vietnam, saw before the conflict ended, including the North Vietnam leaders, one being Bao Dai who said “I saw Ho Chi Minh suffer.  He was fighting a battle within himself.  Ho had his own struggle.  He realized communism was not best for his country, but it was too late.  Ultimately, he could not overcome his allegiance to communism.”[26]  Communism was the best fit for the Vietnamese people to come together as one people and for the nationalistic side of individual’s became the forefront of their lives.  The North Vietnamese Army was not going to give up anytime soon and nothing was going to beat the belief in independence, even if communism was not the right answer, it was a solid starting point for the hope of combining to create one Vietnam.

 III. Fighting the Viet Cong

In George’s writings about the conflict, did he ever reflect on how the United States could be successful in Vietnam against the Viet Cong forces?  Fighting the North Vietnamese Army was an issue that was very complex.  George would explain in his thesis that the “the main force Viet Cong may be of either sex, in our out of uniform and of any age.  He may or may not be a communist party member.”[27]  The Vietnamese had been in this conflict for a very long time and it became a war of not only communist members, but the people of Vietnam.  Viet Cong forces, Patton wrote, were commanded by those before who have survived a western influence over the years and those leaders have used propaganda to gain the trust of mostly peasants.  “Communist ideology was not a significant motivating factor other than being the force that developed the propaganda that emerged as the primary weapon of this conflict.”[28]  The leaders of North Vietnam over the years, developed a strong hatred, grievances and a sense of adventure for their people to join against the westerns and their beliefs.  Although communism would not be good for the people in the long run, to reunite the two Vietnam’s it was the best fit.  They did not care if they were poor or rich, they just wanted to live in peace in their corner of the world.  

The Major General would go on to explain that the leaders of the Viet Cong, were a heroic figure for the people of Vietnam because they were “effective, dedicated, experienced and product of the law of survival.”[29]  Thus they have stood the tests of time and are true Vietnamese patriots.  The General would discuss the strong influence of self-criticism for a Vit Cong solider in Mai Xuan Phong’s diary states that “In my heart, I keep loyal to the party and people.  I am proud and happy.  For two days we have been short of food and had only glutinous rice.  The sun is burning hot.  Not enough drinking water.  But our patriotism and our determination to liberate will help us overcome all.”[30]  The General would go on to explain that “these extracts and reports merely demonstrate that complaint continues as a handmaiden of soldiering, and cannot be discounted as an influencing factor”[31]  George would explain that when things for the United States did not look good in Vietnam, examine the enemy and find what is not working for them as well for what is working for them.  “In the words of our greatest ally, “when things look bad and one’s own difficulties appear great, the best tonic is to consider those of the enemy.”[32]  When your plans are not going as the way you wanted them too, George believes that taking a deeper look at the enemy situation and status is a good way to figure out how to overcome one’s own difficulties in warfare.

The North Vietnamese Army never stopped training, no matter if that meant military or political training their minds.  “Main force military training consists of forty-five days with five days extra for cadres.  Fifteen days are for general military items and ten days are for tactics.  There is a separate training schedule for politics, this is about 20 days.”[33]  George would explain that in one of Ho Chi Min writings, unknowingly would write what he believes was a “western shortcoming in training for guerrilla war.”[34] In that the North Vietnamese knowingly knew what and how westerns trained for battle.  “To Train everybody for guerrilla warfare.  But in many localities time is devoted only to training or parade.  This is like practicing music for putting out a fire.”[35]  However, George believes that is was a political tactic for Ho Chi Minh and for his spread of communist propaganda as the main objective to reach the people and gain their support, since this was a major factor for the Viet Cong forces.  “Always returning to the importance of effective propaganda…but encourages go to the people to give them explanations.”[36]  He was a man of the people, much like most of the North Vietnam military leaders.  Patton also believes that there was nothing new and nothing about the Viet Cong military training that would make them super revolutionary.  “There is nothing starkly revolutionary about the Viet Cong military training.  On the other hand, it is training for revolutionaries, realistic and simple, reflecting the simple character of the trainee.”  That the main Viet Cong forces had not done anything new or different when it came to those before him.  The Vietnamese people were fighting for independence and would not stop because the North Vietnam government had made a “big promise”[37] to the people.  Another strong belief for the Viet Cong forces Patton believes is that to keep secrets and never reveal information.  “The Viet Cong are fairly good at security operations in general, and yet there are the diaries heretofore cited.”[38]  The Diaries of fallen Viet Cong forces would be a helpful tip inside of what they were thinking, planning and even sometimes their next moves Patton believes.

The Viet Cong soldier had the idea drilled into them, that to bear torture if captured.  Since the North Vietnam army refrains from believing in torture and to not torture others as well, Patton would explain that “Although it is certain that both sides have indulged in some cruelty, especially after sharp engagements, constant RVN efforts have achieved some improvement.”  Thus, torture and integrations are a part of warfare, so it some way or from it will make its way onto the battlefield.  After intense fighting and both sides are still filled with hate, anger and all kinds of emotions.  

When it came to supplies and weaponry, The Viet Cong forces did not have much.  George believes that “The Viet Cong are a have not force.  Therefore, what they do have they will secure and maintain, paying special attention to ordnance material, critical foodstuffs, and medical supplies.”[39]  As the conflict continues, they would try to capture the weapons and supplies they need and had been successful doing so.  The Vietnamese people had been in a conflict with each other and had been under a foreign rule for so long, that the need for supplies was always a need as the North Vietnam army would have to rely on civilian population and help.  George would explain that for the Viet Cong to have success in the future, they would have “to respect and help the civilian population.”  However, this was not always true because the survival of the Viet Cong was so important, George would explain that “The insurgent enemy is a combination of many things.  He is known to be a mixer of terror with days of help, murder with general education and falsity with kindness.  He is a pillager and a thief, yet sometimes a philanthropist.”[40]  The Viet Cong had to be all of this George believes, because they had to hide the political side of their mission, while being for the people like Ho Chi Minh and other Viet Cong leaders.  

While reflecting on her husbands’ military career, along with his War College Thesis Joanne Holbrook Patton would say that “My husband was always aware that there could have been other things done.  If we had gone further as a government to get to know Ho Chi Minh, might have been possible something better could have happened, wouldn’t have said he was all communist because first he was all Nationalist.”[41]  The United States propaganda put forth by the political leaders and their scare of the spread of communism, along with the media had turned Ho Chi Minh into a full blown Communist when in reality, he was all nationalist and wanted to unify the two Vietnam’s anyway he could, as this was the main objective for him.  

IV George’s view on Viet Cong philosophy

Patton would describe the Viet Cong philosophy for government as something to be conflicting within its own ideology.  That the United States could use the North Vietnam propaganda and beliefs as counter propaganda if it was placed in the hands of an expert.  “It’s is Questionable as to whether the reputation of either Ho or his government is indeed founded on fact.”[42]  Ho Chi Minh and his government relied on their Propaganda to gain a foundation for nationalism and a movement towards unity, as this was their main objective and hid communism from the people.   

Vietnam was being influenced by foreign countries in both the North and the South, while the United States was in the South, the North was facing two different enemies, the Chinese and the Soviet Union, George believes that a weakness could be found if the United States exploits those two countries.  “The Chinese intervention problem and this nation’s basic ideological disagreements with the Soviet Union might, if properly pressed and exploited by the free world, enfeeble the insurgency.”[43]  The Soviet Union and China had now placed the small nation of North Vietnam and their government into a dilemma, due to the Sino-Soviet split, Patton believes that it will “Force the small nation to cast her lot with one side or the other or follow an independent course which may be economically undesirable.”[44]  Doing this will open a weakness within the North Vietnam Government and allow the South and the United States to try to bring North Vietnam to the discussion table which is the only way George believes will be the only way North Vietnam can come out of the conflict with some form of victory.  That if the conflict was to continue.  The United States military, with the help of South Vietnam would over run the Viet Cong Military force.  George would write about how the Viet Cong “Must bring us to the conference table to win because a military victory is completely beyond their power”[45]  When it comes to military strategy, George would explain that we must fight the Viet Cong with their own tactics, Beat them at their own game and that the only way for this conflict to end was to meet at the table.  The time for that meeting, was never to happen as American political leaders pulled troops out of Vietnam in March 1973.

V. Conclusion 

“Find the Bastard and Pile on!”  was the standing order that George S. Patton gave his men who were a part of the 11thArmored Cavalry regiment.  George was hopefully that this conflict could be turned around with the right leaders in charge.  Joanne Holbrook Patton would go on to say “George was hopefully his favorite general Abrams, when appointed to take the place of Westmoreland, he would be able to turn things around.  But he hardly got started when everything was shut off.”[46]  When General Abrams finally got the command to lead, it was too late.  As troops returned home to an unpleasant welcome by American citizens.  “George was frustrated by the press showing that the Tet offensive was such a success for the North…not the whole story.”[47]  Success in Vietnam is very complex and frustrating, general Abrams finally got his chance to lead, but the effort in Vietnam had to come to an end, because of the pressure from the people at home and media not showing the whole conflict is something that George would take with him for the rest of his life.  George was a beloved soldier by so many and a fantastic father.  “He was a tolerant father, one time or another one of our children did something that was not what he wanted them to do but never deserted them.”[48]  Even after the conflict in Vietnam was over, the veterans who returned home took most of the blame for it because of the media and press of Vietnam.  He never let his feelings toward the conflict and political leaders get in the way of what meant more to him in life.  His duty to serve his country, and his duty to be the best father and husband he possibly could be.  True American hero.   

What do you think of George S. Patton and the Vietnam War? Let us know below.

[1] Autopsy of an unwinnable war Vietnam colonel Ret William C. Haponski with colonel Ret Jerry J. Burcham foreword by lieutenant General Ret Dave R. Palmer pg.241

[2] Bill McCloud, What Should We Tell Our Children? Norman: (The University of Oklahoma Press) 1989. Pg.98.

[3] Mark Bradley, (Vietnam at war New York: Oxford University Press, 2009) pg.8

[4] Christian G Appy. Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam. Pg.237

[5] Ibid pg.236

[6] Ibid

[7] Ibid

[8] Brain Sobel, George Smith Patton, and Joanne Holbrook Patton. The Fighting Patton’s. Bloomington: (Indiana University Press, 2013) pg.7  

[9] Lewis. Sorley Thunderbolt: General Creighton Abrams and the Army of His Times. Bloomington, IN: (Indiana University Press, 2008) Pg.300

[10] Ibid pg.120

[11] Gregory A. Daddis No Sure Victory Measuring U.S. Army Effectiveness and Progress in the Vietnam War. New York: (Oxford University Press)2011

[12] (George S. Patton Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.4

[13] Ibid pg.14

[14] Ibid pg.15

[15] The Fighting Patton’s pg.xv 

[16] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.10

 [17] Briefing on my AWC thesis (the VC) 19 September 1964 1st version Patton family homestead archive file 02.289.02 

[18] Ibid 

[19] Ibid  

[20]James Stuart, and Randy Roberts. Where the Domino Fell: America and Vietnam, 1945-2010. Malden (Mass.): Wiley Blackwell, 2014. Pg113

[21] William Appleman. America in Vietnam: a Documentary History. W.W. Norton, 1985. Pg.94

[22] The Fighting Patton’s by Brain M. sobel pg.146

[23] Working Class War by Christian Appy pg.212

[24] The Fighting Patton’s. Pg.104

[25] Lawrence C. Vetter JR Never without Heroes Marine Third Reconnaissance Battalion in Vietnam. pg250

[26]Williams, William Appleman. America in Vietnam: A Documentary History. W.W. Norton, 1985. Pg.94

[27] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.4

[28]Ibid pg87

[29] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.84

[30] Ibid pg.67

[31] Ibid pg.68

[32] Ibid 

[33] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.69

[34] Ibid pg.28

[35] Ibid

[36] Ibid 

[37] Ibid pg.94

[38] Ibid pg.71

[39] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.73

[40] Ibid  

[41] Joanne Patton reflects on her husband’s war college thesis and his service.  In person with author February 28th, 2020, Interviewer Robert L McBroom Jr. interviewee Joanne Patton at 4:40

[42] (Thesis US Army War college April 1965) portrait of an insurgent: a study of the main force Vietnamese communist force 02.1591 pg.94

[43] Ibid pg.92

[44] Ibid pg.92

[45] Ibid pg.97 

[46] Personal interview Joanne Patton reflects on her husband’s war college thesis and his service. 28th February 2020, Interviewer Robert L McBroom Jr. interviewee Joanne Patton 8:09

[47]Ibid 8:36

[48] Ibid 12:02

Bibliography

Patton Family Homestead, Wenham Museum, Hamilton, Ma

Patton Family Archive collection  

Sobel, Brian, George Smith Patton, and Joanne Holbrook Patton. The Fighting Patton’s. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2013.

Personal interview Joanne Patton reflects on her husband’s war college thesis and his service. 28th February 2020, Interviewer Robert L McBroom Jr. interviewee Joanne Patton

Published Secondary Sources:

Appy, Christian G. Working-Class War: American Combat Soldiers and Vietnam. United States: The University of North Carolina Press, 2000.

Bradley, Mark, and Marilyn Blatt. Young. Making Sense of the Vietnam Wars: Local, National, and Transnational Perspectives. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.

Bradley Mark Vietnam at war New York: Oxford University Press, 2009

Conley, Michael Charles. The Communist Insurgent Infrastructure in South Vietnam: A Study of Organization and Strategy. Washington: Center for Research in Social Systems, American University, 1967.

Daddis, Gregory A. No Sure Victory Measuring U.S. Army Effectiveness and Progress in the Vietnam War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Duiker, William John. Sacred War: Nationalism and Revolution in a Divided Vietnam. Boston: McGraw Hill, The Pennsylvania State University press, 1995.

Herring, George C. Americas Longest War: The United States and Vietnam. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986.

Lawrence, Mark Atwood. The Vietnam War: An International History in Documents. New York: Oxford University Press, 2014.

McCloud, Bill. What Should We Tell Our Children? Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press, 1989.

McKenna, Thomas P. Kontum: The Battle to Save South Vietnam. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 2015.

Palmer, Bruce. The 25 Year War: America's Military Role in Vietnam. Lexington University Press Of Kentucky, 2002.

Summers, Harry G. On Strategy: the Vietnam War in Context. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, US Army War College, 1981.

Morningstar, James Kelly. Patton's Way: a Radical Theory of War. Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2017

Olson, James Stuart, and Randy Roberts. Where the Domino Fell: America and Vietnam, 1945-2010. Malden (Mass.): Wiley Blackwell, 2014.

Sorley, Lewis. Vietnam Chronicles: The Abrams Tapes, 1968-1972 (Modern Southeast Asia Series). Lubbock TX: Texas Tech University Press, 2004.

Sorley, Lewis. The Vietnam War: An Assessment by South Vietnams Generals. Lubbock, TX: Texas Tech University Press, 2010.

Sorley, Lewis. Thunderbolt: General Creighton Abrams and the Army of His Times. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008.

A Brief History of Poitiers, France

Poitiers is a city of just shy of 100,000 people in center-west France, some 210 miles/340 kilometers south-west of Paris. The city is has a very long and rich history, and here, Konstant Teleshov provides an overview of that history and tells us about the key sites to explore should you visit the city.

Poitiers in the 16th century.

The city of Poitiers in France has a wide variety of sites to visit - many royal palaces, churches and castles, battlefields, and historical areas. It is one of the oldest cities in France and a prime example of how the history of France and Europe is centuries long and eventful. Poitiers is located in one of the western departments of the French Republic called Vienne. This historical area is called Poitou. Poitiers has been an ordinary provincial French city for many centuries. The economic rise of the city occurred in the 1970s and 1980s.

There were 3 important battles for France and Europe there. Every native of this city knows such historical personalities as Eleanor Aquitaine, Joan of Arc and Richard the Lionheart. Both ruled the city at different times.

Today Poitiers is the historical, cultural, economic and spiritual center of the western part of France.

What else is famous and wonderful in this city? Read on to find out. 

Foundation and Gallo - Roman period

The founding of Poitiers occurred in the second century BC. The city was named Piktaviy. It was founded by one of the Gallic tribes - the pictones. The location for the future city was chosen perfectly, on the Poitevinian Plateau, which is a natural corridor between the south and the north of the country.

The young settlement rapidly developed. In parallel with this, the power of the Roman Empire grew. The great Roman commander Julius Caesar captured Piktaviy In 51 BC. Gaul became a Roman province for several centuries.

The territory of Poitiers increased significantly during the time of Roman rule. Every tourist can feel the spirit of the Roman era if they visit a ruined aqueduct (an aqueduct is a Roman water conduit for supplying water to a settlement).

The active construction of churches began in the fourth century, and the city became the real spiritual center of Gaul. The most striking example is the Baptistery of St. John the Baptist. This is an old monument from the period of early Christianity.

The first church building was erected in the middle of the fourth century on the remains of Roman buildings, further changes in its image and structure were made in the era of the Merovingians. The initiator of the construction of the baptistery was the famous theologian and bishop Hilarius of Pictavi. Construction started in 360 AD. Later on, the Bishops Quarter grew around this building. Frescoes, which were painted in the Middle Ages, have been preserved on the walls of the former Baptistery. They depict the Ascension of the Lord, scenes from the life of John the Baptist, the evangelists Luke, Matthew, John and Mark, and the Byzantine emperor Constantine. The facade of the building is interesting as an example of the Merovingian style of art; marble, stucco and elements of ancient architecture that were used in its decoration.

Tourists can find some historical monuments of the Roman era in the museum of Saint - Croix. The museum contains works of art, the most ancient of which date back to Gallo - Roman times, and the latest ones were created in the 20th century.

Poitiers in the Dark Ages

Poitiers fell under the influence of the Visigoths after the fall of the Roman Empire. From this moment begins the most intense chapter in the history of Poitiers.

Due to the geographical location described above, many military campaigns were made through Poitiers. In 507, a battle took place near Poitiers between the Franks and the Visigoths as part of the West Gothic War. The Franks won a major victory and King Hlodvig I annexed the lands of southern Gaul for his state.

This stage of the history of the city is characterized by the first mention of the church of St. Radegund. Initially, the building served as the burial area for the nuns of the abbey. The construction of the modern church began in 1083 after a fire. The interior of the church has preserved original stained glass windows dating from the 13th century, but it has not been possible to preserve medieval wall frescoes.

The museum is located on the site of St. Croix Abbey in the 21st century. The remains of the celestial patroness of Poitiers and closest ally, St. Agnes, are stored in an underground crypt.

Two centuries later, the city became the center of another battle, which many historians consider the most important in the history of the Christendom. The Umayyad Caliphate troops did not stop after the conquest of Spain, they moved east to Aquitaine. Having ransacked the area, they moved to Gaul. They met at the Battle of Poitiers with an army of Franks under the leadership of Charles Martel on October 10, 732. The fate of Christendom depended on the result of this battle.

The Franks defeated the Arabs, who remained in Spain for several centuries, where they greatly influenced the development of the culture.

The city became the residence of the Counts of Poitiers at the beginning of a period of feudal fragmentation at the end of the 9th century. Then, Poitiers came into the Plantagenet's possessions after Eleanor of Aquitaine married Henry II of the Plantagenet in 1152. The city received commune rights in 1199. In 1204 it was captured by the French king, Philip II. Poitiers officially became a part of the royal domain after the signing of a peace treaty between France and England in 1259.

It was only in the 8th century when the Palace of Justice was mentioned in historical sources for the first time. This palace was erected by Charlemagne for his son, Louis I the Pious, on the ruins of Roman buildings. The castle was owned by the Counts of Poitiers for several centuries after the death of Louis. There was a terrible fire in the palace In the 11th century that almost destroyed the building.

A new castle was built fairly quickly. It contained the largest dining room in Europe, which many people called "a quiet walk in the hall". The court began to hold all kinds of court sessions from the 15th century, especially during the French Revolution.

Middle Ages

The Middle Ages brought Poitiers many troubles. For example, one of the battles of the first stage of the Hundred Years War between England and France took place near the city on September 19, 1356.

French troops suffered a defeat at the hands of the English Army. Many prominent people were killed in this battle. The French king, John II the Good, and his youngest son, Philip the Brave, were captured. England and France signed a ceasefire for 2 years.

This defeat was the cause of a large peasant uprising - Jacquerie. It was in the early summer of 1358. This event affected Poitiers, where the aristocracy was forced to hide in churches from angry peasants.

During the Middle Ages many current day sites appeared in Poitiers. Here is a brief description of some of them:

1) Church of Notre Dame la Grand

The first evidence of the existence of the Church of Notre Dame la Grande dates back to the 10th century, but in one of its walls there are traces of ancient stone masonry. The church was called Saint Marie Major in the 10th century. In the next century, the church building was completely rebuilt in the Romanesque style and consecrated in 1086 by Urban II.

The features of the church include an ancient underground crypt and frescoes. The interior of the church is richly decorated with stone carvings, statues of saints, apostles and local bishops, woodcarvings and high reliefs. Many legends of the Hundred Years War are associated with this building.

2) Cathedral of Saint - Pierre

This cathedral was built near the baptistery of St. John and the church of Notre Dame la Grande. The initiator of the construction of the temple was Henry II Plantagenet. He also financed the work from his own funds.

The church is considered an example of a special architectural direction - the Angevin Gothic. The main feature of this style is high arches.

The apse of the cathedral is decorated with a 12th century stained glass window, which depicts a crucifix surrounded by saints and people. The interior of the temple preserves carved antique furniture and an altar of the Baroque era.

3) Church of St. Hilary

It is one of the oldest religious buildings in Poitiers. Construction was carried out in the 10th to 11th centuries in the tradition of the Romanesque style. The church is decorated with frescoes and carved capitals of the Romanesque period. In the Middle Ages, the church became one of the pilgrimage churches located on the path of St. James, ultimately leading to the Spanish city of Santiago de Compostela. Currently, the church of Saint Hilaire is a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

This is the place where theologians were interrogated and Joan of Arc tortured by order of the dauphin Charles in 1429.

You should also see the following buildings of this era: the church of Saint Jean de Montierneuf, the Fume mansion, and the church of Saint Hiller le Grande.

In 1432, King Charles VII opened a university in Poitiers. It is one of the oldest in France.

Modern times and contemporary history

Poitiers was unsuccessfully besieged by the Huguenots during the Religious Wars in 1569. The city was part of the Catholic League and recognized the legitimate king as Henry IV in 1594.

In more modern times architectural structures continue to appear in Poitiers. These were mainly houses for the nobles and the new nobility.

Among them it is worth highlighting:

1) Church of Saint Jean de Montieren;

2) Church of Saint Porsche;

3) Museum of Reper de Chevre.

The city chapel, which was built in the 8th century, was significantly reconstructed during this period.

Poitiers survived the French Revolution relatively well as few symbols of the old monarchy in the city were destroyed.

In the 19th and 20th centuries these buildings were constructed:

1) Place Marechal Leclerc;

2) City Hall;

3) Prefecture building.

Art lovers would to visit the Chevre Museum, which is located on the street of Victor Hugo. There are paintings of Dutch and Flemish artists of the 16th to 18th centuries, as well as furniture of the period. Today the museum is a monument to the history and architecture of France.

Poitiers was occupied by German troops during the Second World War. The city was bombed by the Allies and liberated on September 5, 1944.

As described at the beginning of the article, Poitiers had been a small provincial town for many years. Several large companies set-up here in the 1970s and 1980s. This significantly revived the city's economic activity. Today it is the center of an agglomeration of 11 suburbs and the main city of the New Aquitaine region.

Finally, there are several parks and gardens to relax in:

1) Park Blok;

2) Botanical garden;

3) Flower garden.

With that in mind, I hope you make a tri[ to Poitiers – it will be worth it! 

What do you think of Poitiers’ history? Let us know below.

References

https://www.nouvelle-aquitaine-tourisme.com/en/poitiers-futuroscope/head-off-to-poitiers-and-follow-eleanor-of-aquitaines-footsteps;

https://skyticket.com/guide/3707;

http://www.arsbellica.it/pagine/medievale/Poitiers/poitiers_eng.html;

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Attractions-g187207-Activities-c49-Poitiers_Vienne_Nouvelle_Aquitaine.html;

http://uk.poitiers-tourism.com/home/discover/history.aspx;

https://www.britannica.com/place/Poitiers;

https://www.thecrazytourist.com/15-best-things-poitiers-france/

The Man who Proposed a Jewish State in the 19th Century

Jewish people have been the victim of great discrimination over the centuries. But in 1890s London, one man had a plan that would help to overcome this – an idea that would one day become reality. Here, William Philpott tells us about Theodor Herzl’s attempts to gain support for a Jewish state.

Theodor Herzl in 1897.

The oldest hatred

In November 1895, a young journalist and playwright arrived at Charing Cross Station. Knowing no-one and armed only with a letter of introduction, he set about trying to garner support for what he referred to as his ‘old, new idea’, a scheme which would require a high level diplomatic strategy coupled with substantial funding and he targeted the wealthiest and most influential members of Jewish communities.

Born in Budapest in 1860, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire during the period known as the European Enlightenment, Theodor Herzl’s subsequent university studies in Vienna initially took him into the legal profession which he later gave up to become a writer. 

In 1894 as the Paris based correspondent of the Vienna based Neue Freie Presse[i] he observed the Dreyfus Affair, where a Jewish French army officer had been charged, found guilty and sentenced to life servitude on Devils Island. What especially disturbed Herzl was the reaction by many observers that Dreyfus was not simply a traitor who happened to be a Jew, but a traitor because he was a Jew. It later transpired that he was completely innocent, the victim of a cover up and the stench of anti-Semitism was integral to the whole affair.

The following year Herzl was in Vienna and witnessed the mayoral election success of the Christian Social Party led by Dr Karl Lueger, a rabid anti-Semite whom Hitler subsequently claimed was a major inspiration for his own transformation to anti-Semitism. 

It was these and other events, coupled with pogroms regularly perpetrated on Jewish communities in Czarist Russia, which Herzl to conclude that as anti-Semitism continued to exist and even thrive in enlightened societies, assimilation had not and could not provide a solution to the Jewish Question. His analysis was that of all the peoples’ of the world, it was the Jews alone who were denied what others took for granted, a state of their own. His prognosis was that only through possessing such a thing would Jews be accepted as having the same value as every nation.

Herzl is widely regarded as the founder of modern political Zionism and proposed that an area of land be purchased large enough to accommodate any Jew needing refuge. To legitimise his scheme he also sought a charter, recognised and sanctioned by international law under the protection of one of the major powers. His focus for land was the Ottoman Empire which had ruled over Palestine for four hundred years.

An astounding proposal

British influence had spread across much of the world and consequently Herzl began his quest at the very seat of its empire visiting on ten occasions in his quest to gain political and financial support for his proposal.

His first contact was made after a hansom cab ride on a foggy evening to the home of the writer Israel Zangwill in Kilburn. Zangwill was quickly sympathetic and opened doors for Herzl to meet other members of the Anglo-Jewish community.

A gathering was hastily arranged to enable Herzl to address the Maccabeans, a group of writers, artists, philosophers and professional men regarded by themselves as ‘such Jews as are untainted by commerce’[ii] who met regularly for dinner and discussion. Although broadly supportive, their political influence and financial standing was not at the level Herzl sought.

When he met Sir Samuel Montagu, a banker and MP for Whitechapel, he appeared sympathetic to Herzl’s scheme but notably failed to make any firm commitment.

In Rabbinical circles, an early sympathiser was Rabbi Simeon Singer who accompanied Herzl to the Bayswater Synagogue and Chief Rabbi Hermann Adler invited Herzl to his home in Finsbury Square; however, he did not commit to support the proposal and soon after became an ardent opponent.

The one journey outside London was to meet Colonel Albert Goldsmid at his regimental home in Cardiff. He had worked for the wealthy Baron von Hirsch who was funding several settlement programmes particularly in Argentina, for Jews seeking to escape pogroms and poverty. Upon hearing Herzl’s proposal, Goldsmid flamboyantly announced ‘I am Daniel Deronda’[iii] the Jewish hero in the book of the same name by George Elliot.

Returning to London, an encouraging offer was made by Asher Myers, editor of the weekly Jewish Chronicle who invited Herzl to submit an article outlining his idea, for inclusion in a future edition.

At the end of his first visit to London, although Herzl was in optimistic mood, in practice few of those he had sought support from had rallied to his scheme and were at best lukewarm or ambivalent.

The article for the Chronicle appeared in January 1896 along with an editorial comment declaring ‘that this is one of the most astounding pronouncements which have ever been put forward on the Jewish Question’ but concluded ‘We hardly anticipate a great future for a scheme which is the outcome of despair’.[iv] As predicted by Myers, Herzl’s article generated little response from its readers.

A false Messiah

However, by the time Herzl returned to London the following summer he had already published his full proposal in a pamphlet. Originally published in German[v] and which became commonly known as The Jewish State, it was quickly translated into several languages including Yiddish, Russian, Romanian, Polish and English.

The publication aroused concerns among many influential Jews, some of whom regarded it as a dangerous folly. Herzl again met with Montagu at the House of Commons, but on this occasion he recognised that the Member of Parliament was prevaricating which was an indication of what was later to become outright opposition. Nonetheless, Herzl began to understand why English Jews should wish to cling to a country where one of their own could now freely enter that place as a master.

Another false dawn appeared when the journalist Lucien Wolf asked to interview Herzl for the Daily Graphic newspaper which was based in the Strand. The interview took place in Herzl’s suite at the Albemarle Hotel, Piccadilly but the final result in print implied that a mystical shroud covered the whole project and Herzl was a ‘new Moses’[vi] who had stepped forth to fulfil the prophesy of a return to Palestine. This was not the practical endorsement hoped for.

Even Zangwill, was now writing that although Herzl had initially startled the community, it had been a seven day wonder and ‘has rather simmered down now’[vii]

Disappointed by the general lack of support from the most influential members of Anglo-Jewry, Herzl accepted a surprise invitation to speak at a mass meeting in the east end of London. On an oppressive Sunday afternoon in July, the Jewish Working Mens’ Club, Gt Alie Street was adorned with posters announcing his attendance. He generated support from many poor Jews who lived and worked in Whitechapel and subsequently described his feelings as he sat on a platform amid overwhelming heat as seeing and hearing ‘my legend being made…..I am the little people’s [sic] man’[viii]. Neither Montagu nor Goldsmid attended.

During his week-long visit, Herzl also met more members of the community and one such meeting took place at the Bevis Marks synagogue. However, he did not fare well and was roundly criticised for both his scheme and his decision to attend the meeting in Whitechapel which was regarded as unnecessarily exciting the masses.

He was challenged by the scholar Claude Montefiore who saw this new political Zionism as a direct threat to Judaism itself and dismissed Herzl as just another false messiah who would ultimately fail as others before had done. The bullion dealer and philanthropist Frederic Mocatta said that the very idea of funding such a scheme would be a great risk to both finances and reputation and could not guarantee the twin objectives of securing land and a charter. He and others mocked what they saw as Herzl’s naivety at the very idea of handing over vast sums of money to the corrupt Turkish Sultan in the belief that the land would be forthcoming.

Even Joseph Prag, a leading light in the Hovevei Zion[ix] movement, the headquarters of which was at Bevis Marks, which was already implementing a limited settlement programme in Palestine, was opposed to the idea of a state and eventually dismissed Herzl with a curt ‘goodbye Dr Herzl’.[x]

To Basel and back

By the time Herzl left London for the second time he had concluded that a great gathering should be organised which would internationalise his proposal and in August 1897 the first Zionist Congress was held in Basle, Switzerland. 

Of the two very wealthy Barons’, Edmund Rothschild who was himself funding several settlements in Palestine wrote, ‘I tell you frankly that I should view with horror the establishment of a Jewish Colony. It would be a ghetto with the prejudices of the ghetto’[xi]. The other, Maurice von Hirsch, who was funding Jewish settlement in Argentina would have nothing to do with the scheme. Herzl now declared ‘This is the cause of the poor Jews, not of the rich ones. The protest of the latter is null, void and worthless’.[xii]

Progress continued and in 1898 Herzl addressed a mass meeting at the Great Assembly Hall, Mile End. A conference was held at Clerkenwell Town Hall resulting in the formation of the English Zionist Federation subsequently inaugurated at the Trocadero, Piccadilly. However opponents were active too and in November, Chief Rabbi Adler preached at the North London synagogue on the subject of ‘Religious versus Political Zionism’.[xiii]

Two years later, perhaps influenced by the development of Zionism in England, the fourth congress was held at the Queens Hall, Langham Place. Herzl arrived one week before the start of the congress but was suffering from a fever. After a few days of confinement to his bed at the Langham Hotel, he was able to attend a rally of English Zionists and the following day was at a garden party in Regents Park.

After a restful night Herzl addressed the Congress and two important objectives were achieved. The first was to gain coverage in the mainstream British media which was generally sympathetic to the idea of a return of Jews to their historic home. The second was the agreement to establish the Jewish Colonial Bank, which he insisted be registered in London, subject to English law and proposed an initial capital of fifty million pounds although in the absence of commitments from wealthy Jews he envisaged public subscription playing a major role.

By then the Zionist movement had taken root throughout the Jewish world, although many such as Anglo-Jewry felt comfortably ensconced in the country where they lived and remained implacably opposed to the very principle of a Jewish homeland.

The final appeal

Since the early 1880s large scale immigration of poor Russian and Polish Jews in particular into the east end had resulted in growing concerns and one response was the creation of the British Brothers League which held a mass meeting at the Peoples’ Palace in Stepney in January 1902. That year Herzl returned to London following an invitation to speak to the Royal Commission into alien immigration and the established leader of the Zionist movement proposed that support of the British government for a Jewish state would reduce the number of those arriving in the UK.

It is possible that Herzl’s representation at the Commission indirectly led to negotiations the following year with Joseph Chamberlain, Colonial Secretary about the potential to allow large numbers of Jews to settle in east Africa under some form of self-government, although the scheme was eventually aborted. 

However, time was not on his side and Herzl died in Austria of a heart condition two years later aged forty-four. He had not been the messiah who had led his people back to the Promised Land but he had created and presided over an international movement. Despite many external and internal obstacles during the next four decades, the establishment of the Jewish state to which he had dedicated the last nine years of his life did materialise, the impact of which still resonates in many parts of the world today, over one hundred and twenty years later.

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

[i] New Free Press. 

[ii] The Origins of Zionism. Vital. 1990 pp257

[iii] The History of Zionism. Laqueur. 2003 pp101.

[iv] Vital pp258.

[v] Der Judenstaat: Versuch einer modernen Losung der Judenfrage. Published by Breitenstein. 1896.

[vi] Daily Graphic. Monday July 6th 1896

[vii] English Zionists and British Jews. Cohen. 1982 pp27. After Herzl’s death, Zangwill formed the Jewish Territorial Organisation (Ito) to identify and secure land other than Palestine for large-migration. 

[viii] Laqueur. pp101.

[ix] Lovers of Zion. 

[x] The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl (1-5). Patai. 1960. 

[xi] Zionism the formative years. Vital. 1988 pp141. 

[xii] Vital. 1990 pp257.

[xiii] Cohen pp96.

The Story of a Failed French Settlement in 16th Century North America: Charlesfort

Charlesfort, also known as Santa Elena, was a French settlement founded in 1562 in modern day South Carolina. Here, K.R.T.Quirion tells us about the troubled settlement – and the terrible journey that many of the settlers made back to France.

You can read K.R.T.Quirion’s past articles on telegraphy in the US Civil War (here) and a secret US Cold War facility in Greenland (here).

Oil painting of Admiral Jean Ribault, who led the expedition to set-up Charlesfort, by Calvin Bryant. Source: Calvin Bryant, Florida. Available here.

During the early part of the 16th century, Spain had grown wealthy and powerful through its exploits in Central and South America. By the mid-century their European rivals wanted a piece of the action. The French were among the first to join the colonial land grab. An expedition to North America was organized by Admiral Gaspard de Coligny and led by the French explorer Jean Ribault. Ribault and his men landed at the mouth of the St. John’s River in northern Florida in 1562. There they constructed a monument claiming the territory for the French crown. They soon moved north into present-day South Carolina where they began construction of a fort at Port Royal. Charlesfort would be one of the first European settlements in North America, established three years before the Spanish colony at Saint Augustine. Ribault oversaw the design before returning to Europe for supplies. In his absence, he left Captain Albert de la Pierria in command of the fort and a garrison of twenty-seven men.

Starting the settlement

Initially, the settlement prospered. With a temperate climate and an abundance of surrounding wildlife, Ribault had described Port Royal as “one of the goodliest, best, and fruitfullest countreys that ever was scene.”[1] Expecting to be resupplied by Europe, the colonists at Charlesfort made no efforts to live off the land. Unfortunately, in their absence, the Wars of Religion had exploded across Europe and Ribault had been imprisoned in the Tower of London where he would remain for two years. At first, good relations with the local Native American tribes compensated for the colonists lack of foresight. By the fall of 1562, the overtaxed supplies of Native American began to thin and they retreated into the Carolina woods to avoid the colonists. To make matters worse, a fire at Charlesfort consumed almost the entire remaining store of supplies.[2]

Ribault had left Charlesfort under the command of the experienced soldier Albert de la Pierria. Unfortunately for the colonists, Captain Pierria turned out to be a rather cruel disciplinarian. As the situation at Charlesfort grew dire, Pierria’s punishments became increasingly severe. He ordered one colonist hung for a small infraction and banished a soldier named La Chère to anearby island for an unrecorded misdemeanor. La Chère was promised food and water but when Captain Pierria reneged, the garrison turned on him. The remaining soldiers mutinied, executed Pierria and rescued their stranded compatriot. Ribault had promised to return within six months. That had come and gone. Now, leaderless and out of supplies, the remaining colonists resolved to build a ship and return to Europe.

The crossing back to France

The distance from Port Royal, South Carolina to Le Havre, France is approximately 3,500 miles. It was a long and dangerous crossing for skilled sailors who knew the route. The men of Charlesfort knew little about sailing, less about boat building, and almost nothing about the voyage they were planning. Construction of the ship proceeded with whatever materials they could scavenge. Seams were caulked with pine resin and Spanish moss, and sails were sewn together in a patchwork using old clothing and bed sheets.[3] After completing their ramshackle vessel, one of the younger men, Guillaume Rouffi, decided his chances of survival were greater if he stayed behind rather than attempt the crossing in such a ship. As it turns out, Rouffi was right.

In all the annals of sea voyages, there is nothing quite like the Charlesfort crossing.  As they started out to sea the weather was calm, so calm that it greatly hindered their speed. After three weeks on the ocean, they had only sailed twenty-five leagues, which is equal to about 86 miles. Realizing that the crossing would be longer and more complicated than they had initially anticipated the men set about rationing their limited supplies. Each man was allocated twelve grains of corn per day. Even with this rationing, their supplies were soon used up. As starvation set in they took to eating their shoes and leather coats for food. When their fresh water ran dry, they drank seawater - and some even drank their own urine. [4]    

To make matters worse, the boat began to leak so badly that they had to continually bail out the water to keep it from sinking. The leak was made worse when they sailed into a powerful storm which badly damaged one side of the boat. The men then gave up bailing out the water and resolved themselves to drowning. One resolute man assured his compatriots that if they only fought on for three more days they would reach the shores of France. This encouraged them such that they steeled themselves and pressed on against the storm.

The end of the journey

After three days they still had not sighted land. Despair began to set in again. With nothing left aboard to eat, starvation began claiming the crew. A few died before they agreed amongst themselves to do the unthinkable. Ribault’s second-in-command, Rene de Laudonniére interviewed the survivors of the voyage and recorded their horrific story.

“Wherefore in this extreme despair certain among them made this motion that it was better that one man should die, [than] that so many men should perish: they agreed therefore that one should die to sustain the others. Which thing was executed in the person of Le Chère of whom we have spoken heretofore, whose flesh was divided equally among his fellows: a thing so pitiful to recite, that my pen is loath to write it.” [5]

Before they were forced to resort to cannibalism a second time, one of the crew sighted land. They were intercepted by an English ship which happened to have a Frenchman from Ribault’s original company aboard. He identified his former crewmates despite their pitiful state and ensured that they were well treated.

Back on the other side of the Atlantic, Guillaume Rouffi, who had elected to take his chances alone, continued to live at Charlesfort. He remained the fort’s sole garrison and France’s only representative in the New World for over a year. Finally, the Spanish sent Don Hernando de Manrigue de Rojas to root out their rivals. Rojas sailed to the Carolinas and razed the garrison at Charlesfort. Rouffi was captured and brought to Havana, thus ending one of the first European colonial efforts in North America.

What do you think of the Charlesfort settlement? Let us know below.

[1] Harris, Sherwood, “The Tragic Dream of Jean Ribaut,” American Heritage, Vol. 14 Issue 16, (16 Oct. 1963), https://www.americanheritage.com/tragic-dream-jean-ribaut.

[2] Saraceni, Jessica E, “Charlesfort Identified,” Archaeology Magazine Archive, Archaeological Institute of America, (1996), archive.archaeology.org/9609/newsbriefs/charlesfort.html.

[3] Laudonniere, Rene, “Three Voyages”, University of Alabama Press, (2001), 48.

[4] Laudonniere, “Three Voyages”, 49.

[5] Id, 50.

The Pioneering Soviet Espionage Device that was Active in the US Embassy in the USSR for Seven Years

‘The Thing’ is surely one of the most remarkable espionage devices in all history. Given to the Americans as World War II was closing, it managed to escape American notice for 7 years – despite being in the US Embassy in the USSA. And it took a lot longer for the West to uncover its secrets. But what was ‘The Thing’? And what did it do? Pitamber Kaushik explains.

The seal opened exposing the Soviet bugging device, ‘The Thing’, on display at the National Cryptologic Museum in Maryland, USA. Source: Austin Mills, available here.

Automated Doors, Manufacturing line tracking, Supermarket Product Tags, Credit Cards, and Passports are common places where you might encounter the humble RFID tag - a radio frequency identification tag whose information can be “read” using radio waves, a form of shortwave electromagnetic radiation. RFID tags are a crucial component of modern-day automation and information tracking, and were the very definition of “Smart” before the advent of the modern smartphone, and were in fact, a contender technology for realizing the ‘Internet of Things’. These nifty, effortless labels became commercially popular only in the last couple decades of the 20th century and hence it might come as a bit of a surprise to know that they essentially operate on World-War II technology. Its bulky forerunners were Radio Frequency Identification kits that were used in World War 2 fighter aircraft to prevent friendly fire. One aircraft’s radar would “illuminate” the other’s kit which would automatically communicate a signal indicating that it was on their side. This response needed no power source on the part of the latter - it drew its energy from the incident radiation.

As a token of appreciation, amity, and solidarity for their alliance in the Second World War, and a promise of maintaining them in its wake, the Young Pioneer Organization of the Soviet Union, an organization of boys, presented a hand-carved two-foot wooden plaque of the Great Seal of the United States to the American ambassador to the Soviet Union W.A. Harriman, a month before the conclusion of the war. It was a natural procedure for the embassy office to meticulously scrutinize any inbound item but this souvenir without a trace of wiring or batteries seemed totally innocuous and did not appropriate a thorough dissection and consequent desecration. It was, after all, a harmless gift from enthusiastic children, and was thus gladly and dearly hung on the wall of Harriman’s study. Harriman gave it a privileged place in his private chambers since it was a welcome gesture from the Soviets. Or was it? The Americans had slightly underestimated Soviet engineering. They had fallen for the Trojan horse, admitting it into their most intimate quarters.

Leon Theremin, the inventor of the eponymous no-contact electronic musical instrument, was compelled to work in the Soviet Experimental Design Bureau, a specialized espionage department. It was here that he had designed the Buran eavesdropping system, a sophisticated device that cast infrared rays on windowpanes from a distance, in order to “listen to” conversations inside the room via the vibrations induced by them on the glass - a technology that Lavrentiy Beria, the Head of the Soviet Secret Police would use to eavesdrop on the British, French, and American embassies, as well as allegedly, on Stalin himself. It was also Theremin who had designed the minimalistic bug that was concealed in the plaque. It was a passive device, meaning it needed no attached power source. When the Soviets irradiated it with radio waves, it responded to them, at other times remaining inanimate, making it very difficult to detect. It derived its operational impetus from the inbound “interrogating” signal and “answered” to it utilizing the signal’s own energy.

The device being inconspicuous in size and structure and spontaneously operational (staying dead-silent when not being tapped into), it didn’t catch the notice of anyone at the office for a long time. It remained dead until it was activated by the right frequency Soviet interrogation waves, upon which it reacted to the sounds around it (sounds varied its ‘capacitance’, encoding their waveforms into its outbound signal) and relayed them to the Soviets in its retransmitted signal. The Soviets sent out a characteristic signal which would be regenerated by the device, now enclosed in the envelope of the signal of the sound in the room. The audio transmission from the room would be superposed over (act as a container for) the communicating signal. The Soviets would disentangle their own rebounded communication wave from the characteristic frequency from the encoded signal in a process called demodulation, extracting the audio from the room. Put simply, whenever the Soviets cast the appropriate signal upon it, the device conveyed the sounds of the room encoded in the same signal back to them.

Its simplistic design and passive nature gave it a veritably unlimited operational life. It would be seven years before the device would be discovered, during the tenure of George Keenan, owing to an accidental reception by an operator at the British Embassy when the Soviets were illuminating the device. In the meantime, it would have relayed much of the vital contents of Harriman’s private conversations. Upon its discovery, two State Department Employees were dispatched to the USSR in order to conduct a “sweep” of American, British, and Canadian embassy buildings to check for other bugs. Its discovery sparked a frenzy of emulation, improvisation, and progressive development of radio signal-based eavesdropping devices on the Western side. Such was the precisely frugal ingenuity of the device that even upon discovery and procurement, it befuddled American scientists, working on comprehending and possibly emulating it, for quite some time. It appeared to have several resonant frequencies, relied on both Amplitude Modulation and Frequency Modulation, and its membrane was so sensitive that it was damaged during the American probe of the device and had to be replaced. It would be years before the British and the Americans would develop a reliable, pulsed cavity resonator of their own. The Western vexation at the elusively designed device is palpable in the name it was given – ‘The Thing’.

What do you think of ‘The Thing’? Let us know below.

Bernard Freyberg: The New Zealand World War I Hero who Failed to Defend Crete in 1941

For the Greek public, the 1941 Battle of Crete is known for the wrong decisions made by the British commanders, so leading to an Axis victory. The tactical mistakes of the British were critical in allowing the occupation of the island by the Nazis and were caused by the decisions of high-ranking officers like General Bernard Freyberg. But who was this General? And why is he a hero in his native New Zealand? Here, Manolis Peponas looks at the life of Bernard Freyberg.

Bernard Freyberg (right) during the Battle of Crete in May 1941

Bernard Freyberg was born in London in 1889 but moved to New Zealand with his parents in 1891. When he was a young man, he became famous as a swimmer. In March 1914 he moved to the USA and, after that, to Mexico where he participated in the Mexican Revolution. In the summer of 1914, he was informed about the beginning of World War I and decided to enlist in the British Army. That was the starting point of a successful military career.[i]

Freyberg fought on the Western Front and in the Gallipoli Campaign. He was wounded nine times and became one of the most decorated young officers in his homeland. For example, he won a Distinguished Service Order (DSO) because he swam ashore in the Gulf of Saros and diverted Turkish attention from the main landing, at Bulair in Gallipoli in April 1915. In 1916, he won the Victoria Cross for his heroic acts at the Battle of the Somme. During the interwar period he worked mainly in staff positions, and in 1937, he was obliged to retire because of a heart problem.[ii]

World War II

Following the outbreak of World War II, Freyberg again offered his services to the New Zealand government. Immediately, he was appointed as the commander of the 2nd New Zealand Division which took part in battles in Greece, North Africa, and Italy.[iii]

Winston Churchill said about Freyberg:

“I had suggested to the C.I.G.S.[iv] that General Freyberg should be placed in command of Crete, and he proposed this to Wavell, who had immediately agreed. Bernard Freyberg and I had been friends for many years. The Victoria Cross and the D.S.O. with two bars marked his unsurpassed service, and like his only equal, Carton de Wiart, he deserved the title of ‘Salamander’. Both thrived in fire, and were literally shot to pieces without being affected physically or in spirit. At the outset of the war no man was more fitted to command the New Zealand Division, for which he was eagerly chosen.”[v]

In Crete in May 1941, the New Zealand major general believed that he was to face an invasion from the sea, so he created a plan that was wrong from the start – the German invasion was in fact mainly airborne. Also, he did not give the right orders for the support of the Commonwealth’s troops who defended the Maleme airfield. However, Freyberg was not the only one responsible for the fall of Crete; he had to command a varied and badly equipped army, without the RAF’s support or the necessary artillery battalions.[vi] This meant that despite the Allied loss in the Battle of Crete, as recognition of his service, he added a third bar to his DSO and was promoted to the rank of lieutenant general.

After the Allied victory in the war, the retired high-ranking officer was appointed Governor-General of New Zealand, a position he served from 1946 to 1952. After that, he returned to Britain where he acted as Deputy Constable and Lieutenant Governor in charge of Windsor Castle. He died in Windsor on July 4, 1963 following the rupture of one of his many wounds. Today, he is a national hero for the people of New Zealand.[vii]

What do you think of Bernard Freyberg? Let us know below.

[i]         Ewer, Peter (2010). Forgotten Anzacs: The Campaign in Greece, 1941. Scribe Publications. p. 30.

[ii]        ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iii]               'Freyberg given command of 2NZEF', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/bernard-freyberg-assumes-command-of-the-nz-expeditionary-force, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 17-Nov-2016. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

[iv]               C.I.G.S.: Chief of the Imperial General Staff.

[v]       Churchill, Sir Winston (1959). Memoirs of the Second World War. Houghton Mifflin Company. p. 441.

[vi]      Barber, Laurie. “Freyberg and Crete: the Australasian Perspective”, Journal of the Society for Army Historical Research, Vol. 72, No. 292 (Winter 1994), pp. 247-254.

[vii]     ‘Bernard Freyberg', URL: https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/bernard-freyberg, (Ministry for Culture and Heritage), updated 8-Nov-2017. Retrieved 5-5-2020.

How did Nazi Germany Treat Mixed Race People?

The German Nazi Party is responsible for some of the greatest atrocities in all history, notably the Holocaust in which around 6 million Jews were killed. But in Nazi Germany what happened to mixed race, or ‘Mischlinge’ people - that is people who were partly Jewish and partly not Jewish by descent? Seth Eislund explores this question by looking at the work of three historians.

Erhard Milch, who was in charge of Nazi Germany’s aircraft production in World War II. His father was Jewish and his mother was not Jewish.

From its inception in 1920, the German Nazi Party saw the Jews as an “anti-race” that threatened to destroy the purity of German blood. Following Adolf Hitler’s assumption of power in 1933, the Nazi government legalized its racist anti-Semitism with the 1935 Nuremberg Laws. In addition to discriminating against Jews, these laws created a racial category called “Mischling,”[1] or “mixed-race,” for Germans of partial Jewish descent. There were different classifications of Mischling depending on how much “Jewish blood” a person possessed. A “full Jew” had three or more Jewish grandparents, a “Mischling First Degree” (a “half-Jew”) had two Jewish grandparents, and a “Mischling Second Degree” (a “quarter-Jew”) had one Jewish grandparent.[2] While Nazi legislation defined who a Mischling was, what was the regime’s policy towards Mischlinge, and how was this policy enforced? Historians Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow provide compelling answers to this question. While the three scholars use different methodologies to examine Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, they agree that such policy was inconsistent and vacillated between persecution, semi-toleration, and racial reclassification.

Monteath’s Approach: A Social Analysis

Drawing on extensive oral history research, Peter Monteath argues that Nazi legislation towards Mischlinge displayed a clear disconnect between ideology and practice, and that Mischlinge consequently lived anxious and tumultuous lives. Monteath observes that there were two main schools of thought regarding Nazi Mischling policy. The first school tended towards a pragmatic integration of Mischlinge into German society. This form of thinking led to the opening of the draft to Mischlinge in 1935, and the declaration of “mixed marriages” as privileged and protected against anti-Semitic persecution in 1938.[3] The second school of thought, however, was more radical. Its adherents saw Mischlinge as equivalent to Jews, and therefore they needed to be removed from Germany. These party radicals pushed for violent measures against Jews, such as pogroms like Kristallnacht.[4] These integrationist and radical schools of thought manifested themselves in local Nazi policy. For instance, certain German cities, like Dortmund and Hamburg, gave illegitimate half-Jewish children a “German upbringing,” while Königsberg saw such children as thoroughly “semitised” in blood and mentality.[5] Furthermore, at the infamous Wannsee Conference of 1942, its attendees agreed on conflicting resolutions to “the Mischling Question.” It was agreed that half-Jews should be treated as “full Jews,” while Mischlinge married to Germans with Aryan blood should be exempted from being treated as Jews.[6] Similar to the Nazi government’s inconsistent policy towards them, Mischlinge lived uncertain and anxious lives. They existed in a grey area between the racial categories of “Jewish” and “Aryan,” and faced persecution ranging from daily slights to the deportation and mass murder of relatives and friends.[7] Thus, Monteath convincingly argues that Nazi Mischling policy and the lives of Mischlinge were incoherent and chaotic.

Rigg’s Approach: Mischlinge in the Military

While Monteath does an excellent job of describing the specificities and constant uncertainty of Mischling life and policy in Nazi Germany, his analysis overlooks a key aspect of the Nazi regime: the military. However, Bryan Mark Rigg provides a thorough examination of Nazi policy towards Mischling soldiers in the Third Reich, which he calls “a maze of confusion and contradictions.”[8] According to Rigg, the Nazis either persecuted or tolerated Mischling soldiers based on their perceived loyalty and importance to the regime, which varied widely on an individual basis. Rigg states that despite their Jewish ancestry, half-Jews and quarter-Jews were legally allowed to serve in the German military until 1940.[9] However, they were forbidden from becoming non-commissioned officers or officers without the personal approval of Adolf Hitler. Hence, due to their Jewish blood, Mischling soldiers were not allowed to advance in rank. Their Aryan commanders, who were their superiors in rank and blood, were destined to command them. Thus, the Nazis saw Mischlinge as useful to their military goals but refused to treat them as equal to Aryan soldiers due to their Jewish ancestry. However, Mischling soldiers were treated far better than their Jewish parents, who lost their jobs and civil liberties due to Nazi legislation.[10] This demonstrates a disconnect between the Nazi treatment of “full Jews” and Mischlinge. While a “full Jew’s” blood was completely tainted, a Mischling possessed some Aryan blood and could therefore serve the Third Reich. While Hitler eventually decided to expel all half-Jews from the German military in 1940, he made several exceptions. Hitler personally signed thousands of special permission forms that “allowed [half-Jews] who had proven themselves in battle…  to [remain] with their units.”[11] This demonstrates that Hitler approved of veteran half-Jewish soldiers more than he did ordinary half-Jewish soldiers, as their extensive service demonstrated their loyalty and utility to the regime. Thus, Rigg makes the potent observation that, in military terms, Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was influenced by an individual soldier’s perceived devotion and significance to the regime based on their decoration and experience in combat.

Pegelow’s Approach: The Language of Nazi Racial Categories

Although he reaches similar conclusions to Monteath and Rigg, Thomas Pegelow’s analysis differs from theirs. Instead of examining the social or military aspects of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge, he examines the language behind Nazi racial categories, arguing that “Racial discourses were not static, but were constantly remade.”[12] Pegelow focuses on the Reich Kinship Office (RSA), which was created in 1933 with the mission of “determining people’s ‘racial descent’ in cases of doubt.”[13] The RSA’s decisions about a person’s racial descent had severe consequences: being designated as “Aryan” resulted in one’s safety while being designated as “Jewish” resulted in one’s death in a concentration camp. Mischlinge knew this, and many tried to avoid persecution by publicly disputing their Jewish ancestry with the RSA.[14] Pegelow’s portrayal of Mischlinge corroborates Monteath’s argument that Mischlinge lived frantic lives due to their ambiguous status in Nazi policy. Consequently, Pegelow argues that the RSA committed “linguistic violence” against Mischlinge. This was because the RSA constructed racial categories through language, such as the German Volk and the Jewish race, and it used language to determine who was a member of each group.[15] The RSA excluded some Mischlinge from the Volk, thereby condemning them to persecution and death. However, they also declared 4,100 Mischlinge, or 7.9% of all Mischlinge who petitioned for racial evaluations, to be legally Aryan.[16] Thus, the RSA’s classification of over 4,000 Mischlinge as Aryan demonstrates that Nazi policy towards Mischlinge was inconsistent. The category of “Mischling” was fluid and ambiguous, and it’s meaning changed depending on the individual Nazi official who interpreted it. Some Nazis associated Mischlinge with the Aryan side of the racial spectrum, while others saw Mischlinge and Jews as identical.

Conclusion

Peter Monteath, Bryan Mark Rigg, and Thomas Pegelow’s research demonstrates that Nazi policy was inconsistent towards Mischlinge, as it shifted between persecution, quasi-toleration, and conflicting racial definitions. According to Monteath, Nazi officials contested the status of Mischlinge: some party members advocated for the integration of Mischlinge into German life, while others saw them as “full Jews” and pushed for their removal from Germany. Mischlinge lived similarly incongruous and anxious lives: they suffered varying degrees of persecution and constantly worried that they would face imprisonment and death. Similarly, Rigg observes that even Hitler’s policy towards Mischlinge serving in the German military was contradictory. While Hitler discriminated against Mischling soldiers by preventing them from serving as NCOs or officers, he signed thousands of forms that allowed battle-hardened Mischlinge to continue fighting during the Second World War. Lastly, Pegelow argues that Nazi racial categories, such as “German” and “Jewish,” were linguistically constructed and therefore subject to constant change. Nazi functionaries defined Mischlinge, who occupied an uncertain place within the Nazi racial hierarchy, as either Aryan or Jewish based solely on their individual assumptions. Thus, the inconsistency of Nazi policy towards Mischlinge reflected the latter’s ambiguous status in the Third Reich. For the Nazis, Mischlinge were members of a contradictory and perplexing racial category, a bizarre mix of the most superior race and the most inferior race, and Nazi policy towards them was equally paradoxical.

What do you think about the article? Let us know below.

[1] In German, “Mischling” is singular and “Mischlinge” is plural.

[2] Peter Monteath, “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History,” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 142, www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

[3] Monteath, 142-143.

[4] Monteath, 143.

[5] Monteath, 144.

[6] Monteath, 144-145.

[7] Monteath, 154.

[8] Bryan Mark Rigg, “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers,” in Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, ed. Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth (New York: Berghahn Books, 2012), 123.

[9] Rigg, 119-121.

[10] Rigg, 119-120.

[11] Rigg, 121.

[12] Thomas Pegelow, “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943,” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43, www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

[13] Pegelow, 44.

[14] Pegelow, 45.

[15] Pegelow, 46.

[16] Pegelow, 64.

Bibliography

Monteath, Peter. “The ‘Mischling’ Experience in Oral History.” The Oral History Review 35, no. 2 (2008): 139-58. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20628029.

Pegelow, Thomas. “Determining ‘People of German Blood’, ‘Jews’ and ‘Mischlinge’: The Reich 

Kinship Office and the Competing Discourses and Powers of Nazism, 1941-1943.” Contemporary European History 15, no. 1 (2006): 43-65. Accessed April 23, 2020. www.jstor.org/stable/20081294.

Rigg, Bryan Mark. “Hitler’s Jewish Soldiers.” In Gray Zones: Ambiguity and Compromise in the Holocaust and Its Aftermath, edited by Jonathan Petropoulos and John K. Roth, 118-126. New York: Berghahn Books, 2012.

Did Settlers Commit Genocide in America?

There were several great periods of migration across America. The settlers performed various cruel activities; however was there genocide? Here, Daniel L. Smith returns and presents his views on the question. 

Daniel’s new book on mid-19th century northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

"Protecting The Settlers". Illustration by JR Browne for his work "The Indians Of California", 1864. Portraying a massacre by militia men of a Native American camp.

It was certainly polarization issues that made the 19th century a true “wild west," and I really find "wild west" fits in every sense of the phrase.

​The American Settler’s from the east came over the Rocky Mountains with both broken dreams and real optimism for a new successful life. Each miner, settler, businessman (or woman), and government employee had their own personal reasons for leading a new life in California. The financial burden of the 1837 financial collapse was a national hardship, and encouraged the soon-to-be settler headed out west.[1] American economist Martin Armstrong wrote, “The U.S. entered a serious economic depression following the failure of the New Orleans cotton brokerage firm, Herman Briggs & Co in March of 1837. Inflated land values, speculation and wildcat banking contributed to the crisis, which became known as the “Hard Times of 1837-1843.” New York banks suspended payments in gold on May 10th and financial panic ensued. At least 800 US banks suspended payment in gold and 618 banks failed before the year was out.”[2]

With the discovery of gold in California and the resulting influx of immigrants, it seemed almost inevitable that the U.S. government would openly authorize the 1862 Homestead Act. This decree would guarantee all American citizens permanent private ownership of newly acquired territory west of the Mississippi River.[3]  Economic growth would boom for the nation given the limitless resources of the newly acquired land. Timber, hunting, fishing, mining, commercial business, and government would take over. It was the principal economic body that California would come to offer a rapidly expanding nation, which was recovering from a financial meltdown. This new economic and cultural opportunity didn’t just benefit the legitimate law-abiding settlers, but this new world also opened up to the criminal and unprincipled elements of American society as well. This was a somber reality to the preceding historical events throughout the mid-19th century.

Violence

This same reality applies to the cultural similarities in unprincipled behavior that both settlers and Native Americans exhibited between each other, as both played a part in antagonizing the other. I stand with Michael Medved by saying that the word genocide does not truly apply to the treatment of Native Americans by British colonists or, later, American Settlers. Further, in “the 400 year history of American contact with the Indians includes many examples of white cruelty and viciousness --- just as the Native Americans frequently (indeed, regularly) dealt with the European newcomers with monstrous brutality and, indeed, savagery. In fact, reading the history of the relationship between British settlers and Native Americans its obvious that the blood-thirsty excesses of one group provoked blood thirsty excesses from the other, in a cycle that listed with scant interruption for several hundred years.”

“But none of the warfare (including an Indian attack in 1675 that succeeded in butchering a full one-fourth of the white population of Connecticut, and claimed additional thousands of casualties throughout New England) on either side amounted to genocide. Colonial and, later, the American government never endorsed or practiced a policy of Indian extermination; rather, the official leaders of white society tried to restrain some of their settlers and militias and paramilitary groups from unnecessary conflict and brutality. Moreover, the real decimation of Indian populations had nothing to do with massacres or military actions, but rather stemmed from infectious diseases that white settlers brought with them at the time they first arrived in the New World.”[4]

Guns, Germs, and Poor Ethics

UCLA professor Jared Diamond, author of the acclaimed bestseller Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies, writes:

"Throughout the Americas, diseases introduced with Europeans spread from tribe to tribe far in advance of the Europeans themselves, killing an estimated 95 percent of the pre-Colombian Native American population. The most populous and highly organized native societies of North America, the Mississippian chiefdom's, disappeared in that way between 1492 and the late 1600's, even before Europeans themselves made their first settlement on the Mississippi River.” (page 78)

“The main killers were Old World germs to which Indians had never been exposed, and against which they therefore had neither immune nor genetic resistance. Smallpox, measles, influenza, and typhus rank top among the killers.” (page 212)

“As for the most advanced native societies of North America, those of the U.S. Southeast and the Mississippi River system, their destruction was accomplished largely by germs alone, introduced by early European explorers and advancing ahead of them" (page 374)

Obviously, the decimation of native populations by European germs represents an enormous tragedy, but in no sense does it represent a crime. Stories of deliberate infection by passing along "small-pox blankets" are based largely on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter and bloody French and Indian War. By that time, Native American populations (including those in the area) had already been terribly impacted by smallpox, and there is no evidence of a particularly devastating outbreak as a result of British policy. Medved writes, “For the most part, Indians were infected by devastating diseases even before they made direct contact with Europeans: other Indians who had already been exposed to the germs, carried them with them to virtually every corner of North America and many British explorers and settlers found empty, abandoned villages (as did the Pilgrims) and greatly reduced populations when they first arrived.”[5]

Sympathy for Native Americans and admiration for their cultures in no way requires a belief in European or American genocide. As Jared Diamond's book (and countless others) makes clear, the mass migration of Europeans to the New World and the rapid displacement and replacement of Native populations is hardly a unique interchange in human history. On six continents, such shifting populations – with countless cruel invasions and occupations and social destructions and replacements - have been the rule rather than the exception.

Finding evidence

I have found a lot of evidence difficult to obtain through large institutions bureaucratic archives. These are crucial for a more thorough and explicit observation on specific events that had occurred in relationship to the unprincipled behaviors and actions of those few individuals or groups. Some of the evidence that I have been able to successfully retrieve truly illustrates this particular viewpoint. Is this finally a small beam of light on the topic of relational nuances that occurred on both sides of the cultural aisle? The truth of the matter is that all of the overall regional hostility came down to certain specific cultural customs or traditions, which also included the erosion (or complete absence) of any personal ethical and moral values.

The notion that unique viciousness to Native Americans represents America’s "original sin" fails to put European contact with these often struggling societies in any context and only serves the purposes of those who want to foster inappropriate guilt, uncertainty and shame in all Americans ignorant of the facts.

Finally, a nation ashamed of its past will fear its future. "One of the most urgent needs in culture and education for the United States of America is discarding the stupid, groundless and anti-American lies that characterize contemporary political correctness. The right place to begin is to confront, resist and reject the all-too-common line that our rightly admired forebears involved themselves in genocide. The early colonists and settlers can hardly qualify as perfect but describing them in Hitlerian, mass-murdering terms represents an act of brain-dead defamation."[6]

You can read a selection of Daniel’s past articles on: California in the US Civil War (here), Spanish Colonial Influence on Native Americans in Northern California (here), Christian ideology in history (here), the collapse of the Spanish Armada in 1588 (here), early Christianity in Britain (here), the First Anglo-Dutch War (here), and the 1918 Spanish Influenza outbreak (here).

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

References

[1] Smith, Daniel L. "New American Settlers." In 1845-1870 An Untold Story of Northern California: The American Settler's First Documented Accounts of their Unwelcome Arrival, 20. Publication Consultants, 2019. Print.

[2] Armstrong, Martin A. "Panic of 1837." Princeton Economic Institute. Last modified January 12, 2014. https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/panic-of-1837/. 

[3] "Act of May 20, 1862 (Homestead Act), Public Law 37-64 (12 STAT 392); 5/20/1862; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions of Congress, 1789 - 2011; General Records of the United States Government, Record Group 11; National Archives Building, Washington, DC." DocsTeach, 20 May 1862, www.docsteach.org/documents/document/homestead-act. Accessed 5 Mar. 2020.

[4]Medved, Michael. "Reject the Lie of White "Genocide" Against Native Americans." Townhall. Last modified September 19, 2007. https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelmedved/2007/09/19/reject-the-lie-of-white-genocide-against-native-americans-n989275.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.