Timeline - 2019/20

The History Department Presents

Timeline Vol. 11

2019

Editor in Chief – Jared Onnie Student Editors – Jay Patel and Neal Patel 0 Staff Executive – Dr Ian St John, D Phil, Nuffield College, Oxon

Editor’s Note: It has been a great pleasure working on Timeline 2019. This latest edition truly illustrates the expertise of both The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys’ and Girls’ Schools by going beyond the classroom and exploring a vast variety of history from around the world. This year’s edition exhibits an especially extensive assortment of historical themes and ages, so there is definitely something for everyone to read and engage with. In my opinion, it is really important not just to read the articles as if they were a piece of journalism, but to challenge and grapple with some of the arguments made for that is what makes history such a fascinating study. As historian H.R. Trevor-Roper said, ‘history is not merely what happened; it is what happened in the context of what might have happened’. I hope that all readers can take something away from the magazine and inspire them to extend their own knowledge of the past. I would like to thank Dr. St John for presenting the team with the wonderful opportunity of illustrating a collection of classics which the schools have to offer. My final words are a quote from Martin Luther King Jr. to denote the importance of history: ‘We are not makers by history. We are made by history’.

Jared Onnie U6R2

Staff Executive’s Comment:

When we launched our first Timeline History Magazine in 2001 the world was black and white and a mobile phone was a landline with a long extension chord. This current edition, eighteen years and thirteen issues later, shows just how far history is about change rather than continuity. This is a special edition of Timeline since it has not one editor, but two – with Jared Onnie taking up the baton so effectively from Michael Nio, who is now studying history at the University of Edinburgh. It is special, too, for the range and vibrancy of its content and presentation, and all those who contributed material or editorial assistance are to be applauded for their commitment, not just to history, but to communicating their enthusiasm to a wider public, thereby proving, once again, that Clio is the Queen of the Muses.

Dr St John The Timeline 2019 Team Editor in chief: Jared Onnie U6 Staff editor: Dr. Ian St John, Nuffield College, Oxford.

Co-editors: Jay Patel U6, Neal Patel U6, 1 Michael Nio – University of Edinburgh 1

Contents Editor's note Jared Onnie 2019

1

Ancient History To what extent was Cleopatra responsible for the rise of Octavian?

Zachary Robinson 9M2

4

Reformations and Revolutions Why did the Reformation begin in Germany?

Edward Bach U6R2

8

The Tudor Religious Reformation Joel Berman 9R2

11

To what extent was religion the most important cause of the English Civil War? James Lewis, L6J2

13

The Other Russian Revolution: How a Failed Uprising Sealed Russia’s Fate Ashna Ahmad, Girls’ School

16

Who was more important to the Civil Rights Movement: Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X? 33 Ollie Sugar L6J2

20

23

What was the Carnation Revolution?

Lucas Valladares 10H

British Political History William Pitt the Younger: Why did he become Prime Minister in December 1783?

Jared Onnie, L6R2

29

To what extent did British Ministers amend British constitutional law to aid reforms in finance, trade and administration and to what extent were these reforms successful from 1784-1812?

Salman Dhalla U6R1

31

Would the NHS exist if the Conservative Party had won the 1945 General Election?

Helena McConnell U4 Aesc

35

Britain’s Middle-Class Youth indeed want to return us to the 70s – not the 1970s but the 1870s.

Dr Ian St John

38

2 2

Family History

43

Family History of Key Events Rafi Cohen 7H

SEPTEMBER 11th Aarush Bahel

49

Historians Dr Roy Sloan Interview

52

How did E.H. Carr’s visit to Versailles shape his opinion of international relations?

Neal Patel L6

54

Military history To What Extent Was the American Civil War the First Modern War? Rohan Thandi L6C1

59

Should We Remember Napoleon as Napoleon the Great?

Daniel Levy 11R1

63

What caused the English Civil War? Aaron Rosenthal U6J2

68

To what extent have US-Iraq relations improved since the Iraq War of 2003?

Halil Mirakhmedov L6C2

76

The use of chemical weapons by the Germans in WWI Kai Henke 7H

80

The Opium Wars – Shaping Chinese History Betsy Rowold U4 Aesc

83

3

To what extent was Cleopatra responsible for the rise of Octavian?

Zachary Robinson

Cleopatra VII was the last ruler of Ptolemaic Egypt before it fell into Roman hands, specifically the hands of Octavian, the first Emperor of Rome. Ruling for 21 years, (51 BC to 30 BC) Cleopatra is arguably one of the most recognizable characters in history. But why is this so? Some credit must of course go to William Shakespeare, whose play “Antony and Cleopatra” immortalized their epic tale of love, ambition and betrayal. However, winning the love of two of the most powerful men in history was not her only great achievement. However unintentional it was, there’s no denying that she was instrumental in the downfall of Mark Antony and thus the rise of Octavian.

With this notion in mind, I aim to answer the question; to what extent was Cleopatra responsible for the rise of Octavian?

After they won the Liberator’s civil war, (with victory coming at the Second Battle of Philippi) the triumvirate of Lepidus, Antony and Octavian controlled the Roman Empire.

They divided the land up between them, with each man getting a share of the land. Unfortunately, Antony’s territory was right next to Egypt, which was of course controlled by Cleopatra. Like Julius Caesar before him, Antony fell for Cleopatra and she fell for him. He began to spend more and more time in Egypt, neglecting his duties in Rome. This angered Octavian, but it also provided him with an opportunity to become sole ruler of Rome. Of course, 4 4

he had to get rid of Lepidus first, but this was easily done. Lepidus’s land was slowly stripped away, and after a failed attempt to rebel against Octavian, his soldiers deserted him. There was no need to kill him, he was already done.

The final straw for Octavian was when Antony divorced Octavia (Octavian’s sister), for the charms of Cleopatra. Whilst Octavian took control of the West, rumour spread that Antony was planning on making a new senate in the East.

This both angered and worried Octavian, but he couldn’t directly declare war on Antony, as he was a Roman still so the senate would disapprove. So, he read out Antony’s will to the senate, in which Antony left everything to Cleopatra and their future children, and combined with a series of propaganda, it convinced the senate to declare war on Cleopatra, and thus, Antony. Unsurprisingly, Antony switched sides, betraying the Roman Empire to join Cleopatra. The battle lines had been drawn.

Octavian assembled an army of roughly 200,000 legionaries, and Antony, through a combination of lightweight Egyptian soldiers and whatever Romans remained loyal to him, managed to create an army of equal size. On land, their two armies were equal in size and capability, but this was not true at sea.

Although Antony’s fleet was much larger, (in amount of men, amount of ships and size of ship) Octavian’s sailors of smaller, more agile ships were more experienced and battlehardened. A major for Antony came when one of his generals switched sides and delivered Octavian Antony’s battle plans. Antony had hoped to use his much larger ships to drive a wedge into Agrippa’s (Octavian’s second-in-command) forces. However, Octavian was now aware of this and adapted his plans accordingly. Whilst Antony was being outmatched, outfought and thus beaten by Agrippa, Octavian was making short work of the remainder of Antony’s fleet. Seeing Antony’s forces being decimated by Octavian, Cleopatra saw a gap in Agrippa’s fleet and managed to squeeze through, fleeing back to Egypt. Seeing this, Antony’s land army promptly surrendered themselves to the forces of Octavian, instead of following Antony back to Asia as they had been instructed to. Although his fleet had been destroyed, Antony managed to evade capture and somehow make his way back to Egypt. On the second of September, 31 BC, Octavian, unwillingly assisted by Cleopatra, had taken a major step to becoming ruler of Rome.

5 5

However, the war was not over yet. Both Antony and Cleopatra had managed to escape back to Egypt, and they met up in Alexandria. Octavian wanted to pursue them immediately, but many of his longestserving legionnaires (some who could trace their service back to Julius Caesar, 20 years earlier) wanted to retire. Octavian, again showing his military intellect, allowed them to do so and the hunt was put on hold until the end of Winter. Meanwhile, Antony was trying to secure the army and aid of Lucius Pinarius, in Cyrenaica, (which is now part of Libya). Although Pinarius was at first loyal to Antony, he had switched sides and joined Octavian. Octavian instructed Pinarius to Move his legions to the West of Alexandria, whilst he moved East, through Asia to ensure Antony could not get support from there.

Antony made a desperate attempt to fight Pinarius before Octavian arrived, but he was vastly outnumbered and was crushed. The final remnants of Antony’s army immediately surrendered to Octavian when he arrived, and Antony’s cause was lost. Alexandria was taken under siege and Antony, on the 1st of August 30 BC, being an honourable Roman fell on his sword. However, some accounts say Antony did not die immediately and was taken to Cleopatra’s mausoleum, which was where she had fled to. It was here that he finally died, in the arms of Cleopatra.

Yet as long as Cleopatra still lived, and as long as that fact stayed true, Octavian’s cause wasn’t complete. Cleopatra, in a last-ditch attempt, opened negotiations with Octavian in order to save the life of her child Caesarion, whom she had with Julius Caesar. But Octavian, after reportedly saying: “two Caesars are one too many," refused and ordered the death of Caesarion. After this, Cleopatra committed suicide, either from a self-induced bite from an asp, or by rubbing a poisonous ointment all over her body. After these two suicides, Octavian had mixed feelings; he admired the bravery and love of Antony and Cleopatra, and thus decided to give them an honourable military burial in Rome. The suicide of Cleopatra gave end to the last after Roman civil war, and as he left Alexandria, a new age dawned for the Roman Republic as they annexed Egypt. In the immediate aftermath, Octavian was named Pharaoh of Egypt, and took it as his personal possession. And then, in 27 BC, Octavian was renamed Augustus by the senate and given unprecedented powers. With that, the Roman Republic died, and the Roman Empire was born. The reign of Octavian ushered in a golden age of peace and prosperity for the Roman Empire, and the peace, called the “Pax Romana” lasted centuries after Octavian’s death.

6

So, Cleopatra certainly sped up the rise of Octavian, she sped it up drastically but how responsible was she for it? She played a major part in his defeat of Antony, and it is entirely possible that, without her, Antony would have beaten him. The turning point in their war was the battle of Actium, and without her, Antony may have won, as fled causing Antony’s ships to retreat as well. There is also the fact that Cleopatra was also very close to Julius Caesar, evidenced by their son, Caesarion. Caesar’s closeness to Cleopatra, and so to Egypt, may have been another reason why he was assassinated, the event that set everything into motion. Looking at it that way, it is evident that Cleopatra, whilst not always at the forefront, was prominent in Roman politics ever since Caesar came to Egypt in pursuit of his enemy, Pompey.

This means that Cleopatra at least played a part in the assassination of Julius Caesar, then had a major role in the defeat of Antony and was thus practically instrumental in the rise of Octavian. What’s ironic is the fact that she did all of it completely unwillingly and mostly unaware of the dramatic effect she was having.

However, it can also be argued that Cleopatra only had a minor role in the rise of Octavian, in the fact that she was only part of the reason why Antony was defeated at Actium. In regard to the assassination of Caesar, although Cleopatra may have been a reason, it was almost certain that she was a minor reason and they would have assassinated him anyway. And remember that, at Actium, Octavian not only had better ships and sailors, but details on Antony’s plans and was able to adapt his strategy accordingly. The combination of these facts mean that Octavian would have probably won anyway, even without Cleopatra causing the majority of Antony’s fleet to retreat. The rumour that Antony killed himself because he (falsely) heard that Cleopatra had committed suicide is probably untrue, spread by William Shakespeare to add some drama to his play. We must also remember that Octavian was both a military and political genius, having easily disposed of Lepidus, another extremely powerful man. This means that Octavian’s ambition would have probably sent him to the top anyway, it’s a matter of how much Cleopatra elevated him.

In conclusion, although Cleopatra quickened Octavian’s rise to the top, it’s certain that Octavian would have made it there anyway, using his keen intellect and military prowess. Bearing this in mind, I conclude that Cleopatra was only partially responsible for Octavian’s rise.

7 7

Why did the Reformation begin in Germany?

Edward Bach U6R2

The Reformation in Germany was caused by an accumulation of factors, starting with the background factors such as the complex political web of the Holy Roman Empire, as well as corruption in the practice of the Catholic Church. Furthermore, the development and increased influence of theological thought in the early sixteenth century aided the Reformation’s cause. Above all however, the long-term low-lying German xenophobia to Rome and the papacy facilitated and stimulated the start and duration of the Reformation.

The Role of German Nationalism. The beginning of the sixteenth century was a time where there were many developments within Germany that really set the scene for the protagonist of Martin Luther to break Germany away from Rome. Long before the early sixteenth century, a strong sense of German nationalism had been growing; many Germans believed themselves to be the jewel in the crown of the Holy Roman Empire, “The Empire had effectively contracted to a core of German territories.” This mindset became conducive to a stronger sense of xenophobia towards Rome. As early as the late fourteenth century the Bishop of Bamberg had written the Tractate on the laws of The Kingdom and the Empire, giving the Empire the authority to depose the Pope. The idea of a German nationalism also tied in the gradual usurpation of ecclesiastical authority, in electoral Palatine and Wurttemberg princes effectively dominated the Church in the area due to this, meaning Church's area of influence in Germany was eroding, this coupled with the greater scholastic achievement of the time facilitated the Reformation.

Furthermore, the Hussite uprising in Bohemia from 1420-34 demonstrated that a group of widely condemned ‘heretics’ could consolidate control over Bohemia which amplifies the idea of an anti-papal anti-Italian mentality.

German folk law had helped stimulate the Reformation, as for a long time the idea of a ‘German Hero’ to come and free Germany from the shackles of the papacy was something that resonated strongly with the German people. The text Reformatio Sigismundi reinforced this idea into the minds of the German people. This anti-clerical atmosphere also enhanced attempted reforms before Luther, for example Hans Bohm, who attacked the papacy and demanded that “it must come about that the common people have enough to give all an equal sufficiency”. It is these albeit disjointed movements that alerted the population to what was possible, and that they only needed a catalytic ‘hero’ to set it off. However, it is a combination of these two factors that in connection with each other gave Germany such a platform to initiate the Reformation, the wide spread anti-papist Germany helped galvanise and 8 8

unify the country from the collection of incomprehensibly different colonies into the great power that founded the Reformation.

The Role of the Papacy. Despite this swarm of German nationalism, the papacy itself was at fault for the beginning of the Reformation, as after all it was the indulgence affair which started it all. The Church was rife with abuses at the start of the sixteenth century, despite being widely condemned.

Pluralism, absenteeism, nepotism and simony were all evident throughout all parts of papal influence. Priests at the time were also often criticized for being undertrained and more concerned about monetary wealth than spiritual wealth. A famous critic was Erasmus of Rotterdam, who ridiculed Pope Julius II in Julius Exclusis, accusing him of corruption, as well as in Praise of Folly (1509), saying that “they (clergy) believe it’s the highest form of piety to be so uneducated that they can’t even read”. The abuses in the Church antagonised people and caused great dissatisfaction and provided the breeding grounds for anti-papal reformation. Additionally, the Italian Wars of the fifteenth century further enhanced this idea, as the inception of candidates such as Alexander IV, Julius II and Leo X from the Medici and Borgia families further demonstrated to the laity the papacy’s willingness to do anything in return for a sufficient payment. The final straw that broke the camel’s back with regards to corruption was that of the deal between Albrecht of Mainz and the papacy to finish St Peter’s Basilica. All of these examples of abuses by the Church led to the laity being ready to accept an alternate pathway to salvation that would be purer. The fact that papacy had driven the laity to feeling this way ultimately illustrates the key role that the papacy played in the Reformation.

The Role of the existing political system. Moreover, it was the political structure of the Holy Roman Empire and the scenario within Germany which allowed the Reformation to grow. Due to the Holy Roman Empire becoming “a collection of incomprehensibly different territories,” with over 600 principalities and regions, the papacy saw it as a target to exploit. Germany’s affluent tin industry was the principal target, with evidence to suggest this coupled with the 10% Church tithe that the German people had to pay led to large-scale discontentment and resentment of the Church. Furthermore, the Emperor left the German population more exposed, due to their inability to rule with absolute power and royal prerogatives which was similar to Spain, England and France. The election that an Emperor had to undergo demonstrated their contingent position and had the Emperor wished to raise a tax, for example, they would have to request each region and the disjointed nature of Germany left the papacy with easy prey to milk. The printing press also helped bind the Reformation, Luther’s 95 theses spread contagiously in Germany following their publication, there is evidence that in as far afield as Basel, as well as Nuremberg and Leipzig the these had circulated. Moreover, wood cuts for the illiterate had become a phenomenon in Germany, with them further aiding the propaganda of a ‘hero’. The university system in Germany also facilitated the Reformation, as the growth of German intellects and 9

theological thought gave greater diversity, with Ockhamism, Mysticism and Scholasticism all playing parts in helping Germany grow for a Reformation. All of these weaknesses in the Holy Roman Empire which allowed Germany to become exploited and frustrated was what paved the way for the Reformation, as like the rise in German nationalism, it aided the Reformation’s cause.

Overall, the Reformation happened in Germany due to the culmination of many different long-term features and ideas of Germany as a whole. German nationalism and history of heroic uprisings and a future messiah to led German to a new Church was an idea for the masses to cling onto, and the arrival of Martin Luther propelled this into foreground. Additionally, the exploitation and corruption of the Papacy itself only served to irritate and motivate a German population to back a hero if they come. Finally, the structure of Germany itself and the Holy Roman Emperor facilitated the exploitation, to further anger the population, it has all of these factors that allowed the Reformation to occur in Germany.

Martin Luther in the Circle of Reformers

Martin Luther sparked the Reformation in Germany by opposition Roman Catholic teachings

10 10

The Tudor Religious Reformation Joel Berman 9R2 During the period ruled by the Tudors, the main religion was Christianity. However, the version of Christianity frequently changed between Protestantism and Catholicism given that every monarch had their own idea of how the country should be run. Henry VII was a Catholic and passed this belief onto his son Henry VIII who replicated his father's beliefs up until he wanted a divorce from his first wife, Catherine of Aragon, so that he could marry Anne Boleyn. The Pope adamantly refused as it went against the Catholic faith. This situation was called the King’s Great Matter. Given the refusal of the Pope, Henry felt that he was forced to take the matter into his own hands. He broke away from Rome and started his own church, The Church of England which allowed him to get his divorce and marriage to Anne Boleyn. Following the 'King's Great Matter’, Henry started to loot the Catholic churches and monasteries for all of their gold and precious items. However, upon his death there was a sense of irony given that he was given the Catholic last rites! Henry’s son Edward VI was a Protestant and despite his young age, he possessed some strong religious views.

He continued the destruction and pillaging of the churches and monasteries, he had the bible translated into vernacular language (English), he destroyed all statues of saints, locked bishops in the tower of London and whitewashed the paintings in churches!

Edward’s half sister Mary however, was the opposite in her religious views as she was a strong Catholic. This was demonstrated by her restoration of the rule of the Pope, recalling of the Latin mass and bibles and censorship of the English Bible. Mary was famously known as Bloody Mary from her order to burn 300 Protestants to death. However, Mary lived a relatively miserable life and never had any children, despite her marriage to King Philip of Spain, so the crown was to go to her half-sister Elizabeth.

Before she died, Mary tried extremely hard to persuade the young Elizabeth to become a Catholic, however, Elizabeth simply replied by saying that she will do whatever her heart felt was right. Upon Queen Elizabeth’s ascension (following the death of Queen Mary), the new Queen claimed that she, “did not wish to make windows into men’s hearts.” This was significant as it essentially outlined the style of governance that she would undertake. Throughout her reign, Queen Elizabeth followed a diplomatic policy whereby she would grant concessions to both Catholics and Protestants. For example, she allowed most of the Catholic services and made changes to the Communion service.

Although some people believe that she may have been slightly more 11 11

Protestant toward the end of her reign as she had a bible in English and had executed catholic priests who were plotting secret services. The excommunication from the Pope in 1570 seemed to strengthen this argument.

However, despite this, Queen Elizabeth’s true religious alignment remained ambiguous to her grave.

The Tudor Rose

12

To what extent was religion the most important cause of the English Civil War? James Lewis, L6 Religion was of considerable importance as a cause of Civil War, however it was not the most important. Despite religion playing two roles, firstly, religion delegitimised Charles’ regime due to issues over popish plot and the fact that it forced the political elite to choose sides, the lack of trust in Charles was of greatest importance. This is because issues of religion were about trust, yet, trust in Charles was not limited to within the religious realm but through the prism of taxation and unlawful imprisonment. Moreover, the Irish rebellion was essentially the trigger the lead to the civil since it brought matters of trust in Charles to the surface.

Religion played a vital role in causing the English Civil War since the religious changes Charles had attempted to bring about, fuelled a suspicion amongst the elite that he was engaging in a popish plot, in effect, delegitimising the regime. Charles had introduced a series of religious innovations and reform during his personal rule. Through only disposing patronage to bishops of Laudian Arminian persuasion, Charles managed to rebeautify churches such as St. Paul’s, rail altars in in 80% of parishes and reissue the book of sports in October 1633. All of which were different from what Calvinists within the political elite had wanted, it mirrored Catholicism and so ought to fuel ideas of popish undertaken by Charles. Most pertinently, both Charles and Laud, both as Arminians, denied the Calvinist doctrine of predestination and favoured the catechism of free will, thereby encouraging suspicion amongst the elite of a catholic top-down reformation in England by the monarch. Charles’ innovations were not centralised to theology but also within his court since he appointed a papal legate Gregorio Panzani to his court (the first since 1558) in 1634 and the scot Georgconn in 1636. Also he allowed his Queen to have catholic services in her court which angered and instilled fear amongst the elite in parliament in the first half of 1641, the damage had already been done since the alleged in the popish plot enabled people to confront the king because they were genuinely fearful of a catholic invasion and is a key reason for why the elite lost trust in Charles. This therefore, underlines how the alleged popish plot delegitimised the regime which in turn was major factor in causing the Civil War. Yet, even after the reversing of Arminianism, issues over popish plot were continually dividing the elite and forced them to take sides.

Religion was a major cause as well since issues arising from the episcopacy in late 1641 provoked the division of the political elite which created the future parliamentarians and the royalists. Although the long parliament had succeeded in the 1641 revolution and thus had been able to reverse all Arminian reform and had imprisoned Laud and his colleagues, for Pym and his puritan followers the popish threat remained. For these men, only until the bishops are removed, would the popish threat be eradicated. However, for many others within the elite like Thomas Culpepper who, despite 13 13

arguing against all kinds of Arminian reform during the personal rule, wanted the retention of Bishops. This is because they believed that Bishops instilled social orders since it means that the elites can control what is preached and have control of information in the parishes due to the topdown institution of the Anglican church. They also believed that Pym posed a far greater threat to social order than Charles did, though these men like Hyde did not adore nor totally trust him because they believed he could be controlled. Therefore, this underlines how issues over religion and episcopacy created two sides of Anglicans (Hyde and the future royalists) and Presbyterians (Pym and his followers, parliamentarians) these being the two sides for the war. This means that religion was an important cause as it created the necessary division for the Civil War to take place.

However, all the problems that arose from religion were a matter of trust in Charles due to alleged Catholic threat he posed. Yet, the lack of trust was not simply limited to the popish plot but also the elite could not trust him with politics and hence the lack of trust in him was greatest importance.

Within the political realm, the majority of parliament lost trust in Charles due to his unlawful taxation and unlawful imprisonment. Essentially; Charles broke the terms of Magna Carta. In terms of taxation, Charles had imposed nonconsensual taxation throughout his entire reign from 1625, firstly with the forced loan of September 1626, and then the numerous fiscal innovations during the personal rule such as ship money.

None of which had undergone parliamentary approval, thereby fundamentally contradicting the terms of Magna Carta, consequently controverting the basis of the dynamic between monarch and parliament.

Charles broke Magna Carta in another way since he continually imprisoned members of the elite with whom he had disagreed. For example, he imprisoned men like John Role who refused to acquiesce to his taxation and those who released works criticising his Arminian reform like Leighton. Most significantly, his attempted arrest of the 5 members on January 4th 1642 symbolised unlawful imprisonment, thus further dividing himself from the majority of the elites. This, therefore underlines how lack of trust in Charles arose from his attempt to restructure the fabric that had held England’s monarchs together with parliament since 1215. This lack of trust is the most important reason for the cause of the English Civil War. However this lack of trust only come to the surface due to the Irish rebellion.

The Irish rebellion was the trigger of the English Civil War since it brought the notion of lack of trust to the surface in late 1641. This is because, parliamentary members were forced to choose who should lead the army against the rebels in Ireland. Once again, it was the puritans who rallied against the king as this rebellion, to them, showed significant evidence of a popish plot. This is because reports suggested widescale saves massacres totalling 150,000 dead by Irish Catholics (old-English and Gaelic) against protestant settlers. This means that, Pym’s supporters were reluctant to entrust Charles with an army because they believed he would mismanage it 14 14

with his ultimate goal being, the resurgence of the old faith. As a consequence half the elites supported the junto. This means that Charles as a reaction tried to seize the members of the junto. This failure to seize them showed how Charles lost the support of the majority and as a consequence encouraged him to believe that his only way to assert his position is through military action against. This action manifested itself in the declaration of war August 1642. This underlines how the Irish rebellion is the trigger that caused, however, it is merely a trigger and the more underlying structural issue is about trust in Charles. This lack of trust is the most important cause.

Overall, although religion was a considerably significant cause of the English Civil War as it both delegitimised the current and forged the future sides of the conflict due to divisions over Bishops, lack of trust in Charles is of greatest importance. Not only due to the aforementioned lack of political trust but also the religious causes are as consequence of lack of trust in Charles. Despite the Irish rebellion being the direct trigger, issues over Charles are the root cause as the Irish rebellion brought matters of trust to the surface. Fundamentally, it was Charles’ attempt to bypass parliament throughout his reign, to break the terms of Magna Carta and to impose Arminianism on an unwilling elite which caused Civil War.

Above: Irish Civil War 1641

15

The Other Russian Revolution: How a Failed Uprising Sealed Russia’s Fate Ashna Ahmad This year (2017), all eyes are on Russia. It is rather fitting that, as the year of the centenaries of its two most famous revolutions began, the country was all over the news once again, this time for allegedly interfering in the American presidential election. As talks concerning the situation in the Middle East continue and the conflict in Ukraine rages on, not to mention the unfolding of Trump’s presidency and the effect of his drastically different outlook on Russia, 2017 may even rival its century-earlier counterpart in terms of its significance for Russia and the rest of the world.

But 1917 was not the only year in which the world’s largest country underwent a definitive transformation. There is reason to believe that the Russian national character, relationships with other countries and position on the world stage we see today started to take shape long before then. Official Soviet historiography presented the October Revolution as the single event during which the “logically predetermined” destiny of not only what was to become the Soviet Union, but of human society in its entirety, was realised.

While the West is generally sceptical of such historical determinism and of positive portrayals of the revolution, the Western and Soviet interpretations converge in one key way: both give the revolution prime position as a crucial turning point in the making of Russia. However, another, often overlooked revolution is a contender for this position. This revolution, taking place on a snow-muffled square in St. Petersburg in the otherwise unglamorous year of 1825, was not a barricade-building, flag-hoisting, jubilant triumph of liberty over tyranny. On the contrary, it was a disorganised mess which failed risibly.

Its most immediately visible result was inspiring the new Tsar, Nicholas I, to tighten censorship and crack down ever more harshly on dissent.

Known as the Decembrist Revolt, the revolution in question was not an average ‘turning point revolution’ – but Russia was not an average country. Arguably, any country spanning such a large area and comprising a correspondingly wide variety of cultures, nations and geographical influences is bound to struggle with its national identity at some point, and in 1825, this was exactly what the Russian Empire was doing. At this point, the country was ostensibly in a rather strong position. Over a century after Peter the Great expressed and took the first steps towards the aim of reorganising the Empire based on a ‘European’ model (chiefly in the cultural and military spheres), his great-great-grandson, Alexander I, made it a recognised European power after cementing Napoleon’s defeat in the Russian Campaign of 1812.

Due to this significant victory, Alexander I’s government played an instrumental role in dividing up post-Napoleonic Europe at the Vienna Congress and gained considerable influence on the continent. Even before 16 16

Napoleon’s defeat, Russia had been pursuing heavily expansionist foreign policy, most notably under the ‘enlightened despot’ Catherine the Great, who sought to extend her influence over the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and the Black Sea region while professing her adherence to European Enlightenment ideals. But in spite of its deceptively strong, modernising appearance, the country’s problems ran deep. While Western and Central European countries embraced industrial capitalism and improved their armed forces and political statuses with the consequent growth, serfdom and reluctance to implement much-needed reforms held back their Eastern neighbour. From here, Russia had three potential paths. It could have actualised Peter I & Catherine II’s progressive rhetoric and enacted the reforms needed to trim its bureaucracy and become a modern, European nation. It could have retreated into the isolation it experienced for much of the pre-Enlightenment period, remaining feudal, autocratic and reactionary in outlook. Or it could have remained mired in this identity crisis, forever switching between reform and reaction. Of course, no one event can completely shape a country’s future – but December 26th, 1825, represents when Russia’s path started to become clear.

The revolt began after, once Alexander I died, his brothers (and the potential heirs) pledged allegiance to each other. A confused interregnum followed, during which it became apparent that the deceased Tsar had named the future Nicholas I heir presumptive, having bypassed Nicholas’ older brother Konstantin after he renounced the throne and married a Polish woman of non-noble birth. Although Konstantin had been a heavyhanded ruler in Poland and his credentials as a reformer remain unclear, the Decembrists openly advocated peasant emancipation and constitutional monarchy and evidently swore allegiance to him because they believed that he was sufficiently liberal and was the rightful heir.

Despite their liberal aims, the Decembrists did not hail from typically progressive social strata. The crowd which assembled at Senate Square on December 26th, 1825, to swear allegiance to Konstantin and to the Decembrist Constitution were mostly officers of noble backgrounds. The appointed leader of the group, Sergei Trubetskoy, was the son of a Georgian Princess and formerly part of the Semyonovsky regiment which fought against Napoleon, while the author of its official charter, Pavel Pestel, was the son of the notoriously corrupt governor-general of Siberia and was a colonel in the Viatsky regiment. More unusual still were the group’s ties to freemasonry; the Union of Prosperity had a masonic structure and was distinctly Christian, but was still inspired by liberals and French revolutionaries, right down to their clothing. This Union spearheaded the revolt, along with regimental leaders whom they convinced to join them in order to increase numbers.

In the end, though, their efforts to increase numbers were fruitless. On the day of the revolt, 3,000 officers gathered at Senate Square in St. Petersburg to protest, though the other troops in St. Petersburg who were supposed to 17 17

join the revolt made no appearance. Trubetskoy was also absent, as was his second-in-command. Following several hours of deadlock, the general Mikhail Miloradovich was shot and stabbed to death while attempting to reach an agreement with the rebels. After that, Nicholas I concluded that the standoff could not be brought to a peaceful end and ordered cannons to open fire on the rebels. One failed attack on the Winter Palace and one attempt quashed by artillery fire later, the revolt ended in dismal failure, with 1,721 dead in all. The chronic disorganisation of the rebels led to the revolution effort completely collapsing.

Not only was the immediate result of the uprising the opposite to what one would expect of a revolution of significance; the uprising is widely credited as the main cause for Nicholas I’s suspicion of liberals and thus its main effect in fact was hold back reforms in Russia. Instead of accelerating the progression towards modern liberal democracy, as some other influential European revolutions (against which Nicholas I was keen to act as a bulwark of reaction) did this century, this revolution consigned Russia to a state of ideologically-motivated reaction which has never really gone away. The decades immediately after the revolution were decades of resigned compliance for liberals. To counter the threat of liberalism, the Tsar's education minister, Sergei Uvarov, was tasked with coming up with a doctrinal or ideological basis for Russian education policy, which soon became the state mantra "Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality�. This is of importance in that it showed Nicholas I's push towards greater 'Russification', emphasising the Russian language, religion and 'natural' style of government, and thus a move away from the Europeanism cultivated by Peter the Great and certain successors of his.

However, there is more nuance to this situation. After Nicholas I reacted decidedly against Europeanism and liberalism by implementing a firmly conservative state ideology, Russia did not remain to this day a country defined by "Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationality." In fact, the next Tsar, Alexander II, was best-known for finally emancipating the serfs in 1861 and, had he not been assassinated, would have signed a set of reforms aimed at giving Russia a constitution. Alexander III, who succeeded him, aborted the reforms and led Russia in a more autocratic manner once more; only to have his efforts at re-establishing a stable autocracy sabotaged by Nicholas II, who was forced to yield to his angry subjects after the 1905 revolution and grant them a Parliament and constitution. Soon afterwards, of course, were the substantially more famous revolutions of 1917. A full discussion of the liberal and reactionary trends in the Soviet Union would require a whole other essay, but in short, the vacillation between a suppressive, highly centralised political and economic culture (existent under Stalin and, to a lesser degree, under Brezhnev's re-centralisation programme) and something resembling attempts at glasnost' (or similar policies or lip service, such as Khrushchev’s Thaw) seems to mirror the vacillation between semi-liberalism and autocracy under the Russian Empire in the decades after the Decembrist Revolt.

18

Even in modern Russia, this familiar pattern continues. After Yeltsin appeared to envisage a modern, open Russia as the future, Putin has embraced antiWest, stubborn autocratic policy and put a nail in the coffin of the notion that 21st century Russia could become a Western-style democracy. The outward appearance of modern Russia is often one of strength; as the Western order seems to be disintegrating after the populist onslaught and politicians like Trump and Fillon openly praise Putin’s leadership, one would be forgiven for thinking that Russia is remarkably stable and self-assured in comparison with countries like the United States. Yet the legacy of the Decembrist Revolt suggests otherwise. It seems evident, judging by Russian history ever since the revolt, that Russia chose the last of the three paths: the path of perpetual identity crisis, caused by the cautiousness of Russian liberals and the fear of liberalism which the country seems to have had ever since Nicholas I first cracked down on them in 1826. Every time anyone tries to reach out tentatively towards a more liberal future, the attempt is retracted; and yet, Russia does not have enough conviction in its autocratic spirit to last a considerable amount of time without such an attempt. At base, despite all pretensions to the country, the Russian Federation of 2017 is fundamentally unsure of itself.

19 19

Who was more important to the Civil Rights Movement: Martin Luther King Jr. or Malcolm X? Ollie Sugar L6J2 "Those two people Martin and Malcolm, symbolised something that is in all African Americans. Each of us has a little bit of Martin and a little bit of Malcolm in us.

Malcolm represents that blackness in us, that sense that we don't want white people messing with us. Malcolm represents that fire, that fight that refuses to let anybody define who we are. King represents our desire to get along with everybody, including whites. Our desire to want to create a society for all people, defined by non-violence, love and care for all people in the society.”

- James H. Cone

Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X are both considered to be two of the most influential African Americans in modern history, both contributing to the Civil Rights Movement culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. While King advocated non-violent direct action and passive resistance to achieve equal civil rights, Malcolm X was the spokesman for the Nation of Islam (NOI), the black Muslim movement which violently rejected white America and its predominantly Christian values and preached the supremacy of blacks over whites. Both Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X were hugely important leaders during America’s civil rights movement. However, they each saw a different way of gaining social justice and addressing the challenges facing African Americans. This essay will assess which of the two leaders was more important to the Civil Rights Movement, which ultimately led to the overturning of the ‘Plessey v Ferguson’ decision (1896) and the Mississippi plan (1875) with the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 through congress.

Malcolm X was a significant figurehead in the Civil Rights Movement since he served as a courageous advocate for the rights of blacks, a man who indicted white America in the harshest terms for its crimes against black Americans.

Amongst other things, he was one of the first people to encourage violence against violence and offer an alternative to Martin Luther King's message of non-violence and pacifism. Malcolm X was a fervent believer in black supremacy and went so far as to accuse the white man of being the devil. He was a believer of separation, explaining the difference in early 1963: “We don't go for segregation. We go for separation. Separation is when you have your own. You control your own economy; you control your own politics; you control your own society; you control your own everything. You have yours and you control yours; we have ours and we control ours.” He made it clear throughout his politically active career that the black man should be separated from the white man since the two races cannot coexist. He urged his abundance of followers to defend themselves against white aggression “by any means necessary”. This is perhaps the most notable 20 20

difference between Malcolm X and King; Malcolm X was a believer in violent protest since he believed that King’s movement was submissive and destined for failure; he believed King preached defenselessness. Malcolm X sought to uplift black consciousness by promoting self defense, economic and social empowerment. He wished to establish an independent black nation whereby he believed the black man could fill their potential without the restrictions the white man places upon them. The differentiation must be made that Malcolm X advocated separation rather than integration, as King did. Simply put, the Nation of Islam believed that black people were superior to white people and that the demise of the white race was imminent. When questioned concerning his statements that white people were devils, Malcolm X said: "History proves the white man is a devil. Anybody who rapes, and plunders, and enslaves, and steals, and drops hell bombs on people ... anybody who does these things is nothing but a devil.”

On the opposite side of the spectrum, Martin Luther King Jr. (widely considered the most significant black leader in US history over the likes of Frederick Douglass, Booker T. Washington and Marcus Garvey) advocated integration through nonviolent marches. King’s insistence on non-violence stemmed from his devotion to the ideas of pacifist civil disobedience preached by Mahatma Gandhi to throw off British rule in India. He believed that the brutality of the white South and segregation could be unmasked as a regime of social terrorism most effectively if the black man protested peacefully, rather than Malcolm X’s proposal for the black man to protest violently. The entire concept of peaceful protests was to provoke a violent reaction which is unjustifiable to shock white leaders into forcing action; it could be argued that violent protests provoke a violent reaction in order to maintain control, therefore Malcolm X’s ideologies may never have resulted in a successful Civil Rights Movement without King’s pacifist style of protest. King’s ‘I have a Dream’ speech (during his march on Washington, alongside some 250,000 supporters of the movement) is perhaps the most significant development in the entire movement. The speech was given in the shadow of the Lincoln Memorial, the monument honoring President Abraham Lincoln, who issued the Emancipation Proclamation, which freed slaves in the Southern states. By giving his speech there, King concentrated attention on how things were so terrible a century before (during the Civil War) and how some things, i.e. racial tensions and inequality, hadn’t changed so very much in 100 years. The advent of mainstream media like television and radio becoming common place enabled the speech to be broadcasted to the entire nation, broadening the follower count of King’s movement. King arguably personified the Civil Rights Movement in one speech; the 1963 march on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, whose pinnacle was King’s speech itself, was part of a new strand of political protest, the mass demonstration, which was soon picked up and used to great effect worldwide.

21

In conclusion, in terms of importance, while both King and Malcolm X are now regarded as cornerstones of black American history, there is little question as to who is more important: Martin Luther King Jr. As a symbol, Malcolm X drew attention to the issue which King arguably came up with the solution for. A few days after Malcolm X’s assassination in 1965, King said: “I think Malcolm X did serve a role, I think he played a role in pointing out the problem, calling attention to it, but his great problem was an inability to emerge with a solution. He had slogans that were catchy, and that people listened to, but I don't think he ever pointed out the solution to the problem.” While it is true that both hurled insults at each other (for example, Malcolm X saying: “The white man pays Reverend Martin Luther King, subsidizes Reverend Martin Luther King, so that Reverend Martin Luther King can continue to teach the negroes to be defenseless”) what King says here is largely true; Malcolm X’s concept of a separate, independent black state was simply unrealistic and counterproductive to coexistence. Moreover, the Civil Rights Movement being the movement which aims at overturning the 14th Amendment (that everyone is equal in the eyes of the law) outcasts Malcolm X as a radical whose importance to the movement comes in his eloquence and attention-grabbing speeches rather than his ideologies themselves. Without Malcolm X, the Civil Rights Movement may still have happened, yet without King there would be no ‘I have a Dream’ speech, no march on Washington and possibly no Civil Rights Act in 1964.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: Makers of the Twentieth Century: Martin Luther King (Adam Fairclough) Malcolm X: A Life of Reinvention (Manning Marable) The Autobiography of Malcolm X (Malcolm X)

22 22

What was The Carnation Revolution?

Lucas Valladares (10H) The Carnation Revolution, or the 25 de Abril, was a military coup and revolution in Portugal led by the MFA (Armed Forces Movement) against the authoritarian, semi-fascist dictatorship of Estado Novo which was led by President Tomás and Prime Minister Caetano in 1974. It established the National Salvation Junta to maintain the government before transitioning the nation into a successful Republic, where it remains today. The date is now an official Portuguese holiday, known as Freedom Day or Día da Liberdade.

In 1910, the First Portuguese Republic was formed following the collapse of the Portuguese monarchy. This new republic struggled throughout its era and a coup by General Gomes da Costa resulted in its dissolution; the country returned to dictatorship, with the Ditatura Militar being established.

It was a military-led state with significant right-wing influences, and officially changed its name two years later to Ditadura Nacional (Or National Dictatorship). By 1933, it evolved and transitioned into Estado Novo, or the Second Portuguese Republic. While a Republic in name, the regime was extremely suppressive and restrained numerous liberal, left-wing, anarchic and anti-colonial movements due to its corporatist and fascist influences.

Created by António de Oliveira Salazar, who served as the Regime’s Prime Minister between 1932 and 1968. Initially an economist, Salazar was an activist promoting nationalism during the period of the First Republic and his financial skill enabled his promotion to Financial Minister by President Carmona. This accession into public life and gradual rise to fame enabled a successful campaign to become Prime Minister, and under his reign he enforced firm conservatism plus heavy patriotism. However, while Salazar is too often compared to similar dictatorial regimes such as Hitler’s Reich and Mussolini’s Italy due to some shared tenets, Salazar expressly distanced himself from them as he considered them pagan and Caesarist. Salazar himself was a devout Christian and desired to maintain the Church and Roman Catholicism as core constituents of Portuguese culture. However, he was aware of the potential threat the Church held to his regime and consequently attempted to isolate it politically, instead arguing for its social benefit. Salazar’s essential phrase, “God, Fatherland and Family” still included it though, along with other nationalist sentiments emphasizing the national Portuguese community.

There was a plethora of reasons for the revolutionary sentiment perpetuated throughout the society of the Second Portuguese Republic. Not only was there the obvious tide of resentment against a dictatorial regime, especially considering the harsh and brutal censorship alongside the radical 23 23

corporatist nature of the state, but Portugal was socio-economically strained during the era and the commanding Salazar had been injured and consequently incapacitated; Marcelo Caetano, his successor, could never enforce the same authority or persuade the masses to nearly the same extent.

Salazar had suffered from a stroke in 1968, and the constitutional, overreaching Council of State was inflicted with severe damage as the popular figure of the Estado Novo regime ceased his leadership. The Council selected Caetano to replace him, however the latter was unpopular with both the revolutionary sections of the nation as well as the fundamental Salazarists, or 'the bunker'. The Portuguese President TomĂĄs, among the leaders of many influential banks, corporations and armed forces were members of 'The Bunker' and their opposition to Caetano's aims to liberalize and modernize resulted in them never reaching fruition. In the opposite way, the leftist movements in Estado Novo despised Caetano due to his lack of reform. His indecision caused many groups to unite against the regime as they began to resort to resolution as the only method to progress Portugal.

The 1973 Oil Crisis devastated the Portuguese economy which was already being drained by the Overseas military campaigns to retain colonial power. The lack of peace for an unpopular war led to the alienation of the people from the autocratic system. Even the military began to dislike Caetano following his programme to increase the resistance against African insurgencies in addition to minimize military expenditure via enabling military officers who fit certain criteria (having completed a short, training program as well as having served a defensive campaign in the Overseas war.) to get commissioned at a high rank. This, in turn, devalued the next generation of military academy graduates which ensured the future of the Armed Forces held disdain for Caetano and his nationalist system.

The Overseas War (fought between Portugal and colonial separatists), also referred to as the War of Liberation by the prior colonies, had been fought for 13 years since 1961 with increasing denouncement against the Portuguese by various UN member states. This in turn increased unrest and led to colonial populations desiring independence to an even greater extent.

This led to their aim to remove the Portuguese regime which had been heavily influenced by lusotropicalism (and the idea that Portugal was a pluricontinental nation was heavily embedded in Salazar’s ideology) and considering their home warfare was failing, they opted to remove and replace the Lisboeta regime from within.

This led to large-scale preparation from Portuguese colonial subjects, and they engaged in extensive collaboration with Iberian revolutionaries in order to remove Caetano from power. At home, the already relatively poor Republic suffered from the immense strain on its financial and limited labour resources. The growth of the working and middle classes similarly put 24

pressures on the regime as they demanded additional power which had been seized by the Corporations. Urbanization had contributed to these growths and further pushed for liberalization however Salazar's response was to oppress and repress any dissent. This decision caused greater unrest, as people began perceiving the brutal authoritarian nature of the regime even more clearly.

The Revolution was planned in advance, with heavy influences from not only Lisboa/Lisbon but additionally the African colonies, with militia stationed in Portuguese West Africa (Angola) and Portuguese East Africa (Mozambique) contributing significantly to planning. While it wasn’t necessarily planned to be a bloodless revolution, many revolutionaries placed carnation flowers in their guns instead of bullets leading to the coup’s common name. It was a largely popular revolution and many civilians flocked from their house. The signal for the revolution was the airing of the Portuguese entry to the 1974 Eurovision song contest, and for the hours prior to that point large regions of Portugal were almost eerily silent, with entire trains waiting in anticipation.

Upon the airing of 'E Depois do Adeus' at 10:55pm on the channel Emissores Associados de Lisboa (EAL), Captains and soldiers begun the coup. On the 25th at 12:20am, the second signal was released as Zeca Afonso, a banned, politically-influenced singer had her song "Grândola, Vila Morena" broadcast on Rádio Renascença. The Captains of April, the MFA leaders, appealed numerous times on the radio for the general populace to remain at home to minimize their potential danger however thousands flooded to the streets regardless. They shouted and celebrated the revolt, with many gathering to a central point of the Lisboan flower market. The iconic name of the Revolution originated from the flower market, as carnations were stocked and in season - Many insurgents placed these carnati ons inside the barrels of their gun, which was then broadcasted internationally. Instead of being a typical military coup, the mass involvement of regular civilians enabled the classification of the revolt as a popular revolution and there were no deaths caused by the Revolutionaries (although four were shot by the PIDE). Caetano and Tomás fled to Brazil which left Portugal vulnerable to radicalism however attempts by Portuguese militants to radicalize the revolution were quickly stomped by the Partido Socialista (PS).

Spain feared the revolution may spread to them, and instituted some censorship as a countermeasure; regardless, Franco's regime would topple with his death a year later. Immediately after the revolution, there was conflict between de Spinola's conservative faction and the radicalized MFA took place and thus the first and second provisional governments, formed by de Spinola, were forced to include crucial MFA members.

25 25

Upon the Carnation Revolution, many left-wing radicals who had been exiled returned home, such as the leaders of the Portuguese Communist Party (PCP) and Socialist Party of Portugal (PS) Cunhal and Soares respectively. These returnees were celebrated, and their leftist influences indicated Portugal’s new inclination towards the left (having observed the destructive under conservative Salazar) which partially led to Portuguese civil unrest during the PREC alongside the fierce nationalist of remaining Salazar supporters and similar nationalists. The Republican Guard, PIDE (The Estado Novo’s secret police) and similar autocratic institutions were banned – The Portuguese people had been liberated and re-entered democracy, which had been significantly rigged since 1926.

The revolution didn’t instantly transition Portugal into a free, liberal democracy but instead cast them into the PREC (Ongoing Revolutionary Process) which, while markedly more open to political discourse and personal freedoms, remained tainted by the socio-political struggle between the left and the right which continued until 1976. The National Salvation Junta was initially formed, with the interim President de Spinola seizing control of the country while future procedure was discussed. With significant experience in the Overseas war and a high-ranking general under Caetano, de Spinola’s opinions had significant weight which led to his political ambitions being realized. Under his reign, the various Portuguese colonies gained independence beginning with GuineaBissau on the 10th September 1974 with each and every colony being liberated by the 11th November 1975 when Angola became an independent nation. He offered citizenship to the retornas, the displaced Portuguese people who had historically lived in the African colonies and was fairly popular with them as many had fought against the guerrilla leftist separatists in the Overseas war. De Spinola additionally fought back against the leftist influences in the nation, ensuring the country remained largely moderate.

However, the MFA still lingered and consisted of numerous other high-ranking military generals, possessing even greater influence and overruled and diminished the decisions taken by de Spinola. The MFA were firmly leftist and evolved into COPCON (Continental Operations Command), a faction with over 5000 elite, trained troops, led by Otelo Saraiva de Carvalho, which became the prominent order-inducing force considering the police had withdrawn following the revolution. De Spinola proceeded to continually lose power as he was forced to grant the colonies independence, abandoning the concepts of lusotropicalism and Portuguese pluricontinentalism that he’d written about in ‘Portugal e o future’, his famous ideological book, weakening his support and swaying it towards the radical MFA. Further, his attempt to seize authoritarian power in September failed due to COPCON and de Spinola resigned, enabling a consolidation of power by Otelo. Da Costa Gomes, a 26 26

moderate, replaced de Spinola and established the third provisional government with nine MFA members alongside Portuguese Socialists, Communists and Liberal-Conservatives.

Under da Costa Gomes, and without the moderate conservative de Spinola blocking or slowing them, the PCP and MFA gradually accumulated closer ties and mutual influences as the PCP ensured their dominating control of the labour unions and nationalized businesses. De Spinola attempted a coup in order to remove da Costa Gomes during March of 1975; it failed, however its implications in heightening the tensions between leftist and rightist factions was instrumental. It provided the MFA the cause for them to be persuaded by their radical elements to abolish the National Salvation Junta. Its replacement, the Council of Revolution became the central, unrelenting authority of the third Portuguese Republic. It gradually nationalized the nation, beginning with banks and large businesses however expanding to media, construction and hospitality among other sectors; eventually, the Council had control of 70% of Portuguese gross national product. General Gonçalves then formed a fourth, significantly more radical provisional government with eight military officials and members of the PCP, it’s allied party MDP as well as the PS and PPD. The first elections were held exactly a year after the Carnation Revolution, on the 25th of April 1975. The PCP contested the integrity and premise of the elections because the PCP leadership were concerned about their lack of support; regardless, the election took place and they were ranked third with 13% of the vote, behind the PPD with 26.4% and the leading Partido Socialista gained 38% and hence won the election. A fourth group, the CDS (a democratic conservative party) won 8% of the vote, demonstrating there was still a remnant and mild resurgence of conservative influences in the Third Republic. Regardless, the large-scale voting for pluralistic democracy was reassuring in its confirmation that the Portuguese people pursued democracy, despite political differences.

The “Hot Summer” of 1975 followed, though, which stained the new Republic as the revolution spread to the countryside, with many farms becoming collectivized and establishments being forcefully nationalized. Radical elements shut down the PS newspaper, and the PPD and PS withdrew from the Fourth Provisional Government as protest. The Western Bloc feared a Marxist seizure of the country with Soviet influences, and the possibility of a Communist NATO member severely worried them. Portugal became further fractured as the Fifth Provisional Government dissolved, replaced by the Sixth which included the leader of the Group of Nine (an organization dedicated to copying the Scandinavian social democratic model) among the political entities. This Government was the most successful of the Provisionals and lasted until it was replaced by the elected, constitutional government.

27

However, the rest of the nation which was drifting closer to anarchy - The end of the Overseas war enabled the military to return to Portugal, and there was increasing physical conflict between the rightist forces and the PCP. Otelo's coup, on the 25th of November 1975 signalled the decline of Portugal's leftism and Colonel dos Santos Ramalho Eanes declared Portugal was in a state of emergency. Loyal troops were sent to Lisbon, and the lingering revolutionary units were surrounded and surrendered. Finally, COPCON was abolished. Following this point, the revolution was largely over, having achieved its ambition of transitioning the autocratic, rightist Estado Novo into a left-leaning democracy. The next elections led to the moderate, proDemocracy parties winning the overwhelming majority of the vote. The Carnation Revolution was finished.

28 28

William Pitt the Younger: Why did he become Prime Minister in December 1783?

Jared Onnie, L6R2 William Pitt the Younger became Prime Minister in December 1783 as a result of a variety of determinants. The most potent factor was Pitt’s relationship with King George III through which Pitt’s becoming of Prime Minister was forced, however Pitt’s ability, the crisis following war with America and the King’s disdain towards the Fox/North coalition (in particular Fox), were all significant factors towards Pitt’s appointment as Prime Minister.

One reason why Pitt became Prime Minister in December 1783 was because of the King’s disapproval of other candidates, especially Charles Fox who was Pitt’s closest competitor. This is because Fox was careless in the sense that he publicly denounced the King and he even called to reduce the King’s powers within the constitution. This was after John Dunning famously said, ‘influence of the crown has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished.’ As a result, it is clear why George III viewed Fox ‘as contemptible as he is odious.’ Moreover, whilst Fox’s India Bill was primarily focused on rectifying terms of British rule in India, it also included components which would have increased Fox’s own power. Whilst the Bill managed to pass through Commons where Fox had support, in the Lords, not only was the Bill defeated by George’s royal power, but George threatened all those who wanted to vote for it. Despite this approach seeming contentious and unconstitutional, George argued that his ways were justifiable. Furthermore, Fox agreed to a coalition government with North, whom he had opposed during war with America, without the King’s request. This was a clear indication of trying to provoke the King. Therefore, although Fox had a majority, George held the right to pick his own ministers and in 1784, Pitt won a majority of 315 votes after the coalition was defeated in 1783, 2 days before Pitt was appointed Prime Minister. It is also significant that George picked Pitt over other candidates as well. George rejected the Rockingham Whigs since they did not have enough backing. George also rejected his old friend Lord North, who could not be trusted due to his betrayal in forming the Fox/North coalition. This meant that only Pitt remined, who had less grounds for rejection than the other candidates, hence why he was chosen to become Prime Minister.

Another reason why Pitt became Prime Minister was because of his ability. He adopted a policy around moderate Parliamentary reform, similarly to his good friend William Wilberforce. He received an excellent education, going to Cambridge at just 14 years old. Rather than going out, Pitt spent much of his 29 29

time watching Parliament debates, showing his exuberant passion towards politics. He even had experience as Chancellor of the Exchequer in 1982.

Hence Pitt’s intellect and his desire towards politics, allowed him into Parliament in the first place, ultimately giving him the experience needed to become Prime Minister.

Pitt was also appointed Prime Minister because war with America had created crises within the country and Pitt’s ideas seemed to help Britain recover.

When Britain lost the 13 colonies to revolution, Lord North lost control of Parliament. As a result, national debt rose to an all-time high of £240 million.

Pitt wanted to adopt a free-trade policy to boost the economic situation against the mercantilism system whereby tariffs were placed on goods. His financial and commercial ideas were crucial as a prerequisite to the regrowth of trade and industry. This meant that in 1793, Britain was in a better state than France to face war. Therefore, Pitt was seen as someone capable to help retrieve national pride after British losses in war against America.

It may be more convincingly argued that Pitt became Prime Minister in December 1783 because of his relationship with King George III. Whilst one may find it difficult to comprehend why such an inexperienced person managed to attain the main position in government, Pitt’s enthusiasm towards politics and keen aspirations for power really strengthened his relationship with the King. By 1783, they had a relationship of esteem and veneration, with King George knowing that Pitt would remain loyal to him through his sustained encouragement. Furthermore, George knew that these attributes did not come about by chance, yet Pitt’s ancestry had vast experience in the political field. Pitt’s father had previously been a Prime Minister and his mother came from a capable Whig family. Additionally, George’s own son was involved in Pitt’s eventual government. Therefore, Pitt’s determined nature through his family pedigree gave him a critical advantage over other contenders due to this giving Pitt a civil and courteous relationship with the King; something which did not exist with other favourites for the position such as Fox or North.

Whilst there were many reasons as to why Pitt was appointed as Prime Minister in December 1793, his relationship with King George III gave him a massive advantage over the other candidates. Pitt’s ideas allowed Britain to thrive but most importantly, these proposals were deemed acceptable under the constitutional limits acceptable to the King. Therefore, not only was Pitt seen as someone who could be a success as Prime Minister, but his changes such as his India Bill and anti-mercantilist stance did not affect the King’s power or his relationship with George III.

30

To what extent did British Ministers amend British constitutional law to aid reforms in finance, trade and administration and to what extent were these reforms successful from 1784-1812?

Salman Dhalla U6R1 The amendments made by British Ministers in constitutional law concerning reforms in finance, trade and administration were ultimately successful in 1783 to 1812. This was because the reforms introduced by Pitt during the pre-war years were then reinforced during the Napoleonic wars which ensured that during wartime, British finances were not destroyed. Moreover, the reforms introduced by Pitt in finance, trade and administration which were then improved by ministers such as Grenville and Addington. The changes in constitutional law allowed various ministers of the time to strengthen Britain financially, through improvements in efficiency and expansion of trade. However, whilst to some extent, Britain was successful in amending constitutional laws to aid reforms in 1783-1812, however she was not successful in these reforms as she did not achieve her aims (concerning trade) in ending isolation during the war period. Despite this, the British government did however enjoy some success in both imperial and wider trade as they maintained security as well as increasing wider trade. Trade success the success of the British Ministers in their reforms concerning trade can be demonstrated by the Eden Treaty with France, a system set up in 1786 to reduce tariffs on goods from both countries. This was valuable as it encompassed the import of duty-free French wine which meant the reduced the market price of the good. This was a contributing factor in the increase in support for the Prime Minister, especially given the consumption habits of the upper and middle classes. Moreover, the Eden Treaty ultimately demonstrated a willingness by the British government to facilitate increased levels of trade which contributed to further British economic growth. However, the success of the Eden Treaty can ultimately be limited by the Aliens Act of 1793 given the French interpretation that the Aliens Act violated the terms of the Eden Treaty. Furthermore, during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, Britain and France were engaged in commercial warfare. This can be demonstrated by the Milan and Berlin decrees by France in 1806 and 1807 and the British Order’s in Council in January 1807. The impact of these decrees was that the countries in the Napoleonic Empire were forbidden to trade with Britain (vice versa). However, a greater impact of these decrees was on America who blocked trade with both nations which severely limited the success of trade 31 31

in this period. Despite this, Britain utilised the colonies in South America where there were new, expanding markets which demanded British manufactured goods. However, it can be argued that trade grew during this period for other reasons aside from the reforms implemented by the British government. Given the end of the American War of Independence in 1783, it was important for trade between Britain and America to resume. This was because of symbiotic relationship between the nations whereby Britain needed raw materials (such as raw cotton) and America demanded British manufactured goods. Overall, British Ministers were not successful with regards to trade reforms implemented during this period. However, to some extent, they were successful in strengthening Britain during the period before the revolutionary wars with France. However, the success enjoyed during this period was ultimately facilitated by the end of the American War of Independence which allowed trade to restart. During the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, Britain was ultimately unsuccessful with regards to trade given the isolation they suffered from the continental system.

Administrative success concerning administration, British ministers were successful in amending constitutional laws to aid reforms in 1783-1812, however these reforms were not successful. This was because the British Ministers wanted economic reform through the reduction of government spending which could be implemented through increased efficiency in administration. However, given Britain’s role in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, government spending increased. This led to the Prime Minister Pitt undertaking administrative reforms such as the abolition of hundreds of sinecure offices which would decrease government spending as offices that were of no benefit to the government were being given a salary.

However, Pitt’s reform was inefficient as his policy was allow the offices to expire only upon the death of the holder and to forbid the renewal of them.

The time lag of this reform ultimately limited the success of Pitt’s administrative reforms during this period. Moreover, in 1786, Pitt replaced the system of payment of fees with salaries for new appointments.

Furthermore, civil servants were to be subjected to greater scrutiny which lay the foundation by which efficiency could be increased. Overall, administration reforms were successful in peacetime, however during the wars with France, government spending increased severely which limited the effectiveness of British administrative reforms. Moreover, the process by which reforms were implemented were slow and inefficient which reduced their effectiveness. Overall, as a result, during this period, administrative reforms passed by British Ministers were not successful in aiding Britain.

Financial success concerning financial reforms between 1783-1812, the amendments made in Constitutional Law were ultimately successful as they allowed Britain to reduce their national debt by a considerable margin. During the years 1775-1784 (given the American War of Independence), the national debt had increased by 91% to approximately £250 million and it was estimated 32 32

that the British state ran a deficit of £11 million (with an annual income of £23.5 million.) In 1786, Pitt introduced a Sinking Fund which required an annual investment of £1 million per annum (with a compound interest) into reducing the national debt. This was successful as it reduced the figure by over £10 million. However, it can be argued that £10 million was not a significant decrease on the reduction of the national debt and that given that it became a liability in the wars with France, it was more harmful than beneficial. Furthermore, in 1784, Pitt introduced the Commutation Act in 1784 which reduced the duties on several goods such as tea (119% to 25%.) This led to the decline of smuggling as it became an unprofitable business boosting government revenue as imports declared rose from £13 million to £27 million in the mid-1780s. The 1784 Hovering Act also attacked smuggling by extending the powers of officials to search and seize illegal goods in ships 12 miles offshore. This contributed to the rise of the revenue of imports to £27 million which demonstrated the success of British financial reforms. Overall, financial reforms in Britain were successful during the period 1783-1812. This was because these reforms ultimately provided a stable bedrock which allowed the country to sustain the wars with France during this period. However, it is important to note that during this period, British Ministers negotiated several loans in order to sustain the war effort which had a Sisyphean effect on British finances.

In conclusion, reforms in finance, trade and administration were ultimately successful during the period 1783-1812. However, Britain’s participation in the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars limited the effectiveness of Britain’s reforms, especially with regards to trade and financial reforms. Moreover, in order to aid themselves, British ministers ultimately adopted a reactionary stance to reform as opposed to a laissez-faire approach which would dominate British politics in the 19th Century. Overall, the extent to which British Ministers amended Constitutional law to facilitate change in these departments was very high, and, despite the war, these reforms were successful in aiding Britain.

33

Would the NHS exist if the Conservative Party had won the 1945 General Election?

Helena McConnell, U4 Aesc

In 1945, the Labour Party defeated the Conservative Party in the general election. The new prime minister, Clement Atlee, announced that he would introduce the Welfare State as it had been outlined in the Beveridge Report, including the establishment of a National Health Service (NHS) in 1948 with free medical treatment for anyone who might need it. Many people believe the NHS’s creation, through the National Health Service Act 1946, was one of the Labour Party’s greatest achievements and that it would not exist if the Conservative Party had won the 1945 general election. Is this correct, or is there an argument that the NHS would have been created in 1945 if the Conservatives had won the general election?

There are several reasons which suggest that a Conservative Government would not have created the NHS in 1945.

The first reason is that on both the second and third readings of the National Health Service Bill 1946, which was going to introduce the NHS, the Conservatives voted against it.

This suggests that they were opposed to the idea of the NHS as it was set out in the Bill. This is supported by the fact that the Conservatives objected to nationalisation of existing and future hospitals, which was how the NHS was going to be introduced by Labour. They objected on the basis that nationalisation would cost too much money.

Furthermore, the fact that the Conservatives voted against the Bill in the third reading implies that they were opposed to the introduction of the NHS in principle and not just as it was set out in the Bill. Why do we know this? It is parliamentary tradition that the Opposition in Parliament only votes against a 34 34

Bill during the third reading if it opposes it in principle. Therefore, we could draw the conclusion that the Conservatives were against both the very idea of the NHS and the way Labour was going to introduce it.

However, on the other hand there are several reasons which suggest that a Conservative Government would have created an NHS. The first reason is that it said in the 1945 Conservative manifesto that if they were elected, they were going to introduce a National Health Service,

‘The health services of the country will be made available to all citizens.

Everyone will contribute to the cost, and no one will be denied the attention, the treatment or the appliances he requires because he cannot afford them.’ (Conservative Party Manifesto 1945.)

This suggests that the NHS would have been introduced anyway because the Conservatives themselves said they were going to implement it, as previously suggested in the National Health Service White Paper (1944) which stated,

‘The Government have announced that they intend to establish a comprehensive health service for everybody in this country.’ (Sir Henry Willink, Minister for Health, Conservative Party, Wartime Coalition Government, NHS White Paper.)

35 35

Additionally, Winston Churchill spoke about introducing a cradle to grave National Health system (Martin Gilbert, Churchill: A Life). This implies that the NHS would have been introduced because the leader of the Conservative Party said he would do so, and the Wartime Coalition Government had also intended to do so.

Moreover, in the Bill introducing the NHS there where two main points. The first point was the actual principle of an NHS and the second point was how Labour was going to introduce the NHS. The Conservatives only voted against the Bill introducing the NHS because they opposed the type of NHS that Labour was introducing, which was a fully nationalised health service that is funded by general taxation. It was nationalisation which was opposed, not the NHS. Opposition to the NHS that Labour was introducing didn’t necessarily mean that the Conservatives were against the NHS completely, it suggests that they were only against the way that Labour planned to introduce the NHS. The Conservatives wanted a different model to the one that was proposed. Given this, the principled opposition by the Conservative in the third reading of the NHS Bill can be seen as an objection to nationalisation and not to the NHS itself.

Additionally, the Conservatives objected to the fact that Labour wanted to nationalise hospitals because it would cost too much money for the state to pay for the running of every hospital. The Conservatives, however, wanted to fund the NHS through compulsory insurance. That would make it less expensive for the State. This again shows that the Conservatives opposed nationalisation not the NHS itself.

In conclusion, this clarifies the fact that the Conservatives did intend to introduce a National Health Service free at the point of delivery. Although their manifesto does not detail how they were to do so, it cannot be said that they did not intend to implement Beveridge’s proposal. The belief that the NHS was the Labour Party’s greatest triumph and only came about due to their winning the 1945 general election appears to be a myth. The Conservative Party appears to have intended to introduce a National Health Service if elected, which it believed could have been a more cost-effective model, involving universities to control the hospitals, and funding through insurance and the state paying for the means to make it free care at the point of delivery. This factor would have made it more of an NHS delivery model. Furthermore, it would have been a model more consistent with the Beveridge Report as Beveridge didn’t say that the NHS needed to be based on nationalisation.

36

Britain’s Middle-Class Youth indeed want to return us to the 70s – not the 1970s but the 1870s.

Dr Ian St John If one demographic was responsible for the undoing of Theresa May in 2017, it was the rise of social media youth. YouGov estimate that of young people between 18 and 29, 63% voted Labour and only 22% Conservative. A rise in young person turn out, and a swing towards Labour among those young voters, made big inroads into Conservative majorities. Another demographic complimented this trend: educated people voted Labour. Where 32% of people with degrees voted Conservative, 49% voted Labour.

Put another way – the Conservative heartland is now those people without any qualifications above GCSE. 33% of those with no education beyond High School voted Labour, compared to 55% voting Conservative. The Conservatives are fast becoming the party of the old and the uneducated. While the old may always be with us, this is not true of the uneducated: among the population aged 16 to 64, 30% have a degree.

But this figure rises to 40% among those aged 25 to 34. This is an alarming enough trend for Conservative strategists. But there is a deeper process at work which ought to concern Conservatives still more, especially as it has roots which run deep into Victorian Britain.

What is most striking to anyone who watched the debates on the media or who followed social media or has a Facebook feed with any young people on it, is the degree to which the entire ideology of free market economics is rejected. In the TV debates not a single person spoke in favour of free market capitalism. Among the political parties, from Labour to the SNP to the Greens, to Plaid Cymru, to the Liberal Democrats, to even UKIP, barely any leader was willing to endorse capitalism to any degree whatsoever.

Everything about the capitalist system is reprehensible. Its inequalities, its rewards to enterprise, its impact upon the environment, its wage policies, its taxation regime, its bonuses and its profits, its capitalist farming techniques and its property speculations: all and sundry were held up for little short of loathing. Anyone speaking up for profits as a reward for enterprise, anyone advocating private health care or low corporation taxes, or deregulated markets, would be sure to be hissed and shouted down and lucky to emerge from the studio unscathed.

37 37

What is true on mainstream TV is still more true on social media. If you want to be a pariah and expose yourself to abusive Facebook comments there is no surer way than to celebrate free market economics, or to state that inequality is a feature of dynamic capitalist societies, or to question global warming or organic farming. The level of spleen directed at anyone even suggesting these possibilities is enough to browbeat them into silence. It has literally become the height of bad-form to question socialist economics or doubt the virtues of big progressive taxes. In the social media land of the youth political correctness is now so deeply entrenched that it is impossible to question any of its basic tenets, from issues like gender and ethnicity, to social justice and inclusivity. The ideology of free market liberalism, so recently expounded with some success by Freidman, monetarists, followers of Hayek, and of course Thatcher, has been totally obliterated and it is a measure of the degree to which this is true that even the Conservatives, in theory the sole major pro-business party remaining, dared not speak its name – not only in this campaign, but in 2015 also.

Of course, it’s not difficult to attribute these developments to the combined impact of the 2008 recession, which discredited the free-market route to riches narrative of the Thatcher years, and the Brexit vote, which dealt such a smashing blow to middle class certainties. But what we are seeing today is a throw-back to a far more basic feature of the British educated mind-set and a path this nation has trod before. In 1981, in the depths of the first years of the Thatcherite experiment, Martin Weiner argued in his English Culture and the Decline of the Industrial Spirit, that the origins of British economic 38 38

decline lay in the spread of an anti-industrial and anti-capitalist ideology among the nation’s elites during the Victorian Age. ‘Economic historians, economists, civil servants, and even political leaders’, he wrote, ‘held sentiments and ideals that served to restrain rather than stimulate economic growth.’ Although Britain pioneered the Industrial Revolution, the social elites who governed the nation held trade and industry in disdain. They looked to an older tradition, a Britain of the landed aristocracy not industrial self-made men, of the countryside not the town, of paternalist morality not corporate money making. To take one example: Arnold Toynbee, whose book on the Industrial Revolution in 1882 brought the very phrase into public currency, declared that the years of the Industrial Revolution were ‘as disastrous and terrible as any through which a nation ever passed.’ It’s not hard to discern in Toynbee’s words, delivered in Balliol College Oxford, the sentiments of Corbyn today: ‘Side by side with a great increase of wealth was seen an enormous increase of pauperism; and production on a vast scale, the result of free competition, led to a rapid alienation of classes and to the degradation of a large body of producers.’

This became the standard narrative of the Industrial Revolution in schools and universities and popular culture. It remains so today. The Industrial Revolution was a social disaster bringing poverty and class antagonism and child labour. But it wasn’t just the Industrial Revolution that was condemned.

The entire culture of money making and trade was. The children even of the industrialists attended Public Schools and Oxbridge where, schooled in classical civilisation and idealist philosophy, they learnt to disdain grubby industry and trade and to pursue the learned professions – law, teaching, medicine – or to engage in the gentlemanly arts of high finance. From 39

university one was more likely to go to administer India than to run a factory.

And so, did Britain’s educated elite turn their back on the economy that had made them, and professed instead an admiration for gentlemanly values or the social welfarism of the Fabian Society and new Liberalism. This remained the dominant ideology of Britain through to the 1980s. For a brief period Thatcher, that Methodist Chemist from Grantham, challenged its ascendancy, but its basic assumptions were never truly shaken (Oxford refused to grant her an honorary degree) and from Blair onwards the anti-Capitalist ideology of Britain’s educated elite has insinuated itself once again among the country’s schools and universities and civic society. But instead of a hankering after aristocratic virtues we have a new updated ideology of political correctness – a doctrine which began in the universities and which now pervades nearly all of educated discourse, with its politics of environmentalism, identity, gender, safe-spaces, sexuality, social justice, charity, and Third World empowerment. Britain’s modern middle-class youth might regard itself as at the vanguard of progressive politics. But in rallying around Labour, it is not the Britain of the 1970s to which it seeks to return us, but the Britain of the 1870s, when the capitalist spirit expired and British economic decline began. It is a conjunction which looms again, and which seems set to confine any pro-business and pro-capitalist Conservative party to the ever-shrinking ranks of the uneducated politically incorrect. Such a deeply structural feature of British educated opinion needs to bear in mind when extravagant talk of a trade renaissance outside of the EU is indulged in.

Dr Ian St John is a historian whose most recent books include Gladstone and the Logic of Victorian Politics and The Historiography of Gladstone and Disraeli.

40 40

Family History of Key Events - Miriam Gilbery Rafi Cohen

RUSSIAN POGROMS

RUSSIAN POGROMS

Pogrom is the Russian word for ‘devastation’ or ‘riot’ and refers to any massacre or mob attack permitted by the authorities against the people and property of a minority group. It is usually applied to the attacks on the Jewish population within the Russian Empire during the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881 the Jewish Community was routinely terrorised, looted and murdered. There was a second wave of pogroms between 1903 -06.

Nearly all of the pogroms took place in the Pale of Settlement, where the Jews were forced to live by law and were harshly discriminated against.

41 41

The Pale consisted of 25 provinces including Ukraine, Lithuania, Crimea and part of Poland. Around 1880 there were around 5 million Jews living in the Pale, around 40% of the Jewish population. It is estimated that around 2 million Jews left the Pale due to the Russian pogroms between 1880-1920, mostly to the USA (90%) and Palestine (today Israel) but also to the UK, in particular London, Liverpool and Manchester.

This influx of Jewish immigrants combined with rising unemployment in working-class roles led to rising anti-Semitism.

The majority of Russian immigrants to London lived initially in the East End, with poor housing and sanitation.

For this project I interviewed my Great Aunt Miriam. She was born in 1923 in Upper Clapton in East London, meaning she is now 95 years old. Her parents were Russian and came from Ekaterinoslav, which is now part of Ukraine.

Her mother had to flee alone as a teenager around 1900 to escape the pogroms to come to the UK. Her father escaped the Russian pogrom s some years earlier and headed to Palestine and there he married and had two sons. However, his young wife died at childbirth and he left the two children in a Jewish orphanage in Palestine to come to the UK, where he was sent by the Jewish blind society.

42

In London he was employed by a Synagogue, as a reverend, where he had lots of duties including overseeing the Jewish Slaughterhouse. He met Miriam’s mother and they went on to have three daughters and one son and the Mayevsky family (later changed to May) were a relatively religious family. Once settled her father brought his 2 sons over from Palestine. Her parents spoke Yiddish to each other and within the community and the children were brought up speaking English.

CABLE STREET RIOTS: 1936 In 1936, Hitler’s Nazis were getting stronger across Europe. In the UK, Oswald Mosley’s black shirted Fascists were trying to stir up antiJewish hatred among working-class Londoners and announced that they would march through the East End.

‘I remember years of people coming to our house in the middle of the night, staying for a few days or just a meal then leaving. They always spoke Yiddish, had bags and seemed hungry. Now you understand they were the lucky ones - refugees from the East passing through.’’

Miriam was the youngest child with a large age gap between herself and Ron, Rachel and middle daughter Hetty, who sadly died aged 21 from tuberculosis. Miriam’s father died from a heart attack in his late 40s when Miriam was just a young child.

43 43

About 300,000 people – Jews, Communists, Irish blocked the fascists and the police sent to protect the marchers. There were running battles in the street, women and children made barricades from household objects and ‘they did not pass’.

‘I remember when I was about 13 years old there was a lot of talk about riots around Whitechapel and Cable Street. The adults seemed worried about what more difficulties it would lead to for us’.

‘We were always aware of anti-Semitism, but my family tried to protect us children from it as much as possible and we were such a close community.’

WWII: 1939-45 World War II started in 1939 when Germany invaded Poland.

Together with the Nazi party, Adolf Hitler wanted Germany to rule Europe. Great Britain and France responded by declaring war on Germany. It started in Europe but spread throughout the world, with Germany, Italy and Japan on one side and the Allied Powers of Britain, US, Russia and France on the other.

When WWII broke out Miriam was 16 and living with her mother and brother in Upper Clapton.

Other people came and lived in the house at different times. Her brother later joined the army but was stationed in the UK and her 2 half-brothers were sent abroad.

Miriam described life in the East End during the beginning of the War and the Blitz:

‘We had an Anderson shelter in the bottom of the garden and Mum would always try to put a little treat in there, like chocolate, that she’d saved so we could enjoy it to take our minds off the bombings, which happened nearly every night!’

44 44

It was the deadliest war in all of human history with around 64 million people killed (more than the population of the UK!).

Around 6 million Jewish people were annihilated during WW2 in the Holocaust as Hitler wanted to create what he thought was the ‘purest race’ – excluding Jews, gypsies and the disabled.

‘I can’t explain what it felt like when you heard the siren and even saw the German planes coming over – it was ear-splitting, and your stomach went, and it was instant panic.’

‘When I was in London and the siren went, we would rush into the Underground stations.

Sometimes we would be in there all night, lying on the platforms. We were scared but there was such a great atmosphere, singing songs and sharing what food we had.’

‘We always carried our gas masks everywhere. If a warden saw, you without one or saw a chink of light coming through your black curtains at home you got a real telling off!’

WWII: THE BLITZ The heavy and frequent bombing attacks on London between September 1940 and May 1941 were known as the Blitz. London was bombed every day and night, except one, for 11 weeks and one third of London, 2 million houses, was destroyed.

‘It was a bit scary at night in London as it was so dark during the black-out – no streetlights, no light from houses, nothing’.

‘Every day London changed as more and more buildings were destroyed, but we all tried to keep our spirits up’.

When her neighbour’s house was completely destroyed by a bomb it was decided that they should leave London for safety. They moved to Ipswich to live in a house owned by a rabbi. Miriam shared some memories of life during that time:

‘A lot of my memories around that time were about food! With rationing you never had enough to eat.’

‘It was my job to trade our bacon rations with rations from the non-Jewish people, sometimes butter, but I always wanted sugar!’

‘I fell in love with the grocer’s son in Ipswich – he was lovely, and we got extra vegetable rations which was nice!’

45

During the Blitz 32,000 civilians were killed. 3.5 million people, mainly children, were evacuated from London during the war. The Blitz ended mid-1941 when much of the German air force was sent east to prepare for the invasion of Russia.

‘When Ron came to Ipswich on leave, he always had extra food for us all to eat’. At the end of the War Miriam returned to London with her mother. Many of her neighbours’ houses had been completely destroyed and she knew many families who had suffered with losses. I asked Miriam to sum up her war experience in 3 words:

‘Frightening, exciting and camaraderie’

She went on to marry Len and had 2 sons, Roger and Jeremy. After her husband’s sad death, she married again to a French general and then to an artist. She lives in St John’s Wood where she does yoga, teaches ‘keep fit to the elderly’ and is an inspiration to all who know her!

‘They should write a book about my life! I’ve certainly done and seen a lot – there’s been a lot of heartache along the way, but it’s never been boring!’

Miriam as a young girl

Miriam’s Russian grandmother (whose hair went to her knees!)

46 46

Miriam in later life always beautiful!

SEPTEMBER 11th Aarush Bahel My Dad Witnessed History My dad was born on the 24th of May 1975 in Chandigarh, India. Chandigarh (the capital of the northern Indian states of Punjab and Haryana) was designed by the Swiss-French modernist architect, Le Corbusier.

My dad went to modern school in New Delhi and graduated into Hindu College, University of Delhi. He then went to Stern School of Business, New York University or N.Y.U. After graduating from N.Y.U he got a job at Salomon Bros. Salomon Bros was located at 7 World Trade Center. On eleventh September 2001 he was rushing to work for a training session that was scheduled to start at 9:00a.m. Little did he know that today one of the world’s most tragic and catastrophic event would take place in a few moments. Two planes would crash into the World Trade Center, in the most catastrophic terrorist attack ever in history. Before we get into his eyewitness account, a little bit of context.

Twin Towers Come Down On September 11th, 2001 (9/11), 19 suicide bombers linked with the Islamic extremist group Al-Quaeda hijacked four airliners and carried out suicide attacks against targets in the United States. Two planes were flown into the World Trade Center towers in New York City. A third plane hit the Pentagon just outside of Washington, D.C and the fourth plane crashed into a field in Pennsylvania.

At 8:45 AM, an American Airlines Boeing 767 filled with 20,000 gallons of jet fuel crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center in New York City.

United Airlines Flight 175 then crashed into Tower Two at 9:04 AM. Tower Two of the World Trade Center collapsed at about 10:00 AM. At 10:30 AM, Tower One also collapsed. The attacks resulted in the deaths of 2,996 people.

The 19 terrorist hijackers also died in the attacks. The hijackers were Islamic terrorists from Saudi Arabia and several other Arab nations who were

47 47

reportedly backed financially by Saudi fugitive Osama bin Laden and his alQaeda network.

Osama Bin Laden – the Mastermind Osama bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia in 1957, He was the 17th of 52 children born to Mohammed bin Laden. In 1979, shortly after the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan, Bin Laden, who viewed the invasion as an act of aggression against Islam, began traveling to meet Afghan resistance leaders and raise funds for the resistance. Bin Laden’s financial resources, along with his reputation for piety and for bravery in combat, enhanced his stature as a militant leader. A computer database he created in 1988 listing the names of volunteers for the Afghan War led to the formation that year of a new militant network named al-Qaeda (Arabic: “the Base”). Bin Laden used money and machinery from his own construction company to help the Mujahideen resistance in the Soviet–Afghan War. Under CIA's Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States and Saudi Arabia provided $40 billion worth of financial aid and weapons to almost 100,000 Mujahideen and "Afghan Arabs" from forty Muslim countries through Pakistan's ISI. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI. In the 2004 video, bin Laden abandoned his denials without retracting past statements. In it he said that he had personally directed the nineteen hijackers. According to the tapes, Bin Laden claimed he was inspired to destroy the World Trade Center after watching the destruction of towers in Lebanon by Israel during the 1982 Lebanon War.

48

Interviewing the Eyewitness Q: Where were you at the time of the attack?

A: When the first plane went into the north tower, I was in a taxi from midtown heading to work. When the second plane went into the south tower, I was standing right below the towers.

Q: What was going on around you while you were on your taxi ride to work and can you describe what you saw after?

A: Soon after I got in the taxi, I started to hear several sirens and see many emergency vehicles heading downtown. At first this didn’t surprise me as it was a common occurrence in New York City, but as I approached closer to downtown, I got my first glimpse of the towers that morning. Through other buildings I saw what looked like tons of confetti coming out of the towers.

When I was about three or four blocks away, the police had blocked the traffic, so I got out and started walking towards my office. While I was walking, I looked up and saw a gaping hole about two thirds of the way up the north tower. I now realized that what I thought to be confetti was shrapnels of glass and burnt steel.

Q: What happened next?

A: While I was standing looking up, I met several colleagues who had reached the same location. At first, we all thought a bomb had gone off on those floors, given the history of the 1993 bomb blast at the World Trade Center. As we watched, we started to see people jumping out of the windows, presumably because of the heat and smoke. It was surreal. My memory vividly remembers the visual images, but I have no sound recollection, except for the bone crunching sound when the bodies hit the ground only two blocks away from us. It was incredibly disturbing.

Then, a Serbian colleague and friend came running towards us saying that he saw a plane fly into the North Tower. He said it was a pre-meditated attack as the pilot flew the plane in a straight line and there was no loss of control. We all thought he was crazy. We then saw another plane flying in a straight-line down Broadway, right towards the Towers. We all commented on why the pilot wouldn’t see the smoke and go around. Just then, the plane turned and went around the Towers. A few minutes later, we saw a series of explosions rip through the South Tower from back to front (from our viewpoint) at roughly the same height. We then began to run expecting debris to start falling. It was only later when I saw the footage on TV that I realized that the plane we had seen go around, had actually turned back and flown right into the South Tower, causing the series of explosions that I had seen.

I then walked back home with my colleagues from the towers.

Approximately when were near Union Square and looked back at the Towers, we saw the Towers crumble in a cloud ash.

Since then New York City has built a new building called the freedom tower and a well in remembrance of everyone who died in that attack.

49 49

Interview with DR ROY SLOAN Renowned historian, infamous for his writings on aviation in tonnes such as "The Tale of Talun." The former head of the HABS history department speaks to Timeline about his new book concerning the Balkans and what we should expect next MN: How are you doing? How has life outside HABS been?

RS: Life’s pretty good. There's no pressure, in that I have the freedom to do what I want. I work quite hard at my books but only when I feel like it.

There's lots of football, watching Liverpool- this is my 20th year with a season ticket, we're bound to win the League soon, don’t you think? And lots of foreign travel, been through most of the Balkans now, next stop is northern Romania and western Ukraine. I might run out of countries, that’s my main concern.!

MN: Now that you’re not at HABS, do you think the new Lord St John deserves a promotion to the position of senior history master?

RS: Of course, Dr St John is already regarded by everyone as the top History teacher, there is no need to give him a fancy title. Plus, he wouldn’t know what to do with extra money! The problem with promoting ISJ is you’d take him away from what he does best; smoking his pipe, chatting about Lawrence, and plotting his way back to the 1950s, an era of prosperity and happiness for all. In sum, “NO!” MN: Given that you are writing a book about the Balkans about events after World War One, we at Timeline are curious; why are you interested in the Balkans?

RS: Recent travel there. A sense that I’ve always touched on the issues but never really known what happened there. I’ve really enjoyed discovering new things.

MN: What, in particular, have you found interesting?

RS: Well, the harsh treatment of Bulgaria, where the so-called principles of the peacemakers – self-determination, justice – counted for little. They just rewarded their local allies, the Greeks, Serbs and Romanians. I’ve enjoyed the contrast between Romania’s Bratianu, whom everyone detested (a pompous ass), and Greece’s Venizelos, whom everyone loved (a real charmer, everyone’s favourite dinner guest). Greece gained so much because Lloyd George especially just loved Venizelos. Personalities, personal relations were much more important than one might expect.

50 50

MN: You’ve recently given a talk about Fiume and Smyrna. What was your motivation behind this?

RS: I found the Italian attitude to Fiume was interesting. The Yugoslavs included their Croatian and Slovene enemies who had fought hard against Italy in the uniforms of Austria-Hungary. The Italians regarded them much as the French looked on the Germans. Italian public opinion played a big part, when a head of steam built up in support of the Italian communities of the eastern Adriatic. Was Fiume an Italian community? That’s the problem, there’s no simple answer to that one. The old town was mostly Italian, but the Slavs had a slight majority if you include the adjoining suburb of Susak.

And if, as everyone assumed, you included Fiume’s hinterland, then there was a big Slav majority. The Yugoslavs needed Fiume as their best port, by far, whereas Italy did not need Fiume at all. The Americans, who are always associated with national self-determination – the nature and wishes of the population – were also very interested in economic arguments.

MN: So, what happened?

RS: Wilson said no to Italy getting Fiume. But he went home on 29 June.

D’Annunzio and a band of nationalist soldiers seized Fiume on 12th September 1919 and declared it was Italy’s. The peace conference ended without a solution. Left it to Yugoslavia and Italy to settle it themselves. In November 1920, Italy forced a treaty on the Yugoslavs which amounted to “capitulation”. Yugoslavia lost eastern Istria, parts of Dalmatia and Fiume.

Fiume was officially independent but was run by the Italians (even after the D’Annunzio was finally expelled, by the Italian army) and Mussolini “persuaded” the Yugoslavs to agree to a full Italian takeover in 1924. Overall result, about 700,000 Croats and Slovenes were put into Italy.

MN: And Smyrna?

RS: A Greek city, but all the experts warned that the Turks would never accept the Greeks taking part of Asia Minor. Lloyd George, heedless, pushed the Greek army in there in May 1919 and got the transfer included in the Treaty of Sevres in August 1920. The Turks rebuilt their army and thrashed the Greeks, driving them out. A complete disaster, thousands dead, and it was Lloyd George’s fault.

MN: What is your favourite book?

RS: I don’t have one, but the last great book I read was Antoine de SaintExupéry’s Flight to Arras. It was set in 1940, during the fall of France, and has some very interesting things to say about that debacle. But the best thing is the writing: some of the best I’ve ever read, marvellous images and phrases, you just read with your mouth open, gasping in admiration.

MN: Who, with the exception of ISJ, is your favourite historian?

51

RS: As the last answer implies, I’m into good writing at the moment, simply because I’m now so focused on trying to write well myself. So, I greatly admire Churchill, Margaret MacMillan and Niall Ferguson, historians who have made an impression with the quality of their expression. Churchill’s comment on the Treaty of Sèvres, for example, “At last peace with Turkey: and to ratify it, War with Turkey!” That sort of thing. Others I admire for their research, but most serious histories are well researched. Research is mostly about having time, money and access, you don’t have to be great to do it well.

MN: What should we at Timeline and HABS expect to come next?

RS: Another book by Dr Roy Sloan, interviewed by the combined Timeline 2019/20 team.

52 52

How did E.H. Carr’s visit to Versailles shape his opinion of international relations?

Neal Patel, L6 E.H. Carr, perhaps surprisingly, grew up in a world ‘overwhelmed by certainty and security’ (Carr and Cox, 2010): he had an entirely sheltered childhood whereby he attended a public school, Trinity College and delved straight into a career in the Foreign Office at a time when all was steady in politics. When the First World War hit in 1914, Carr was unfazed and thought of the event as an unpredictable tragedy that the world could move on from. However, after attending the Versailles Peace Treaty Conference in 1919, a pivotal historical event, doubts about the extent to which the world could recover after The Great War, began to creep into his mind. Carr’s liberalism and almost calmness about such an event primarily brought about by the smoothness and certitude of his childhood and early adult life, had soon disappeared.

Whilst at the Paris Peace Conference, Carr played a minor role in discussions but the conference had a significant role in sparking the following years of his academic life. Carr, after being acquainted with the terms of the Treaty of Versailles, immediately identified a major mistake. He knew, despite all the hardship and pain caused by the devastating nature of German attack, that the terms were too harsh. He cited the lack of economic sense the treaty exhibited as well as the regrettable nature of the agreement that was bound to create problems for Europe in the future as just two issues. Carr repeatedly stated with confidence that both Hitler’s eventual rise to power in 1933 and the resultant war just six years later were heavily attributed to decisions made at Versailles.

In the first instance, Carr believed that there were three factors to consider when reviewing the Treaty of Versailles against Germany. This first was that of the treaty being ‘signed under duress’ (Carr, 1939); the treaty was conceived during a ‘five-day ultimatum’ (Carr, 1939) since France, Britain and America knew that any treaty which quickened the end of a war for the losing nation would inevitably be accepted. In Carr’s mind, this was a clear exploitation of Germany’s position, and Germany knew it. The nation was subsequently plagued by the popularization of the Treaty of Versailles being treated as a Diktat, i.e. a cruel dictation of terms that Germany was almost forced into signing. Germany was hurt, and it was going to come back and bite Europe; after all, Germany had invaded France on three separate occasions during the 1814 to 1914 period. The second of the factors related to the morality of certain terms within the treaty. It was common knowledge that certain clauses such as the disarmament clause which included the demilitarisation of the Rhineland, were unethical since they were fuelled by a desire to further cripple a former Great Power at a time when it was in distress. Carr saw this as indicative of how, in many ways, power and ethics often intertwined within the political problems a given nation was 53 53

experiencing. And finally, the third factor of consideration and perhaps the most significant of this study was the idea that treaties and indeed all political agreements are simply ‘instruments of power’ (Carr, 1939). Carr believed that Britain, France and America saw the Paris Peace Conference as a fine opportunity to add to their power and maintain their supremacy over the Germans, a nation they knew would have been able to recover as well as any other. This idea was substantiated by France and Britain refusing to pay off the legally-binding debt payments they owed to America in December 1932 and June 1933 respectively, despite them refusing Germany from reasonably revising the disarmament clauses and $33 billion owed. This highlighted France and Britain’s immoral behaviour, showing their hypocritical nature and greediness for superiority over a fledgling world power.

Carr identifies an immoral greediness by nations to have more power than other countries. Germany was the second biggest trade partner of Britain before the war after America, yet Chamberlain seemingly ranked Britain’s economic success below its potential supremacy over Germany. He would rather exploit Germany’s condition by taking hold of their colonies and expand Britain’s already dominative empire, than restore the economy they once relied upon and in turn re-forge their relationship. Logically speaking, Britain would prefer to see a nation they formerly relied on economically, prosper once again in the know that this would also, in turn, facilitate a retrieval of the affiliation between the two world powers. Yet, this wasn’t the case and Carr identified an overwhelming competition over superiority as what put the strain on and governed international relationships during this period.

Moreover, Carr openly condemned the effectiveness of the League of Nations, calling the organisation ‘a peculiar combination of platitude and falseness’ (Carr, 1939). Carr was a firm nationalist, believing that liberals, a group he was once a member of, were outdated. The utopian world that many nations believed could form as a result of the League, an organisation with the intention to provide support to other nations and end all future wars, was something Carr scorned. Carr rightly thought that in reality, the world would continue as it had done so before, in an international hierarchical system based upon the power of every nation. He was under the firm belief that war, as often had been its purpose, allowed for the creation of newly formed sovereign nations such as Czecho slovakia (a country which owed their very existence to war); war had an importance in developing the world. Furthermore, the League was simply a cloak over national interests; it attempted to act as a source of peace, but it fundamentally was not. It was just another medium through which world powers could quench their thirst for control and rule over the smaller states. Carr’s analysis of the League indicated that power 54

could not live in a separate entity to politics and that the very structure of the League, with several powers dominating discussions, showed this accurately.

In conclusion, the overwhelming manner in which Carr’s attendance at the Paris Peace Conference shaped his opinion of international relations is clear.

In the initial stages of Carr’s career and indeed life, he was a liberal, brought up in a well-off and settled household. But, when he joined the Foreign Office and attended the Versailles conference in 1919, his view drastically changed. He adopted a nationalist approach to international relations and his opinion moved away from the utopian fiction he described. Carr’s attitude towards international relations was increasingly becoming about power and immorality. His view on the treatment of Germany showed the greediness and unethical behaviour of nations who were simply competing to be more powerful than others. The formation of League of Nations at the Paris Peace Conference corroborated this by outlining how an organisation which aimed to help preserve peace equally among nations failed because of its inability to resolve major political disputes when major powers were involved, indicative of the hierarchical international relations system. Carr was correct in his opinions and later in his career, he left the Foreign Office in order to be able to freely speak out about his feelings on international relations further. Overall, Carr’s visit to Versailles intrinsically altered his views on international relations.

Biography •

Carr, E. and Cox M. (2010). The Twenty Years’ Crisis, 19191939. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan

•

E-International Relations. (2018). How convincing is E. H. Carr’s critique of utopianism? [online] Available at: https://www.eir.info/2010/06/09/how-convincing-is-e-h-carr’s-critique-ofutopianism/].

•

Fleming, D. (1932). The United States and the League of Nations 1918-1920, p.5

•

Harriman, E. (1927). The League of Nations a Rudimentary Superstate, p. 138-140.

• Jenkins, K. (1995). On ‘What is History?’ From Carr and Elton to Rorty and White. Pointing-Green Publishing Services, p,43-64.

• Jones, C. (1998). E.H. Carr and International Relations.

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

• McGlinchey, S. (2010). E.H. Carr and The Failure of the League of Nations.

55 55

•

Potter, P. (1932). ‘The Present Status of the Question of Membership of the United States in the League of Nations’. The American Journal of International Law. P. 360.

56 56

To What Extent Was the American Civil War the First Modern War? Rohan Thandi L6

The American Civil War of 1861-1865, was, undoubtedly, the most important turning point in terms of the advancement what is known as ‘modern’ warfare. Spanning the bridge between the limited scale, traditional and mostly aristocratic warfare of the 18th century and the all-out, total mobilisation of the 20th century.

The last two years of the war would have not look too unfamiliar to that of a soldier fighting in late the late 20th century, but not, however, to the battle of Waterloo in 1815, only 50 years previous. The Civil War was the first in which out producing the enemy was equally, if not more important than strategically and tactically outmanoeuvring and outfighting the enemy. It reflected the impact of major industrial growth and technological advancements in almost every aspect of warfare, paving the way for many ‘modern’ military tactics which have their beginnings in the Civil War. From the outbreak of the Civil War, it was clear that it would be fought by the people, the masses of citizens, not, as had almost always previously been the case, by professional troops. Most of the volunteers in 1861, were not attracted through the means of enlistment, rather by accepting local and privately raised units at far less expense then the recruitment of regular troops. At no point in the war did the Union army ever reach its target of 42,000 troops, whilst the Confederacy quickly abandoned the idea of a regular army altogether. However, after both sides initially rejected thousands of volunteers, they were forced to introduce systems of conscription in order to compensate for the dry up in new recruits. The Confederacy, in March 1862 introduced the Conscription Law, for all able-bodied men aged 18-35 (later raised to 50). Unpopular and denounced as tyrannical by those opposed to it, it nevertheless succeeded in increasing the size of the Confederate army, and the North followed in March 1863. Whilst only 10% of those who fought were conscripts, in reality it was far more successful than that, as the mere prospect of being drafted caused many would be conscripts to enlist instead.

By 1865, 900,000 men had fought for the Confederacy, and the Union had enlisted some 2,100,000 men. The concepts of conscription, and mass armies of historically unheard of numbers of men fighting on either side are ones that are readily associated the total mobilisation of the First World War, where the Military Service Act was passed in January 1916, and not that of past wars with small professional armies fighting colonial wars in the outer reaches of the empire such as China in the First Opium war.

57

The nature of warfare on the battlefield itself was to change drastically over the course of the Civil War, due to the unprecedented improvements in military technology. With the introduction of the rifle-musket, which could kill at up to 1000 yards, replacing the smoothbore musket, which had an A Union Volunteer Soldier effective range shouldering a Springfield rifle and bayonet. Circa 1864 of only 100 yards, the mass infantry charges that had worked so Ordnance Rifle at the Battle of Gettysburg, 1863 effectively in the Mexican War were now a thing of the past. It also renders artillery, considered the most important weapon in 1861, extremely vulnerable to enemy fire, forcing the artillerymen to retire to safer distances, which significantly limited the extent to which they inflict damage on entrenched enemies. Ultimately the development of more effective rifles would have a significant effect on the battlefield, however, it was not until 1863 that these rifles became the norm. The North, being a more effective industrial unit, mass produced the Springfield rifle, whereas the South relied on importing the British Enfield weapon, of which the Lee-Enfield variant saw active service in both World Wars. Once theses rifles became common place on the battlefield, the defending side were almost always favoured, with the attackers shot to pieces before the opportunity to fix bayonets had even arisen. In fact, less than 1% of all wounds were caused by bayonets, but 90% by rounds fired. Due to these advances, arguably the concept of the war of attrition had its beginning in 1863. By 1864, the spade had become just as important a weapon as the rifle, with virtually every position entrenched, and by the First World War, it had become the single most important weapon in ensuring safety. This left attackers needing 3 to 1 superiority to overrun an enemy position in a full-frontal assault, something which is still used by the British Army to this day. Therefore, the majority of battles descended into disconnected fire fights, not too dissimilar from the first two years of the First World War, which became all about how quickly the enemy could be slaughtered. In a single week of combat in North Virginia, May 1864, 19000 rounds were fired. This, of course, inflicted heavy losses on both sides, making a decisive follow up victory far harder. In essence, the new nature of warfare, revolutionised after two years of the war through the mass introduction of the rifle musket, yet still in its infancy, gave rise to the concept of a protracted war of attrition that became the face of ‘modern warfare’ as result of the First World War. 58 58

A group of Confederate soldiers circa. 1863

The technological advancements of the 19th century shaped the way in which the war was fought, as strategy and tactics were strongly affected by a revolution in methods of communication and transportation. For the first time, railways and steamboats were used to move men and supplies, allowing so in much bigger numbers than ever before numbers. A single steamboat on the Mississippi could, in one trip, carry enough supplies to support an army of 40,000 men and 18,000 horses for two days, turning the Civil War into a war of attrition, more akin to the First World War rather than the achievement of a decisive victory as was the case in past imperial warfare. The other major development in revolutionising communications was the telegraph, it enabled commanders, for the first time, to directly communicate with units on separate fronts allowing far greater co-ordination and rapid concentration when advancing, preventing, to some extent, the disarray of battle. However, throughout the early years of the First World War, it was undoubtable that poor planning and a lack of communications and subsequent coordination led to the Entente powers suffering significant defeats at the hands of the more sophisticated German Wehrmacht, showing that the sufficient and effective use of communications had not yet been fully developed. Furthermore, as the Confederate side found during the civil war, the maintenance of its railway network was virtually impossible, as they became a strategic target for the Union army in order to disrupt interior lines of communications.

Although the Civil War had many characteristics of a modern war, no battle consisted of more than 100,000 men on either side, and, for the most part, the introductions were in their infancy at the time, and arguably some were not sufficiently suitable for effective use until midway through the First World War. However, for the first-time photography and reporting were extensive, bringing the modern horrors of the battlefield into the homes of ordinary people, meaning that everyone was affected by or participated in the war for the first time in modern history. In a nutshell, the American Civil War was a halfway house, slotting in neatly between the Napoleonic Wars and the First World War, containing aspects which would not look out of place in either, but more importantly, pioneering the way for the ‘modern warfare’ that was to come in the 20th century.

59 59

Farmer, A. (1996). The American Civil War, 1861-65. London: Hodder & Stoughton.

Blanning, T. and Strachan, H. (2001). The Oxford illustrated history of modern Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

60

Should We Remember Napoleon as Napoleon the Great?

Daniel Levy Napoleon’s honorific should be based on the following factors: his martial skill and empire-building, administrative and political capabilities, and diplomatic and economic strengths. Other significant measures are the magnitude of the ideological, societal, and military changes he imposed on Europe and his ability to cultivate loyalty, unity, and awe among his subordinates.

Martially, Napoleon is revered as one of ‘the greatest commanders of all time’ and Wellington called him the greatest general ‘in this age, in past ages, in any age.’ His career was decorated with fifty victories and he essentially reinvented warfare. Thus, whether Napoleon deserves the epithet ‘the Great’ is partially dependent on his military prowess, the ingenuity and success of his military doctrines, and how his style of warfare changed the world. His finest hours include the Battle of Austerlitz (December 1805) when 68,000 French troops defeated a force of 95,000 by feigning weakness. Most of his victories were won with severe numerical inferiority: he overcame the disadvantage by excellent manoeuvring. His were ‘wars of movement’ rather than attrition; he found victory by manoeuvring and positioning his forces decisively in crucial, swift battles rather than wearing his enemy down. He made his soldiers live off the land rather than rely on slow supply lines to maximise speed, minimise vulnerability, and to let them reach ideal positions; he could cut enemy supply lines whilst having none to endanger.

For communication, he built semaphore lines to coordinate forces over longer distances. Napoleon’s Corps d’armée was also an incredible martial and logistical innovation. They were the first combined-arms units with significant weight (30,000-50,000) and allowed him to divide his army into independent units and manoeuvre them far more efficiently, using diversionary and formational tactics with great skill. Wellington formed his own Corps in 1815, with other great powers following, and Napoleon’s style of warfare was so impactful that Europe’s tacticians believed in ‘wars of movement’ until WWI. He certainly changed the scale and doctrine of fighting forever; he fielded 685,000 men before the Invasion of Russia using conscription, which would set an international precedent. He mobilised mass-civilian armies for the first time in history. Moreover, Napoleon constructed an officer class drawn mostly from commoners rather than aristocracy, personally selecting them - it was meritocratic and efficient, and Europe soon followed. Napoleon was also an artillerist in affinity and origin and used it masterfully, prioritising mobility and positioning. First, he standardised the Grande Armée’s artillery to 12pdrs, with interchangeable cannonball-types and support crews of eight, with horses and carriages. He used light Gribeuaval howitzers for transportability (2,174lb compared to Britain’s 3,150lb 12pdrs), grouping them into ‘grand batteries’ of 200. His cannons had a range of 825m, exceeding his rivals, and so he could pierce lines nigh-anywhere in the battlefield. He used artillery to unleash devastating barrages from powerful positions that would immobilise 61 61

the enemy and stifle their own artillery, before manoeuvring his own troops to optimal positions.

Left: The First French Empire at its territorial apex in 1812.

Right: Europe after the Congress of Vienna in 1815. France was returned to its 1789 boundaries and had to pay reparations.

Although Napoleon made extraordinary gains for France, he did lose the Napoleonic Wars and these gains were reversed.

France may have lost the Napoleonic Wars, but in fairness Napoleon was opposed by contemporaries of great skill; Wellington was regarded as ‘one of the greatest defensive commanders of all time’. Napoleon fought remarkably well against severe adversity, defeating five Coalitions of great powers, nearly always with numerical disadvantage: at the Battle of Waterloo there were 45,000 fewer Frenchmen than Allied soldiers. He reached power through ambition and merit, whereas the last French monarch to be called ‘the Great’, Louis XIV, inherited it. Britain had the advantage of industrialisation to mass-produce munitions and its Empire held 71 million more people than France: France was at the time overwhelmingly agricultural with handicraft industry in Paris, whilst Britain was the most industrialised country in the world and was able to mass-produce arms and military equipment. In a state of total war, a strong industrial base is vital: the fact that Napoleon so adeptly used France’s comparatively underwhelming industrial base to give him dominance over the continent in four years and continually fight Britain for eight more is a testament to his notable administrative skill and resourcefulness.

Yet Napoleon was never infallible; for example, the Egyptian Campaign (17981801) was a devastating defeat by the British. The Peninsular War was catastrophic, and cardinally the Russian Campaign lost 480,000 men and proved that Napoleon was not invincible, invigorating his enemies and crippling French prestige and morale; it was a spectacular defeat. Most importantly, Napoleon did not win, in the end, the Napoleonic Wars. France’s empire was ended by the Congress of Vienna, which tried to suppress Revolutionary and Napoleonic ideals and meritocracy in favour of legitimism and conservativism. France’s colonies were lost mostly to Britain, catalysing their golden age, and Napoleon’s annexations in Europe were reversed. The Louisiana Purchase was a poor diplomatic affair, giving the Americans land at 3 cents an acre, that Napoleon had negotiated hastily to fund his war, when he could have bargained for a higher price. To conclude, Napoleon was certainly fallible and failed to secure lasting French hegemony or his Empire; but his military prowess was undeniable, and his doctrines and tactics influenced the world for a century, mimicked and revered across Europe, a feat of rare greatness.

62 62

The magnitude of Napoleon’s non-martial impacts on the world are also suitable measures of whether he deserves to be titled ‘Great’. Primarily, he contributed to romantic nationalism and the idea of a nation-state. The ideology was a fledgling one in France from the Hundred Years’ War, but Napoleon used the Revolution to ignite it across Europe. He adopted honour as the central moral tenet of the Grande Armée, glorifying it as a path to prestige and glory and stylising it as an instrument to ‘gift’ the French Revolution’s ideals and virtues to the world. Napoleon also fundamentally changed the world by championing capitalism, the Enlightenment, secularism, meritocracy, and other Revolutionary values during his reign (to various extents), imposing them on conquered lands and using the Napoleonic Code to give them voice. This catalysed the end of feudalism and ecclesiocracy, a tremendous shift in society and government. Napoleon’s separation of religion from politics and education may have even begun the concept of Natural Philosophy. He dissolved the Holy Roman Empire, a decentralised mess of feudal, imperial territories, and reorganised it into the Confederation of the Rhine (1806), which made German unification far easier.

Napoleon introduced modern ideas and efficient legal authority to Italy which helped fuel its unification movement- the Risorgimento. The Congress of Vienna tried to suppress the ideals Napoleon championed, but his influence never died in France nor the world, and for his significant impact on political history, he deserves to be termed ‘the Great’.

Napoleon’s government is also something we must consider. The Napoleonic Code, his greatest civil achievement, fundamentally changed France’s laws, emphasising accessibility and clarity. It was imposed across Europe and changed it spectacularly. It catalysed the end of feudalism and Catholic political dominance and heralded a more rational, capitalist, and egalitarian age. It abolished Medieval guilds to encourage free entrepreneurship, gave the Jewry rights and closed ghettos, sharply curbed Catholic influence, and ended seigneurial dues. It was a revolutionary gift to the world and promoted a bourgeois society across Europe. Napoleon also dramatically reformed education, standardising it across France and making sciences and classics mandatory. He secularised and founded numerous state schools to give education to all, whilst encouraging centres of excellence like the École Polytechnique, which provided military and scientific expertise. France’s education system became undeniably superior to its European counterparts, who rushed to copy it. He re-organised Paris’ hospital system and improved the city’s infrastructure. His rule brought national institutions, local governments that combatted Revolutionary banditry and chaos, a strong

63

judiciary system, more abundant and cheap provisions, and the Banque de France (1800) to help rebuild the economy. Though his reign was brief, he modernised and secularised France efficiently, thus earning the epithet ‘the Great’.

Finally, we must look at Napoleon’s morality, personality, and how he was perceived. Though France championed him as a paragon of French prestige, his wars caused 6,500,000 deaths, and the Medieval strategy of his soldiers living off the land entailed pillage and plunder. Regardless of whether he was inspired by a noble dream, he overthrew the French government and turned a liberal revolution into an imperial dictatorship. He controlled the press and lionised himself with propaganda. He was guilty of extravagance; his coronation cost 8,500,000 francs, and he established a secret police force, whilst even using grapeshot to kill French citizens (1795). His advisors warned him not to invade Russia, yet his zeal for conquest cost 480,000 men and triggered his own downfall. He abandoned 30,000 loyal soldiers in the Egyptian Campaign. In many ways, he embodied the tyranny and villainy that France had endured a bloody Revolution overcoming, and his totalitarianism served as a model to 20th century dictators. Yet he also used the power he wielded to modernise and rationalise Europe. Vesting all governmental power in himself was totalitarian but yielded efficient decision-making that was decisive in a period of such turmoil. France revered him and when returning from Elba, Marshal Ney and the 5th regiment joyfully paraded him through France. The Grande Armée thought him a legend, and Wellington said he was worth 40,000 soldiers as he terrified his enemies and invigorated his men.

Historians laud his ambition and tactical genius, and during his wars he brought France to immense prestige and influence.

Left: Napoleon Crossing the Alps Right: Napoleon I on his Imperial Throne Both pictures portray different sides to Napoleon; he was both a brave soldier, and an extravagant autocrat.

In conclusion, Napoleon was a military prodigy, and his doctrines and wars shaped Europe for ever. He was a catalyst for modernisation, rationalisation, secularisation, and capitalism, spreading nationalism and Revolutionary ideals across the world. The Napoleonic Code, Wars, and the subsequent Congress of Vienna undeniably changed history and Napoleon showed 64 64

immense skill in the face of adversity whilst promoting meritocracy, the Enlightenment, and an end to the old order of civilisation. Yet he also showed tyranny, arrogance, and perhaps if he had won his wars, he might have become the villain that the French revolutionaries of 1789 sought to destroy.

He failed to build a lasting Empire or secure France’s permanent place in the sun; however, he was one of the greatest generals of history and his ultimate defeat was perhaps inevitable in the face of overwhelming adversity. He lifted France (and to an extent the world) out of one type of civilisation and moved it to another; and historians have never deemed absolutism and the epithet ‘the Great’ to be mutually exclusive (for example, Louis XIV).

Therefore, I would conclude that we should remember Napoleon as ‘Napoleon the Great’.

65 65

What caused the English Civil War? Aaron Rosenthal, U6 An assessment of the causes of the English Civil War must necessarily consider the societal transition from 1640 to 1642 without failing to address the importance of long-term preconditions such as state collapse and growing religious divisions. In this essay, I hope to clarify why the Personal Rule cannot explain the outbreak of the Civil War owing to the fact that legislatively, most parliamentary grievances had been solved by the summer of 1641. Accordingly, I will attribute the main cause of the Civil War to the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion, alongside a number of other trigger causes that served to escalate tensions by reinforcing the fears of Charles as well as Pym and Le Junto. Harris testifies that the relatively late inauguration of a royalist party ‘is normally taken as evidence in support of a short-term explanation for the origins of the English Civil War’1. However, he goes on to clarify that many of Charles’s supporters were radicalised by events which took place during the Long Parliament, namely the Root and Branch Petition.

This shows that whilst short-term causes are important, particularly emphasized by Revisionist historians such as John Morrill, it is important to understand the contextual build-up to the trigger events by looking at such things as the Personal Rule.

The Personal Rule, if not a cause, is an important contextual factor for understanding the outbreak of the Civil War because it resulted in state collapse and the widespread alienation of Charles’s English and Scottish subjects; These two factors were inextricably linked by the outbreak of the Scottish rebellion whereby Charles found himself relying upon Parliament and local elites despite having estranged himself from them. As explained by the Earl of Clarendon, the ‘outward visible Prosperity’ of the Personal Rule conceded ‘the inward reserved disposition of the People to Murmur, and Unquietness’2 The alienation of the Scots during the Personal Rule led to the collapse of the state following the Scottish rebellion and the Laudian reforms aroused fear of a ‘popish plot’, a position championed by Pym and Le Junto which led to both the Root and Branch Petition and the Grand Remonstrance.

Charles engendered resentment in his subjects via innovative fiscal expedients, the endorsement of the Laudian innovations and the centralisation of government, encroaching on the autonomy of local elites.

For example, following a number of legal disturbances between 1629 and 1631, the Privy Council introduced the principle of continual reporting by the Justices of the Peace to the Council about a wide range of local business for 1 2

Harris, T., 2014, Rebellion: Britain’s First Stuart Kings, 1567-1642, Oxford, p. 503 Hyde, E., 1702, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, p. 102

66

the indefinite future as part of an attempt to quicken local magistrates into more vigorous enforcement of statute. The implementation of such a proposal depended heavily upon the cooperation of local officials; within the northern and western shires, the Book of Orders which contained the clause on continual reporting seems to have been resented as an encroachment on the autonomy of communities which had developed legal frameworks and methods better suited to their local needs.3 This illustrates how Charles preferred to impose order upon his kingdoms, prioritising uniformity and centralisation over and above unity. One particularly contentious fiscal expedient was ship money, a tax levied on coastal towns and counties during national emergencies in order to build a fleet but which Charles exploited for six consecutive years (163439)4. Smith notes that over ninety percent of the assessments were paid between 1634 and 1638, suggesting that not only could the English pay but they were willing to5. However, this would be misconstrued as the legality of ship money was challenged numerous times, most notably in the prosecution of John Hampden, a Buckinghamshire squire who refused payment. The tax was deeply unpopular, and dissatisfaction came to the surface in the summer of 1639, following the Scottish Rebellion. There was widespread resistance to ship money and only £43,417 was paid of £214,000 assessed with cooperation falling from ninety percent to twenty percent. However, the most dangerous implication of Hampden’s case was that it stimulated debate over how the Royal Prerogative could be both absolute and limited. This paradigm is revealed in the mixed attitudes of the gentry towards ship money; where the Kentish gentry thought, ‘the King had full right to impose it’, Sir John Fortescue went so far as to say that the King ‘hath no prerogative but that which the law of the land doth give and allow’. 6 This called into question the divine right of the King, an extremely loaded challenge in England, a nation where the monarch commanded respect by virtue of his divine ordination, particularly considering that the ordinary revenue and military capacity of the Crown was fairly meagre. The Stuart monarchy was militarily weak, with local militias but no standing army; this weakness was exacerbated by the military revolution which saw the inauguration of large siege guns and improved defences such as trace italienne fortifications. The debate over Charles’s prerogative would eventually spill out into Civil War as the question was raised ‘which ultimately proved incapable of compromise: whether the kingdom had to be governed with the King’s consent’7 We can see then, how 3

Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford Quintrell, B., Charles I 5 Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford, p. 90 6 Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford, p. 91 7 Russell, C., 1990, The Causes of the English Civil War, Oxford, p. 109 4

67 67

the Personal Rule was an important contextual cause of the Civil War since it created animosity towards Charles which would manifest itself in open hostility and suspicion in Parliament between 1640 and 1642, and, it raised the issue of whether the kingdom could be governed without Charles’s consent.

The Personal Rule also resulted in the alienation of the Scots which, in turn led to state collapse. In 1637, Laud drew up the Scottish prayer book which was condemned in October 1637 for sowing ‘the seeds of divers superstition, idolatry and false doctrine, contrary to the true religion’ 8 Thousands subscribed to the National Covenant to protect the Kirk from the ‘innovations and evils [which] have no warrant of the Word of God’. Charles determined to suppress the rebellions but the ‘Bishops Wars’ proved unpopular in England for reasons explained above and the English were defeated at the Battle of Newburn in 1640. Laudian innovations such as the Prayer Book and the Scottish Canons of January 1636 led to the Scottish rebellion and eventually to Charles’s dependence on Parliament following the Truce of Ripon in October 1640. However, whilst the Personal Rule can adequately explain the collapse of the state and domestic religious divisions, necessary preconditions for the war, it cannot explain the transition from 1640 to 1642. In the autumn of 1640, Civil War was inconceivable, essentially because Charles was not in a position to fight due to state failure. Moreover, most of the grievances of the Personal Rule had been redressed by the summer of 1641 as Charles was dependent on Parliament to sustain the Scottish army. For example, the Triennial Act ensured that Parliament would be called at least once every three years and ship money and knighthood fines had been abolished. Furthermore, many Laudian innovations were reversed; In December 1640, the Scottish Canons were declared illegal; In June 1641, the Ten Propositions were passed by both houses, which removed Catholic priests from the Queen’s service, dismissed advisers who caused division between the King and his people and appointed ‘such officers and counsellors as his people and Parliament may have just cause to confide in’. 9 Essentially, all this entails that most of the grievances from the Personal Rule were resolved by the summer of 1641 and so it seems counter-intuitive to attribute the main cause of the outbreak of the Civil War to the mishandling of events during the Personal Rule. That is not to say it didn’t play an important role in creating religious division and leading to state collapse, but simply that it is limited in providing any clear explanation for the drastic escalation that occurred following the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion.

8

The Scottish National Covenant quoted in Lockyer, R., 1989, The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England 1603-1642, Essex 9 An extract from the third proposition quoted in Kenyon, J.P., 1966, The Stuart Constitution, 16031688: Documents and Commentary, Cambridge

68 68

The Escalation of the conflict can only be explained by a number of trigger causes which served to confirm the paranoid suspicions of Charles and Le Junto, causing Pym to revisit the issues of the Personal Rule, despite there having been resolved. The first trigger cause was the submission of the Root and Branch petition to Parliament in 1640 which essentially called for the abolition of episcopacy. This became Charles’s first opportunity to capitalise on the widespread disillusionment with Pym and Le Junto. There was a marked difference between believing Laudianism was innovative and believing that episcopacy was; few believed the latter. Naturally, Parliament was divided on the matter given that it championed the English Reformation and so many saw the petition as illegal, Scottish and innovative. Supporters such as Fiennes sympathised with the Covenanters, condemning the ‘evils and inconveniences’ of episcopacy 10.

Others, such as Lord Digby took a more moderate stance, lamenting that the Commons would ‘root up a good tree just because there was a canker in the branches’11 Moreover, many landed gentlemen felt threatened by the petition, recognising its potentially destabilising repercussions. The common adage of ‘No Bishop, No King’ was echoed in Parliament as people began to realise that bishops acted as pillars of English society, supporting the royal supremacy and by proxy, the social order within which they received their status. It may be suggested, therefore, that religion was ostensibly the main cause of the Civil War, sparking division where there had been harmony. It is interesting to note that in November 1640, just one month prior to the Root and Branch petition, the Commons united in favour of the Attainder of Strafford, whereby 204 members voted in favour against only 59 Stratfordians. That is to say, where the Commons agreed upon legal and constitutional issues, they divided over religion.

Perhaps even more divisive than the Root and Branch petition was the Grand Remonstrance of November 1641 which was triggered by the Irish Uprising of October 1641. The Irish Uprising was a long-term result of the “Plantation” policy of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs under which Ireland was aggressively colonised. It escalated after Catholic Irish leaders plotted to recover their lost lands by staging a rising in Dublin. The failure of the Dublin rising caused an eruption of violence against the Protestant settlers, culminating in a massacre in Armagh where many men, women and children were thrown into the Riven Bann and drowned. The inflated estimates of the number of casualties were brought to England by Protestant refugees who served to compound the, already potent, anxieties of Le Junto. Decisively, the Irish rebellion confirmed the suspicions of Pym and Le Junto that Charles was 10

Fiennes quoted in Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford Gentles quoted in Gentles, I.J., 1992, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652, Oxford, pp. 83 11

69

participating in a ‘popish plot’. Where there was no prior evidence, the rising provided so-called tangible proof. However, this vague conspiracy was compounded by Sir Phelim O’Neill, a rebel leader who published a forged commission from Charles on the 4th November. The Grand Remonstrance was a response to the Irish Rebellion, and it was exceedingly controversial for two reasons. Firstly, the Lords were not consulted and secondly, the Remonstrance was not addressed directly to the King. Rather, it read like a popular appeal downwards to the militant godly. It revisited the issues of misgovernment during the Personal Rule, devoting 99 of its 204 clauses to listing examples of misgovernment. Holmes postulates that the Remonstrance was intended to ‘prove the existence of a potent conspiracy’12, to topple ‘the fundamental laws and principles of government, upon which the religion and justice of this kingdom are firmly established’13 The voting patterns of the Commons illustrate the significance of the Grand Remonstrance in polarising opinion, creating the two sides necessary for the ensuing conflict. The Remonstrance was passed by 159 votes to 148.

If the outbreak of the Irish Rebellion hadn’t served to radicalise Le Junto, Charles’s attempted arrest of the five members in January 1642 surely galvanised the proceeding events. The attempted arrest was the climax of the army plots, two attempts by radical royalist supporters to quash what they deemed to be a small group of ill-affected members of Parliament who were amassing an opposition in the run up to the Civil War. Arguably, the attempted arrest was responsible for shifting the conflict from a political power struggle to a military engagement, owing to the fact that it led Parliament to believe that it may need military support. Charles believed that a few disaffected members were misleading the many against him; he saw the Remonstrance vote as the tide turning in his favour and so, thinking that he could regain popular support by asserting himself by force, he staged the attempted arrest. The reason why this may be seen as the main trigger cause of war is because the ensuing struggle was centred on military preparation. Charles’s attempted arrest of the five members sparked fear in the Commons who, in turn, found that they could not trust Charles with an army to combat the Irish threat. This led to the attempt to wrest control of the militias in February 1642. The right to assemble the militias was a decided aspect of the Royal Prerogative whereby the lord lieutenants were appointed by the King and were under royal command. In March, the Houses passed the Militia Ordinance. Parliament would usually pass acts which required the King’s assent, but the ordinance was justified on the grounds that the Irish situation was an emergency and the Commons did not trust the King’s ability to appoint militia commanders to put down the threat. These events mark the first military involvement, an important turning point on the road to Civil War. 12 13

Holmes, C., 2007, Why was Charles the I Executed?, pp. 38 The Grand Remonstrance quoted in Holmes, C., 2007, Why was Charles the I Executed?, pp. 38

70 70

However, it may be argued that the arrest of the five members was largely a response to the inflammatory Grand Remonstrance with its openly critical tone and its controversial phrasing as a popular appeal downwards. If we accept that the attempted arrest was a reaction to the Grand Remonstrance and not just a culmination of the army plots, it is limited as a trigger cause.

Finally, it is essential when assessing the causes of the English Civil war that both sides’ motivations can be comprehended, not only in terms of high political grievances but also amongst the ‘middling sort’ who made up the vast majority of the military force. Somewhat surprisingly, the war actually divided all social echelons fairly equally. The nobility was evenly split with a slight majority in favour of the King and the gentry were divided with approximately 4,000 swearing allegiance to each side and 10,000 remaining indifferent. The ‘middling sort’ including lawyers, merchants and tenants were also divided fairly equally. It has been stipulated that the royalist motive amongst the ‘middling sort’ was founded in a deep-seated tradition of antiPuritanism. For the vast majority of Charles’s reign, Puritanism was seen as the enemy to ‘good fellowship’ as local Puritan elites would often impose their harsh Sabbatarian discipline upon the rest of the community. Moreover, the Puritan belief in the elect was socially divisive and served to alienate swathes of the population who were seen as ‘reprobates’. Conversely, Smith posits that the royalist gentry and nobility were motivated not only by a desire to preserve the existing structures and practices of the Church of England but out of ‘an almost feudal sense of honour and an abhorrence of ‘rebellion’ 14 Smith goes on to say that royalists could largely be defined as ‘Constitutional royalists’, characterised by their commitment to the ‘constitutional balance, the lawful powers of the Crown, and the ‘Church by law established’’ 15 As Pym and Le Junto began to radically revisit the constitutional issues of the Personal Rule, the ‘Constitutional royalists’ increasingly saw them as a greater threat than Charles. As Holmes elucidates, those who resolved to cooperate with Charles, ‘were less drawn to Charles, than repelled by the policies- and not just the constitutional policies- pursued by Pym and his allies.’16 Holmes goes on to explain that many MPs saw the Scottish victory and occupation as an affront to the English. This sense of humiliation was in turn exacerbated by Pym’s willingness to pay the Scots for any costs incurred during their invasion. Many MPs became disillusioned by the close relationship between the Scots and Le Junto. As Holmes points out, the eighth clause in the proposed Scottish Treaty contained a Confession of Faith which the Scottish commissioners argued, entailed a commitment to the abolition of episcopacy.17 This concept was resented for the same reason that the Root and Branch petition was resented, that is, it was seen as radical by many of those who wholly denigrated the Laudian innovations. This is just one 14

Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford, p. 128 Smith, D.L., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707, Oxford, p. 129 16 Holmes, C., 2007, Why was Charles I Executed?, pp. 45 17 Holmes, C., 2007, Why was Charles I Executed?, pp. 46 15

71 71

example of why Pym and Le Junto became increasingly associated with the Scots and the Presbyterian religion that they threatened to impose on the English. Presbyterianism, if not menacing enough in itself, had other implications. As Sir John Strangeways elaborated in February 1641, ‘if we make parity in the church, we must come to a parity in the commonwealth’. 18 This comparison, if only theoretical, threatened to destabilise the entire social order and implied the structural importance of bishops in society.

Moreover, the radical MPs became increasingly associated with the popular outbreaks of iconoclasm during 1641 and the mass demonstrations outside Parliament. Therefore, it is clear that Charles was able to forge a side as a consequence of the radicalisation of Pym and Le Junto during the Long Parliament. Moreover, Charles tactfully depicted himself as a defender of the ‘purity of doctrine’, championing a position which reflected the anxieties of landed gentlemen and noblemen alike. Culpepper, Falkland and Hyde skilfully portrayed Charles in the public domain as a conservative law-abiding monarch; a representative of stability and normalcy.

We see then, that the causes of the English Civil War were manifold. It would be reductive to attribute the outbreak to only those events immediately preceding war without understanding the context and those facilitating factors that enabled both Charles and Le Junto to forge their respective sides; yet it would also be unhelpful to perpetually trace the main cause back to the precarious foundations of the Stuart regime and beyond. Therefore, the fundamental issue of this question is at what point we consider events to have begun progressing towards their ultimate conclusion. I would suggest that this juncture is marked by the Irish rebellion and the radicalisation of Pym and Le Junto during the Long Parliament. These events served to affirm the respective beliefs of each party, whether founded in truth or not. Naturally, the fear of a ‘popish plot’ stemmed from Charles’s support of the Laudian reforms during the Personal Rule whilst Charles’s fear of a seditious parliamentary faction was inspired by Privy Council advice and the perceived disobedience of Parliament. However, their immediate importance can be derived from the fact that, not only did they increase the distrust between Charles and parliament, but the radicalisation of Le Junto, indubitably connected to the Irish Rebellion, enabled Charles to gather a side. During the Long Parliament, MPs united against Charles as they set about reversing the innovations of the Personal Rule. What caused division was the radicalisation of Le Junto, characterised by the Grand Remonstrance, which was originally stimulated by the Irish Rebellion. This links nicely to the Personal Rule and the earlier Stuart policies in Ireland, illustrating that whilst the trigger causes of war were fairly immediate, the rift between Charles and his subjects could be traced back to longer-standing grievances.

Bibliography 18

Sir John Strangeways quoted in Lindley, K., 2013, The English Civil War and Revolution: A Sourcebook, pp. 71

72

Gardiner, S.R., 1906, The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution- docs. 26 (Root and Branch Petition), 43 (Grand Remonstrance), 44 (King’s Proclamation on Religion), 50 (Militia Ordinance), 55 (King’s letter with the Commissions of Array to Leicestershire) Gentles, I.J., 1992, The English Revolution and the Wars in the Three Kingdoms, 1638-1652, Oxford, pp. 83-84 Harris, T., 2014, Rebellion: Britain’s First Stuart Kings, 1567-1642, Oxford, pp. 489-505 Holmes, C., 2007, Why Was Charles I Executed?, pp. 34-53 Hyde, E., 1702, The History of the Rebellion and Civil Wars in England, Oxford, pp. 102-103 Kishlansky, M., 1996, A Monarchy Transformed Britain, 1603-1714, London, pp. 113-134 Kishlansky, M. and Morrill, J., Charles I (1600-1649), https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/5143 (Accessed 29/06/18) Lindley, K., 2013, The English Civil War and Revolution: A Sourcebook, pp.

71 Lockyer, R., 1989, The Early Stuarts: A Political History of England, pp.

307-322 Quintrell, B., 1993, Charles I, pp. 46-87 Russell, C., 1990, The Causes of the English Civil War, pp. 109-128, 185211Smith, D., 1998, A History of the Modern British Isles, 1603-1707 Russell, C., Pym, John (1584-1643), https://doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/22926 (Accessed 29/06/18) Russell, C., 1988, ‘The First Army Plot of 1641’, Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, Fifth Series, pp. 85-106

73 73

To what extent have US-Iraq relations improved since the Iraq War of 2003?

Halil Mirakhmedov US-Iraq relations have varied greatly between the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the present day. Starting from the fall of Saddam Hussein, I will be arguing that it is axiomatic that US-Iraq relations have improved from Hussein’s time through the liberation of the country itself, aid and trade after the War and in the coming decade, but have been hampered by the meddling of external powers such as Iran, but also internal ones, such as Donald Trump.

The relationship between the US and Iraq was, during Hussein’s time as President, close to non-existent. In George W. Bush’s State of the Union Address in 2002, Iraq was one of the countries included in the term “Axis of Evil” (Washington Post, 2002) confining Iraq to a group of countries the US perceived as detrimental to world peace. This severely limited any possibility of a diplomatic relationship between the two countries as the US refused to engage with a “rogue state”. Hence, it is clear that relations could only improve with the regime change. The US was the first nation to establish any sort of diplomatic ties with post-Hussein Iraq as it essentially created the government, calling it the Provisional Coalition Authority (PCA). The PCA was led by the American Paul Bremer, therefore naturally they had much better relations than before the War. The US have been involved in a war in Iraq until 2011, and in that time, Iraq carried out many changes, such as holding the first democratic elections in the country since Hussein in 2005; this would have been a feat impossible without the US. This greatly improved relations since the newly elected government was greatly in the US’ moral debt. By liberating Iraq, the US allowed for the Kurdish people in the north of the country to peacefully coexist and have the Iraqi President as one of their own, whilst under Hussein they were de facto independent and embroiled in a civil war between the two major Kurdish parties, the PUK and KDP, from 1994 to 1998.

Furthermore, the Kurds were treated with brutality by the Hussein regime as shown by the Al-Anfal genocide which killed more than 58,000 people (Human Rights Watch, 1993). It is fair to present the US as the saviours of the Kurds from the persecution of the Hussein regime. Therefore, the US’ deposition of the Hussein regime led to a massive improvement in US-Iraq relations as Iraq was essentially reborn after Hussein, and the ruling government, after the invasion, was grateful to the US for bringing democracy to the country therefore ending dictatorship.

The US also helped in the post-war situation, providing Iraq with key financing for the rebuilding of the country, bilateral trade and training of their armed forces (held together with NATO). This was impossible during the Hussein 74 74

regime, but these diplomatic missions are clearly an indicator of an improvement in the relationship of the two countries after Hussein. In 2017, Iraq exported $10.7 billion to the US, mainly oil (U.S. Department of State, 2018), whilst having a total GDP of $197.7 billion (World Bank, 2017), meaning that around 5% of their GDP is derived from exports to the US. This makes them heavily reliant on the US, creating a mutually beneficial long-term relationship: the US wants and needs oil, and Iraq has a sizeable proportion of its GDP coming from its trading with the US. Trade is one of the key signs of relations, and those relations would only be broken under extreme circumstances due to each state’s reliance on the other. Training of the Iraqi armed forces (NATO, 2018) and the influx of US money makes the relationship, at least for Iraq, unbreakable. The US in this situation is the dominant ally due to its sheer size, so with the threat of breaking off their support, Iraq will have to sustain good relations even if there is a radical change of government; the US has set Iraq up in a way that it cannot function completely independently of the US. Although it may seem questionable as to whether this shows an improvement in relations, it undoubtedly does due to the economic necessity of keeping relations at their current state or even improving them.

However, Iraq-US relations splintered due to former Prime Minister Nouri alMaliki. As a Shia, he led the Islamic Dawa Party, staying in Damascus and Tehran during his exile from Iraq, whilst also having his party funded by Iran (Washington Post, 2014): another member of the “Axis of Evil”, and Syria.

Pressure from Iran caused relations with the US to deteriorate as the Iranians demanded to al-Maliki for US troops to leave Iraq, clearly showing Iranian influence over al-Maliki and hence over Iraq's international relations. The Syrian government does not have good relations with the US either, with the US entering the war against al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. With al-Maliki’s hand being forced (Washington Post, 2014) by Iran, US-Iraq relations did not fare well. This has a far larger impact to relations than the US helping Iraq after the 2003 invasion, as even whilst NATO was training the Iraqi armed forces (NATO, 2018), relations were being strained by al-Maliki’s ties with Iran and his complete refusal to back down on keeping American troops in the country. Therefore, relations did not improve due to Iraq being controlled by other foreign powers and being influenced by countries other than the US, such as Iran, a country which the US hates. It was impossible for relations to even improve because Iran is a perpetual barrier for US-Iraq relations from improving beyond a certain point, creating an artificial ceiling on any future improvement.

75

Recently, US-Iraq relations have taken another turn for the worse and are not improving due to Trump. On the 27th of December 2018, Trump visited US troops stationed in Iraq, which infuriated local leaders. Sabah al-Saadi, leader of the Islah parliamentary bloc, has called Parliament and said they need "to discuss this blatant violation of Iraq's sovereignty and to stop these aggressive actions (the surprise visit) by Trump who should know his limits: the US occupation of Iraq is over" (Al Jazeera, 2018).

This has strained relations yet again because Trump, being belligerent and volatile as shown by this, went beyond the limit that the Iraqi government would allow.

Despite the previous upward trend of improving relations, this has hindered them massively; as distrust grows between the Trump Administration and the Abdul-Mahdi government, the potential for new bilateral agreements in the future, including trade deals, diminishes which hinders long term improvement of relations since trade deals and agreements help secure a guarantee of long term good relations as it is beneficial for both countries to sustain the deal and also to make new ones, creating a cycle of positive relations. However due to the hostility of the US, Iraq would be discouraged from trying to make any new deals due to the US’ sporadic nature and unreliability. Furthermore, the US has raised some tariffs on allies (National Public Radio, 2018) and due to fear Iraq will be next, Iraq may try to distance themselves from the US to decrease reliance, which may also be due to the fact that the US can get its oil from elsewhere and only imports a tiny proportion from Iraq, 0.04% in October 2018 (U.S. Energy Information Administration, 2018) making Iraq sufficient but not necessary for oil trading. This also raises questions about the future US-Iraq relationship: if the US continues to sustain such a foreign policy with Iraq, it will severely hurt relations due to the maltreatment of a supposed ally. The behaviour of the Trump administration in the next year will therefore be a key determinant of the future improvement, or deterioration, of relations.

This is certainly the most important factor on whether US-Iraq relations will improve and have improved – Trump has said in the past about the 2003 invasion “either you attack or you do not attack” (Washington Post, 2016) showing his indecisive nature towards Iraq, which will most likely harm relations in the future.

In conclusion, generally, relations between the United States of America and the Republic of Iraq have improved from being close to nothing during the government of Saddam Hussein in 2003, with the US-led invasion said to have caused “the world (to be…) morally purged of one of the most wicked dictators of modern times” (Keegan, 2004, p. 218). Now, the two countries enjoy some sort of relationship, especially under Barack Obama, under who the Iraq War ended. The future with Donald Trump is terribly uncertain and most likely negative for the relationship, however at the current moment not all has been lost, and today the countries have a relationship which is much stronger than in 2003, with their economies intertwined. Iraq especially has been and is relying on the US, which was not the case before the 2003 invasion, potentially showing a long-term future where Iraq can never completely break free of the US, for better or worse.

76 76

Bibliography Al Jazeera, (2018), Iraqi leaders denounce Trump visit to US troops, Available at: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/12/181227014528458.html (Accessed 17 January 2019) Human Rights Watch, (1993), Genocide in Iraq, Available at: https://www.hrw.org/reports/1993/iraqanfal/ (Accessed 17 January 2019) Keegan, J., (2004), The Iraq War, London: The Random House Group National Public Radio, (2018), Trump Formally Orders Tariffs On Steel, Aluminium Imports, Available at: https://www.npr.org/2018/03/08/591744195/trump-expected-to-formallyorder-tariffs-on-steel-aluminum-imports (Accessed 17 January 2019) NATO, (2018), Relations with Iraq, Available at: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_88247.htm (Accessed 17 January 2019) U.S. Department of State, (2018), U.S. Relations with Iraq, Available at: https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/6804.htm (Accessed 17 January 2019) U.S. Energy Information Administration, (2018), Petroleum & Other Liquids: U.S. Imports by Country of Origin, Available at: https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl_ m.htm (Accessed 17 January 2019) Washington Post, (2016), Donald Trump and Iraq: Not loud, not strong and no headlines, Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/factchecker/wp/2016/02/25/timeline-of-trumps-comments-on-iraq-invasionnot-loud-not-strong-and-noheadlines/?utm_term=.5f76be77dbe6&noredirect=on (Accessed 17 January 2019) Washington Post, (2014), Fareed Zakaria: Who lost Iraq? The Iraqis did, with an assist from George W. Bush, Available at: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fareed-zakaria-who-lost-iraqthe-iraqis-did-with-an-assist-from-george-w-bush/2014/06/12/35c5a418f25c-11e3-914c1fbd0614e2d4_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.78d60811fdb4 (Accessed 17 January 2019) Washington Post, (2002), Text of President Bush's 2002 State of the Union Address, Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpsrv/onpolitics/transcripts/sou012902.htm (Accessed 17 January 2019) World Bank, (2017), Iraq, Available at: https://data.worldbank.org/country/iraq (Accessed 17 January 2019)

77 77

The use of chemical weapons by the Germans in WWI Kai Henke 7H The first chemical weapons attack At the battle of Ypres, the German army launched the first large scale use of chemical weapons: nearly 170 metric tonnes of chlorine gas in 5,730 cylinders. In the end more than 1,100 people died from the attack and 7,000 were injured. The attack caused panic amongst the French troops who fled the front line, but the German troops failed to capitalise on it and the battle line hardly moved.

Poisonous gas attack But this was not the first-time chemical weapons were used in the Great War. In October 1914, the German forces fired 3,000 shells containing a lung irritant (dianisidine chlorosulphate) at the British army. The British were unaware that they had been subjected to a chemical attack as the chemical was destroyed by the explosive charge.

On 22nd April 1915, the Germans fired 18,000 shells filled with the irritant xylyl bromine at the Russian troops. The Russians were unharmed though, because the extreme cold kept the liquid chemical from vaporising.

Not the first time, but‌ The Great War wasn’t the first-time people used chemical weapons. For example, in 479BC the Peloponnesian forces used sulphur fumes against the town of Plataea.

However, the chemical attack at Ypres was the first ever large-scale attack with chemical weapons. The Germans were deemed to be the first people to produce them at an industrial scale. They chose to use chemical weapons (which defied the international ban made in 1874-1907) as they caused panic

78

among troops and it was a deadly killer. They were also the first to design them on purpose.

The father of chemical weapons

Fritz Haber was the man who we identify as the person behind all these chemical weapons. Fritz used his considerable knowledge to militarise chemistry in the Great War. At Ypres, the world witnessed the first results of his labour.

Fritz Haber While Fritz strongly argued for the development of new and more effective chemical weapons, the use of chemical weapons remained controversial on both sides of the conflict.

But with the Germans leading the way, all major participants in the Great War felt obliged to produce vast amounts of chemical weapons to be able to counter the German threat.

Types of chemical gasses used There were three types of chemicals used in the Great War: chlorine, phosgene and mustard gas.

Chlorine gas: first used on 22nd April 1915 at the battle of Ypres. It produced a greenish-yellow cloud that smelled of bleach and immediately irritated the eyes, nose, lungs and throat of those exposed to it.

French cemetery which includes victims from the first gas attacks

79 79

Phosgene: smelled like mouldy hay and was six times more deadly than chlorine gas. It was colourless and a soldier would not have known at first that they had received a fatal dose. After a couple of days, the victim’s lungs would have filled with liquid and they would have suffocated an agonising death. Phosgene was responsible for 85% of chemical weapon fatalities in the Great War. Mustard gas: was dubbed the king of battle gasses. Like phosgene, the results were not immediate. It smelled of garlic, petrol, rubber and dead horses.

Hours after exposure, the victim’s eyes became bloodshot, began to water and became increasingly painful. Although it caused the highest number of casualties at about 120,000, it actually caused few fatalities because the open air of the battlefield kept concentrations below the lethal threshold.

The terrifying results of the use of chemical weapons in WWI At the end of the Great War there were 1.3million casualties including 90,000 to 100,000 fatalities primarily from phosgene.The experience was truly terrifying for those soldiers that were exposed to it, even if they survived.

None of the nations that used chemical weapons during WW1 ended up using them in WWII; not even the Germans.

80 80

The Opium Wars – Shaping Chinese History Betsy Rowold U4 Aesc

The 1st of July 2017 was an important anniversary for Hong Kongese and Chinese history, as twenty years ago Hong Kong was handed back to China after 100 years of British rule stemming from two brutal wars known as the Opium Wars.

The cause of the two wars that shaped Chinese history started long before British Empire began the widespread trade of opium, with something as harmless as tea. In many western countries, tea was an extremely popular drink, so popular that in England 10% of the national revenue was used buying tea. This created an unsustainable trade with China, the only country growing and selling tea as China was not buying much from England, this vacuum meant Western merchants had to search for something to trade with China.

What did they find? They found the highly addictive drug, Opium.

India was growing Opium and as part of the British Empire, the opium was given to English merchants to trade in return for textiles made of Indian cotton. The sudden spike in Opium trade lead to a sudden spike in opium addiction and by around 1835 the damage of widespread addiction and illegal trading of Opium by Western, mainly British, merchants in Hong Kong and China was clear. Opium had terrible effects on the economy and disrupted social life, with millions of addicts and a massive supply of opium being traded every year.

The Emperor knew something had to be done, so he appointed Commissioner Lin to oversee getting rid of this harmful drug. In March 1839 over 20,000 chests of Opium were confiscated or destroyed by over 500 men in three weeks, the drug was burnt, thrown into rivers or thrown into lakes. Later he wrote a letter to Queen Victoria, in his letter he wrote an extract of a new law that would have been about to be put in force that stated:

“Any foreigner or foreigners bringing opium to the Central Land, with design to sell the same, the principals shall most assuredly be decapitated, and the accessories strangled; and all property (found on board the same ship) shall be confiscated. The space of a year and a half is granted, within the which, if anyone bringing opium by mistake, shall Treaty of Nanjing 81

voluntarily step forward and deliver it up, he shall be absolved from all consequences of his crime.”

Soon after this letter was sent, in early 1841 a naval attack was launched in the Pearl River. China was not a naval strength and had no chance against the British naval force so signed a treaty, known as the unequal treaty or treaty of Nanjing, so that the opium trade was still allowed, Britain had control over Hong Kong; Hong Kong increased the amount of treaty ports, and pays Britain an indemnity. Peace, however, did not last long.

The second Opium War sparked in October 1856 when some Chinese officials boarded a small Chinese ship, the Arrow, arrested 12 Chinese crewmen and supposedly lowered the British flag. The British considered this a violation of the previous treaty and later in October a British war ship sailed through the Pearl River before invading Guangzhou, Canton, tensions rose when in December the Chinese burnt foreign warehouses. Soon, in 1857 Britain had new allies: the French. They began military action saying it was because of the death of a French missionary, and after quickly invading Guangzhou they imposed a new governor for the city. Sailing north the warships arrived in Tianjin in April 1858 and forced peace negotiations began. The treaties of Tianjin, however, were signed a month later and allowed several new ports to be opened, there would be residence in Beijing for foreign envoys and rights for foreign travel in China and the free movement of Christian missionaries. And, the whole reason this fighting began was for nothing because the trade of opium was legalised soon after the end of the opium wars.

Then in 1898, the UK leased more land calling it the ‘New Territories’ saying they would give it back in 99 years. And so, in 1998, Hong Kong was handed over to China, after 100 years of British rule.

82 82

“When contemporary affairs are so rich with incident it is all the more important to situate them within a historical context, if we are to make some of them and retain a degree of perspective…”

Dr Ian St John (Staff Editor)

History Department The Haberdashers’ Aske’s Boys’ School Elstree 83 Herts WD6 3AF