The Shoardian vol.4 summer 2012

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 Welcome to The Shoardian!

I was going to put a meaningful quote in here about time passing and moving on, but I was unable to find anything that fitted the mood so: MGS has a long affinity with history and boys have constantly been fascinated by the subject. It remains to this day one of the most popular IGCSE and at Sixth Form level as well. The Shoardian attempts to provide a medium whereby those interested in history can write extensively on a subject that they feel passionately about, or as the catalyst for them to go out and research a topic that they perhaps had no knowledge of before. For readers, it provides a wealth of new material and an opportunity to examine the opinions of others and make up their own mind.

I have tried primarily to encourage as much debate as possible in this edition, which discusses primarily our neighbours across the pond. America is a land of contradictions and it is maybe these hypocrisies that make her not only worthy of study but so interesting as well. We also have an interview with Dr Mike Foley, who was kind enough to give us his expertise not only on his specialist subject of draft resistance to the Vietnam War, but also all things related to America in the 1960s and 70s. For those of you who believe modern history to be current events, then you will enjoy Adam Rigby’s piece on the benefits of archaeology. The magazine also includes articles on Auschwitz, Sidney Smith and an alternative view of the policy of appeasement (provided by yours truly). I also encourage you to check out our competition on the back page which has prizes on offer!

I wish to extend my thanks to all those who wrote an article for this edition (even those with an aversion to meeting deadlines), to Generalissimo Hern both for his contribution (yet to arrive) and his organisational skill, to Mr Smith, to my two deputy editors, Hugh Williamson and Huw Spencer, to the previous editor Jake Dyble, to Vicente Orts (who I repay for designing the posters around school), to Josh Lee for designing the brand new front cover and of course to you for picking the magazine up and reading it.

Finally, The Shoardian has embraced the digital revolution, and so very soon you will be able to find an online version of the magazine (my thanks go to Akeel Malik here, both for providing me with the information and not minding that I stole the New Mancunian’s idea), alongside all the previous editions in our extensive archive. To keep the website looking fresh, I would like to find some people who will write regularly for the digital version. If you are interested in this or want to volunteer a piece for the next edition, due out in October, then please do not hesitate to e-mail me (greeed-y06) or either of the deputy editors (willhu-y06 and spenhu-y06) with your topic or for advice on picking a topic. I am looking in particular for people who are willing to write book reviews (a section which you will notice is conspicuous by its absence).

All that remains for me to do is to welcome you to the magazine, Ed Green Editor

2

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Is History Useless?

Adam Rigby examines the problems with studying the subject of history, and ponders why historians today focus almost exclusively on the last millennium.

I

n many ways there is really very little of any use to be learnt from the academic subject called, ‘History’. Now, before you start frothing at the mouth and screaming that I simply don’t understand, let me stop you: I do understand.

It’s just that I realise that there’s more to understand than is understood.

Sapiens had even evolved.

Many writers, such as E.H. Carr, have argued that all historians do is interpret the facts they want and turn them into history. Rather than presenting the past objectively this theory states that everything historians do is selective and is based on a personal agenda.

If it came to a fight, archaeology is clearly much better than history. Let us think for a moment of famous archaeologists. Obviously, once we have tied Tony Robinson up in a metaphorical sack and thrown him into the canal of our minds, setting his workforce of slaves ( don’t you mean ‘students’ ? Ed.) free, the next most obvious choice is Indiana Jones. Ignoring any attempted recent comebacks, I think we can all agree that Indiana is a pretty awesome guy and clearly far more interesting than any historian/strange old man who hasn’t seen day light for the last 20 years and smells faintly of urine. That brings us nicely onto my second point, and that is the simple truth that spades are much more fun than books and would clearly win in a fight.

Essentially this would mean that almost all of history is the sum of opinions and interpretations based on a few facts with an incredibly small amount of truth buried somewhere deep, deep inside. Whilst this is not the place to go into a discussion of the existentialism of history, which may or may not result in you suddenly deciding to strip the library’s history section in a violent fit of book burning rage, this does provide me with another useful example of why archaeology is far more useful to us.

Taking a slightly more serious look at things if we take the start of ‘History’ to coincide with the first written records then we can go back to around 3000 BC. Whilst that may sound like a decent length of time, especially if you’ve wasted the previous few years only looking at the last hundred years, archaeology can take us back much further.

The oldest sites that have been discovered so far are 2.5-7 million years old ,making them older than human beings as a species. Archaeology provides us with the best all round and global picture of our past. Whilst history may be able to provide us with a few details, largely relating to the political elite and mostly based on opinion, about certain aspects of the short period of written history, in my mind that simply can’t compare to a discipline which can tell us about day-to-day life before Homo Sapiens

Tony Robinson: Historical Enemy Number One

3

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Now, if you’re still not beginning to come round to my point of view, or you’re starting to formulate a plan to hunt me down and do me some sort of irreparable physical harm, let’s think more about the title of this article. What does history teach us, or, alternatively, what are we told that it teaches us and why are we told to bother studying it? Well, the answers tend to be, “So that we can learn from the mistakes people made in the past,” and, “So we understand our own past,” or even, “I’m crap at science and I just can’t afford to buy enough crayons to do geography.” Whilst I honestly can’t help you with the third reason, the first two may be reasonable enough. Again, however, I feel that archaeology can teach us far more about these reasons than history could ever hope to, and if a little knowledge is a dangerous thing then archaeology is essentially the ‘nuke’ of knowledge.

This is because archaeology presents us with a much wider and impartial view of life over the last few million years and, most importantly, a view of life for normal people. The nature of history means that a lot of our evidence of the past has been written by a select few and, as we know, history is written by the victors. Not only is it written by the victors but these victors tend to be the rulers and leaders of civilisations. This means that the picture of the past presented to us by history only really tells us about life for a very select few.

Although I’m sure many of you remain convinced that one day you will find yourselves in a position where the decisions and mistakes of the great generals and leaders of the past will be directly compatible and incredibly helpful to you, somehow I doubt it. Instead I would say that the things we can learn about the day to day life of people in previous civilisations are far more useful to us and the problems they faced may well be the same as those we face. As we’ve already seen, the period covered by history is minute when compared to the time scale of human activity on this planet, and as a result there aren’t really that many lessons we can learn from it. If we look at the problems we face as a species today history doesn’t provide us with much of a precedent for how to deal with rising sea levels, climate change and so on.

Archaeology, on the other hand, with no over exaggeration can give us all the answers. The fact that a historian somewhere has written a book on what Hitler looked out of the window and saw at lunchtime on the 23 of September 1939 isn’t really

Archaeologists excavate sites and, certainly in the modern era, present their findings and their ideas somewhat separately. The fact that archaeology is the study of physical remains means that the facts are there for everybody to see and interpret as they see fit. When presented with a physical object there can be no selective interpretation, no subjective view of things: you have a piece of literal hard evidence and all you can do is examine it and draw the most logical conclusion if you genuinely want to learn about our past. When you get a number of these remains and put them together, then you can begin to build up a bigger picture.

This reliance on facts that clearly exist not only provides us with a much more reliable and truthful view of the past, it also allows us to gain a picture of civilisations based entirely upon their physical remains with no need to rely on possibly unreliable written sources. We can see what these people did through the remains they left and, although we have to up make our own ideas about the what, when, and why, of any piece of evidence, the wide variety of theories and opinions this approach encourages is surely far more preferable to the interpretation and selectivity upon which history relies. When presented with physical objects there is no need to rely on anachronistic reports based on hearsay.

Indiana Jones: winner of the 1936 ‘Coolest Archaeologist’ contest

rd

4

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 of much help us as a species when trying to work out exactly what to do when the climate change ‘bogey man’ comes knocking at the door. What does help is the study of the migration patterns of early humans at the end of the last Ice Age and how they then went on to colonise most of the world, something that only archaeology (and anthropology to be fair) can tell us anything about.

The decision by hunter gatherers a mere 8,000 years ago to settle down and start farming is of far greater importance to human kind, marking the start of settled civilisations, than any of the events of the last few hundred years. Surely understanding human nature, which is ultimately the driving force behind all decisions whether in the last hundred or million years, is what motivates any student of history or archaeology.

But somehow I doubt you will find the answers in a history text book.

civilisation will be forgotten and will ultimately come to mean nothing. Why bother, then, revelling in facts and figures and dates that will simply just disappear and are of little real significance in the long run. Every civilisation that has ever existed thought that it had reached the very pinnacle of human existence and had a long history that it felt was of great importance, but of course they never reached that pinnacle and things change, things move on and every historical fact that they felt would remain for eternity has been forgotten. If we want to learn from these civilisations we have to look to archaeology for information. What we can learn from archaeology can tell us how we’ve got here and where we’re going. It reveals to us the lessons that our ancestors had to learn because if they didn’t our whole species may well have disappeared just like the Neanderthals. Being equipped with the knowledge that has maintained our existence for the last 200,000 years certainly sounds like a better deal than knowing what to do when the pope won’t give you a divorce, or when you have a sudden urge to conquer Wales.

In conclusion, whilst much of this article may have been offensive, inaccurate, obscure or simply just made up, I hope it has made you think about what it is you’re actually learning, and what you hope to gain from studying history. It may well be that I never again receive a passing grade on any piece of history homework, and I can understand that, but I hope some of you may have learned a little. Perhaps you think that the events since 3000 BC are the only ones that matter and you don’t give a damn about the sort of people who like to sit in muddy holes getting rained on looking at old rocks, but then that’s personal choice and I quite like mud.

The ruins of Pompeii are well worth a visit if you are interested in the techniques of archaeology

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If Adam’s attack on the contemporary study of history has particularly moved you towards the field of archaeology then here are some books you might like to read:

Despite my claim that archaeology can teach us much more than history there’s still so much we don’t know. Think about how many events you know of that that are even just pre-Roman, and then consider the number of events you would consider of great importance over the last few hundred years. What I’m trying to demonstrate to you is that most of the history of our culture and 5



C. Renfrew & P. Bahn Archaeology: Theory, Methods and Practice



R. Wenke Patterns in Prehistory



A. Rigby A Beginners Guide to Grave-digging and Exhumation (self published)

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

The Metamorphoses of Malcolm X The issue of Civil Rights in America is to this day controversial. On the one hand Martin Luther King preached pacific resistance, whereas Malcolm X and the Nation of Islam preached violence. Or did they? Nikhil Palmer looks to set the record straight on the history's most misunderstood activist.

M

alcolm X is without doubt one of the most controversial characters in US post-war history. Now, almost fifty years after his assassination, the predominant image of him remains that of a ‘black supremacist’ or even a ‘black Nazi’, and more generally, a ‘hate preacher’. These images are so prevalent that they have actually become embedded into the minds of the majority , to the extent that the labels given to Malcolm X have in essence become ‘historical facts’. This raises the issue of ‘facts in history’, and how such accusations can, over time, become ‘facts’. It is the conveniently selective memory of the mainstream US media which, by continuously repeating these allegations, has painted this picture that associates Malcolm with violence, anger, racism and hate, so that future generations will view him as nothing more than a racist demagogue – as some one-dimensional, fanatical enemy of the USA. In this way, they hope to tarnish his image by discounting all the good that he did. Malcolm X himself predicted exactly this in his autobiography – that after he died “the white man, in his press, is going to identify [him] with ‘hate’. He will make use of [him] dead, as he has made use of [him] alive, as a convenient symbol of ‘hatred’”.

posed to racial domination and inequality, and by extension his threat to both US domestic security and US foreign policy, even after his death.

A young Malcolm X

Stage one of Malcolm’s life runs from his birth in May 1925 to his imprisonment for breaking and entering and larceny in February 1946. Malcolm Little was born to a mixed race mother, Louise Little, and a black father, the Reverend Earl Little. Earl Little was a Baptist minister, and an outspoken supporter and preacher of the teachings of the Pan-African activist, Marcus Garvey. This staunch support for Garvey and ‘black nationalism’ in general was believed by Malcolm and many others to have been the cause of Earl’s death in 1931, when Malcolm was just 6 years old.

While his death was officially declared an accident

by Michigan police, there is significant evidence to suggest that he was murdered by a white supremacist organisation called The Black Legion.

So, by dividing his life into three stages – considering the fact that Malcolm X did live his life in three distinct stages where he had three different personalities and goals – it will be investigated why, unfairly, history only remembers one of those stages, and why the rest is often totally ignored and overlooked. Those ingrained, fixed images will be interrogated in order to show his extraordinary dynamism and non-fixedness, and his immense metamorphoses as a man, a leader, and a thinker. It can be concluded that, while the dominant image is superficially plausible, it is in fact a severely distorted image; distorted by the powers that be in the US, due to the apparent threat that Malcolm X 6

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 The significance of his father’s death, when looked at in conjunction with the apparent reason for it, is often totally and inexplicably overlooked: it should never be forgotten that the causes for which Malcolm X would later fight were those same causes for which he believed his father had died.

supremacists are two things that are often completely disregarded when Malcolm’s eventual descent into racism and black supremacist ideology is considered. Hence, this first stage of Malcolm’s life, which ended in his rightful imprisonment, and some of the events that took place and some of the self-deprecating feelings that manifested themselves in him, can be looked at to at least understand the conditions which allowed the Nation of Islam to mould him into the racist and black supremacist that is so often talked about , but also into that figure for black unity and pride about which not so much is heard. Malcolm X himself remarked that “To understand that of any person, his whole life, from birth, must be reviewed. All of our experiences fuse into our personality. Everything that ever happened to us is an ingredient.” This was certainly true of him.

The second stage of his life began in the first prison in which he was incarcerated. It was here that Malcolm X read his first book, learned how to write legibly and, under the tutelage of a wise, old convict named Bimbi, began to appreciate the notion of religion, something which he had always disregarded and been generally hostile towards.

Imprisonment undoubtedly rehabilitated and totally transformed Malcolm Little. This second stage is the section in his life in which he gained nationwide recognition and notoriety as ‘Malcolm X’, through his infamous involvement with the controversial Nation of Islam. This was a religious, US-based organisation for black people, which taught that the ‘white man’ was the devil who had brainwashed the black man – that their horrific enslavement of black people and forcing of Christianity upon them showed this perfectly.

Crucially, the Nation believed that in order for the black people of America to be truly free from whites – to be completely economically and socially self-sufficient – they needed to be totally separated from them, and live in their own separate community. Malcolm became convinced extremely quickly that the Nation was his calling, and he accepted the racist views that were central to the religion very quickly too – indeed it only took his brother Reginald two visits to Malcolm in prison before Malcolm accepted unequivocally the Nation of Islam.

Two Detroit detectives posing with weapons and robes confiscated from the Klu Klux Klan and The Black Legion, the organisation that Malcolm believed killed his father

It was during this stage of his life that Malcolm X admitted he was proud and ‘was among the millions of Negroes who were insane enough to feel that it was some kind of status symbol to be lightcomplexioned – that one was actually fortunate to be born thus’. This inferiority complex, which was a reality for the vast majority of AfricanAmericans at that time, is another aspect of his childhood that would prove to be key in Malcolm’s eventual conversion to the Nation of Islam. He strongly advocated and encouraged black pride: pride which he claimed had been lost when the “White man went into Africa and murdered and kidnapped to bring to the West in chains, in slave ships, millions of black men, women, and children, who were worked and beaten and tortured as slaves”; an inferiority complex which he claimed had been brought about when “The slavemaster injected his Christian religion into this ‘Negro’ … [who] was taught to worship an alien God having the same blond hair, pale skin, and blue eyes as the slavemaster.” The personal experiences of that inferiority complex and the crimes of white

It is not uncommon to hear the argument that Malcolm X accepted the Nation of Islam so willingly and so quickly was because he was actually a racist from the start – that joining 7

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 forces with the black supremacist Nation of Islam was the next logical step for a racist like him.

There are, however , two main reasons why he embracing the teachings of Elijah Muhammad (leader of the Nation of Islam). These reasons by no means justify his racism, but before he is blindly criticised for joining , one must endeavour to understand the circumstances under which he became affiliated with the Nation of Islam. The first reason can be inferred from something he himself later noted – that “The very enormity of [his] previous life’s guilt prepared [him] to accept the truth.”

This quote alone highlights the immense significance of his criminal ways in transforming him into a person that could be so easily and so quickly accepting of a religion like the Nation of Islam. He went on to say that “The truth can be quickly received, or received at all, only by the sinner who knows and admits that he is guilty of having sinned much.” This shows his own belief in a guilty criminal’s sheer vulnerability, and it must be remembered that it was during this time of great vulnerability that Malcolm himself was able to be swept away by the Nation of Islam.

flashing across the entire spectrum of white people [he] had ever known...the state white people always in [their] house after the other whites [he] didn’t know had killed [his] father…the whites who kept calling [his] mother ‘crazy’ to her face until she finally was taken off by white people to the Kalamazoo asylum.” His list of personal, negative experiences goes on and on. So, while it must be accepted that Malcolm X was racist towards white people for this portion of his life, it is very important to recognise that these two examples of experiences with white people – both of which took place when he was at a young and impressionable age and which together resulted in his family being split up, show how he became that anti-white figure which he was infamous for being.

The idea that the white man was the devil was so compatible with a huge amount of personal experience..

This stage in Malcolm’s life is the one which is often unjustly used to characterise him. While it can be conceded that he did harbour many racist views towards white people at this stage, the accuracy of his portrayal as a militant promoter of black-on-white violence is still heavily disputed.

Indeed it can be proven without doubt that the only violence ever advocated by Malcolm X was self-defence against either white supremacists or corrupt, white, racist policemen. In actual fact, even at the height of his fame in this stage, when he was both the Minister of the Nation of Islam Temple Number Seven in Harlem, New York City, and the national spokesman for the organisation, both he and the Nation of Islam were, frequently criticised for their inaction and lack of militancy, in comparison to the life-risking tactics of Civil Rights activists in the Southern states. However, as the influence and fame of the Nation of Islam grew in the USA and abroad, the US mainstream media launched a large-scale smear campaign against the organisation, so as to hide all the good things that the Nation of Islam stood for. The most notable example of this was a television documentary in 1959, entitled The Hate That Hate Produced, which catapulted the Nation of Islam and particularly Malcolm X to nationwide fame.

Despite the huge popularity of the documentary at the time among the millions of Americans that watched it, with its revelations of the shocking activities of so-called ‘anti-Americans’, it has since been criticised for its one-sidedness and shameless attempts to shock white, American viewers, and to misrepresent the Nation totally. The programme is

Elijah Muhammad, leader of the Nation of Islam from 1934 up until his death in 1975 The second reason why he was so quick to become convinced of this religion, and in particular the idea that the white man was the devil, was directly due to the many incidents that he himself had experienced at the hands of white people.

Indeed, he recalled that at the point when his brother Reginald revealed to him that the white man was the devil ‘”[His] mind was involuntarily 8

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 said to have deliberately “Confused the Nation's rhetoric that condemned white people with a specific plan for violence against white people.”

The gross misrepresentation of the Nation in this documentary was mirrored in several national newspapers at the time. The reason for this smear campaign from the media was because the Nation of Islam marked the first radical alternative to the peaceful and somewhat more amenable Civil Rights Movement. Malcolm X threatened, with his superb rhetorical skill, to highlight the terrible social and economic hardships of black Americans in the North; and also to draw attention to what he dubbed “One of the greatest magical feats ever performed in America,” the utter uselessness of the famous Supreme Court rulings of the late 1950s in stemming de facto racism in the North.

So, with somewhat depressing predictability, the media went straight for the credibility of the organisation, and dismissed it as a violenceinciting group preaching a gospel of hate. Hence we can see that although the accusations lobbied against Malcolm X of black supremacist ideas and racism were undeniable, those opposed to him and who claimed that the Nation were promoting and planning actual unprovoked violence against white people were based on totally fictitious information, and were created due to white Americans’ fear that the radical approach could yield more significant gains than their preferred Civil Rights Movement.

and control the economics and politics of the black community.

Malcolm X: hate preacher or freedom fighter?

As a consequence of both his desire to reignite the African identity by getting his other new organisation, the Organisation for AfricanAmerican Unity accepted into the Organisation for African Unity, and to find African support for his UN petition, during this year Malcolm X made two trips to Africa, the second of which lasted four months, in which he met with every prominent leader of countries such as Egypt, Ghana, Nigeria and Ethiopia. Due to the immense respect these leaders had for him as the most famous Black Nationalist in the US since Garvey, he was able to establish powerful links that would help him greatly in his desire to convince African and Asian nations to petition the UN to intervene in US domestic affairs. His formal establishment of these links marked the first time that African states had formally acknowledged their connection with the descendants of enslaved Africans in America.

Unsurprisingly, the totally unorthodox methods of a civil rights leader going abroad and criticising America’s domestic policy drew internal anger towards Malcolm from the FBI, CIA and the State Department. The issue was exacerbated by the fact that the nations which Malcolm visited were not only of economic importance to the Western world because of their wealth of mineral resources, but were also nations pivotal to Cold War

The final stage of Malcolm’s life started in March 1964 with his announcement of his official split with the Nation of Islam and ended with his assassination by members of the Nation in February 1965. His split with the Nation, conversion to mainstream Islam and consequent pilgrimage to Mecca showed him that his racism against white people was not the answer to solving the problem. In Mecca he saw people from every sort of background co-existing harmoniously. This led him to the conclusion that working alongside anti-racist white people was not only possible but also necessary in achieving a racially just society.

This is the stage in his life which I believe is by far and away the most important, for during this stage, Malcolm revolutionised the Civil Rights Movement by elevating the struggle to the Human Rights of black Americans, by involving both the United Nations and several African, Muslim countries. The new organisation that he founded, the Muslim Mosque Inc. called for black Americans to reconstruct their African identity 9

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 to US Cold War and economic interests in Africa, and the threats he posed at home by a potential alliance with America’s foremost Civil Rights leader, it follows that silencing Malcolm and thus ending his direct foreign and domestic influence was something the FBI, CIA and more generally the US government would want.

interests. Hence, it is clear why the prospect of silencing Malcolm X would have been an attractive one to the State Department, given that, as historian George Breitman argues, “the State Department blamed him, for a good part of the strong stand against United States imperialism taken by African nation in the United Nations”.

However, I am not arguing that the FBI killed Malcolm X, as we know that he died at the hands of five Nation of Islam members. What many argue, however, is that Hoover’s FBI and the CIA both knew, as did Malcolm X, that the Nation were plotting his death and had issued an order for his death over a year earlier. But the FBI, the CIA and the New York Police Department did absolutely nothing to stop his inevitable fate. As historian C. A. Clegg wrote, “Without question, the FBI and the NYPD share partial culpability for the Murder.”

I conclude with this: not only did the FBI and other law enforcement agencies neglect their duties in defending a US citizen who they knew to be in grave danger, but following his death the US media sought and succeeded in their attempts to undermine the credibility of Malcolm X by branding him a violent, vicious, racist fanatic.

They particularly ignored what was the last stage in his life, where he took a bold stance against Western hegemony, stood for black pride, black unity and black nationalism, and revolutionised the Civil Rights Movement. They played up an ultimately false or exaggerated idea that he was, in the second stage of his life, a race fanatic on a par with the Ku Klux Klan, rather than the historically more accurate picture of a courageous fighter for human rights.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King: the ultimate pairing?

Furthermore, the changing relationship between Martin Luther King Junior and Malcolm was yet another reason for the continuing deterioration of relations between Malcolm and the government. It seems that once Malcolm had split with the Nation of Islam and had moved into the territory of finding African support for the black American struggle, Martin Luther King became very keen for the two to join forces, particularly because King, who was the ultimate paragon of non-violent resistance, had begun to question the wisdom of not being more radical, following the Sixteenth Street Church bombing in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963, where four young black girls were killed.

An alliance between King, a man whom the government had always thought they could indulge due to his non-violent resistance methods, and the radical Malcolm X greatly frightened the US authorities. Indeed, historian Karl Evanzz noted that after “The FBI encountered information indicating that Malcolm X and Dr. King might actually become partners in the civil rights struggle…Hoover, in conjunction with the CIA, initiated a new phase…against Malcolm X and Dr. King.” Hence, due to the threats Malcolm X posed

WANT TO KNOW MORE? Nikhil has done a fantastic job in assessing the life of one of the Civil Right’s Movement’s greatest heroes. If you want to read more about Malcolm X, the following books might be useful:

10



The Autobiography of Malcolm X by Malcolm X and Alex Haley



Race and US Foreign Policy: The AfricanAmerican Foreign Affairs Network by Mark Ledwidge



Malcolm X: The FBI File by Clayborne Carson

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

General Douglas MacArthur: What Might Have Been He was the hero of the Second World War and the villain of the Korea. Now Rahul Ravi examines the career of one of the finest minds in military history and asks: what would the world have held if he had not pushed past the 38th Parallel?

W

hen Douglas MacArthur was born to Arthur and Mary MacArthur on the 26th January 1880, much was expected of him, even though he was the youngest of his brothers. His father was a Civil War hero by the time he was 18, particularly after the battle of Missionary Bridge in 1863, where he was the commanding officer. By the time the time he was 19, Arthur MacArthur was made a colonel after fighting in 13 different battles; the youngest soldier in the Union army to achieve that rank.

Already, sixteen years before Douglas was born, his father was setting a standard which he would spend a lifetime trying to emulate. This was not the only distinctive similarity between father and son: both were regarded by their peers as domineering, arrogant, and almost irrational.

Indeed, Arthur MacArthur’s aide, Colonel Enoch Crowder claimed that Arthur ‘was the most flamboyantly egotistical man he had ever seen, until he met his son’. According to the historian David Halberstam, Arthur also “Had the most unfortunate need to be right at all times.” His egotistical character was further demonstrated by the fact that despite ending his military career as a three star general, the highest rank possible at the time, he was disappointed with it. Whatever he achieved was never enough in his mind. The same was true for his son.

option; mistakes were for other people to make.

This requirement was what possibly brought out the worse side of his character later in life.

General MacArthur, complete with the obligatory oversized pipe Despite excelling at West Point, and coming first in his class of 96, posting some of the highest scores ever recorded there, his mother was always there to remind him that there was more for him to conquer and achieve. Following on from this, his brilliance as a soldier earning him seven Silver Stars, Douglas MacArthur was made the youngest US Division Commander of the First World War .

His rapid rise through the ranks was largely due to not just his own military brilliance, but also the persistent, manipulative letters sent by his mother to his superiors. This soon led to his promotion to General in 1917, yet another position that he had been the youngest ever to achieve. But still his mother was not satisfied. And due to the attitude she had instilled into him, neither was he. Partly due to this egocentric and domineering attitude, MacArthur had very few real friends, which was demonstrated by the very few people who attended

The need to be the best at everything was not just contributed genetically by his father, but another unlikely source. His mother, Mary ‘Pinky’ MacArthur held a severe influence over him from a young age, which was unusual for the time. This was partly due to the premature deaths of his two older brothers. When (after much flattery by his mother) he attended the prestigious military academy, West Point, she moved into a room at a nearby hotel, in order to ensure he did not drop below the high standards set by his father. It was almost as though she not only wanted her son to avenge the failures in her husband’s life, but to compete against his achievements. From a young age the requirement of success was drilled into him. He was taught that failing was simply not an 11

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 his wedding. The policy drilled into him of success at the expense of all other values meant that there was simply no room for them.

President on two counts. Firstly, he claimed the best course of action wasn’t a limited war in Korea, but to also attack mainland China. Secondly , he voiced his discontent publicly; something that Truman had specifically told him not to do. As a result, MacArthur was dismissed from his command on the 10th April 1951. Although this was an unpopular (and arguably unjustified) decision , few can argue that MacArthur was the orchestrator of his own downfall. His sheer arrogance in believing that he could get away with saying anything, due to his support from the public and the Republicans, typified everything he had been taught by his mother.

His further achievements included being made Superintendent at West Point Academy between 1919 and 1922 , a period in which he helped to greatly modernise the facilities there. After his instrumental role in quelling the Philippine Scout Mutiny, he was made the country’s youngest ever Major General . By 1930, he was Chief of Staff of the American Army.

Although he was a relatively well known figure by this point, he became a national icon in the Second World War , after his defence of the Philippines from Japanese attack, his escape to Australia, and his return to the Philippines to defeat the Japanese a few years later. For this achievement, he was awarded the Medal of Honour. He also effectively ruled Japan between 1945-1951, helping the country get back on its feet both politically and economically. As a result, he was the stand out candidate to lead the United Nations Command in the Korean War, due to his active military experience of two World Wars. By the start of the Korean War, Douglas MacArthur was not just a towering military figure, but also a towering political figure, who was extremely popular, whether the President liked it or not. The attitude that accompanied this position ultimately led to his downfall.

Throughout his career, he had always been led to believe that loyalty was a one way street; he could command loyalty and respect, but would give loyalty and respect to no one. This is demonstrated by the contempt he held, not just for Truman, but also President Roosevelt during the Second World War. It is believed that when he heard news of Roosevelt’s death, he described him as a man ‘who would never tell the truth if a lie would serve him just as well’. Considering that Roosevelt ordered his rescue from the Philippines in 1941, and was largely responsible for MacArthur’s wide acclaim after this, this shows serious ingratitude. There were times in his career when he had been touted for the Republican candidate for Presidency. Who knows where he might have ended up if his own ego had not ultimately got the better of him? In the end, he was his own worst enemy.

At one point, the Korean War seemed to be yet another one of MacArthur’s successful conquests. After the extremely successful Inchon landing orchestrated by the man himself, the UNC pushed the North Koreans back to the 38th Parallel . Everything was going smoothly as President Truman authorised MacArthur to cross the 38th Parallel and invade North Korea, in an attempt to ‘roll-back’ Communism. However, MacArthur had played down the potential threat of a Chinese intervention. As a result, it seriously damaged his reputation when the Chinese successfully intervened and forced the advancing UNC troops back to the 38th Parallel. The war would last a further two years , as MacArthur’s overly confident approach had led to the UNC overextending their forces.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If you want to extend your knowledge of General Douglas MacArthur and the Korean war from Rahul’s excellent biography then you might like to try:

MacArthur still wouldn’t accept he had made a mistake. Instead, he went directly against the 12



The Korean War by Max Hastings



The Emperor General: A Biography of Douglas Macarthur by Norman H Finklestein

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Racism in 21st Century America In a more modern piece, Andrew Williams explains why the land of the free is really the land of the segregated

P

eople speak about America being the leader of the free world and the home of opportunities for everyone, however this sentiment is, in my opinion, a myth.

was desegregated by President Truman. However, the reality is very different. Firstly, it is worth noting that 20% of the armed forces are from African-American communities. In this context we can then really see the picture that the statistics paint. Of the 38 four-star generals/admirals in the armed forces, only one is black and less than 6% of the 923 general officers or admirals are black. As a whole, of all the officers in the US military, less than 10% of them are black. When looking at the armed forces as a whole these are staggeringly low figures. These points also back up the argument that there is discrimination in promotion in the armed forces. There is also the factor of recognition for bravery by African-Americans in the armed forces, which again is relatively insignificant in comparison to whites. In the four recent wars prosecuted by the US military (Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq) there were a total of 256 Congressional Medals of Honour awarded (the highest award military personnel can be awarded).

However only 18 of these went to blacks, and when you remember that one-fifth of the military is black it begs the question of whether or not blacks get the same recognition as whites in combat.

This article will look at racism in America and examine the problems that African-Americans continue to face today.

Firstly, African-Americans are discriminated against in the economic section of American life; in hiring, promotions and salaries. On average African-Americans are on lower salaries than their Caucasian peers, and there are also less of them in management positions and in the professions. A higher percentage of African-Americans find themselves unemployed and therefore in poverty, as opposed to the white majority. In 2007, it was found that the median family income of a black family was $31, 969. This figure is about the same as the average salary of a white person in 1968. It is also 4.4% lower than it was in 2003. Most significantly, it is $20,000 less than the median white family income. This implies inequality in salaries. Furthermore 20% of whites were on more than $100,000 per annum, a proportion more than twice than that of blacks. A further point in favour of my argument can be seen in the discrimination in promotion at work. In 2008 there were nearly three times as many whites in management positions and the professions than there were those of African-American descent.

The discrimination in hiring is also clear as, in 2011, there were twice as many unemployed blacks as whites (17% of the black population) which in fact, in relation to whites, has become even more iniquitous after 2008 (when it was 8% black to 5% white in US unemployment statistics). All of this shows why in 2009 26% of black Americans were living in poverty, once again twice the US national average.

The American Military: one big happy family?

My second example of the historical persistence of racism in US society is in the American military.

In theory, this institution should be free of discrimination, seeing as more than 60 years ago it 13

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 basketball. If you are naturally quick, you only need to keep running and you can become very good. Perhaps a sport like golf is more telling of the differences between black and whites. I say this as a sport like golf has skills than can be developed by coaching, which requires money.

Once again we can see why on the 2010 PGA tour, only two golfers were black Americans (one being Tiger Woods).

Next, and probably the most controversial part of the argument is that discrimination in American politics exists possibly in its most prevalent form towards African-Americans. There are very few black governors, senators, judges or attorneys.

Even though the US has a black president there is not, and has never been, a significant representation of black Americans in the Senate.

To this day there have only been four black senators, but significantly three of them came from the same state: Illinois. This shows that, in the majority of states, blacks are still not credible political candidates. Also, there have been only three African-American governors of states, highlighting the lack of blacks in the House of Representatives. The other interesting fact is that only four states have elected either a black governor or senator, as there have been three senators from Illinois and a governor and senator from Massachusetts (the other two were New York and Virginia). This shows that racist attitudes are still prevalent in the ‘south’ (Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi) showing the slowness of social change in that part of America. There is a potential weakness to my thesis: how do I explain Barrack Obama’s election to the presidency? While this is speculation, I believe he was elected through positive racism: American élites wished to have the political fig leaf of being able to say that ‘we have a black president,’ while failing to deal with the more fundamental racist aspects of US society.

The question must be asked: why? There is no concrete reason that I can point to in order to explain this discrimination and the differences between blacks and whites. There is a very simple reason why. It was only really in the 1950’s and 1960’s that there was a change in emphasis to promoting equality for blacks and even then only legislation was changed: not discriminatory attitudes and thoughts. As the current generation is the first one after this de jure change, it is no real surprise that inequality still exists throughout American society. Therefore, I believe that complete equality for blacks will only come about once the negative attitudes towards them have subsided which will be a long and gradual process.

This was due to a raise in awareness of civil rights thanks to people during the 1950s like Rosa Parks, an instigator of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, and organisations like the NAACP who helped fight legal cases such as Brown vs. Board of education.

These initial cases set legal precedents. However for Martin Luther King and Malcolm X during the 1960’s, this wasn’t good enough. They wanted laws written down, which is what they got. The major breakthroughs were The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and The Voting Rights act of 1965 which outlawed segregation in the workplace but more importantly outlawed literacy tests which had stopped blacks voting previously.

Finally, we come to entertainment and sport. Even though you may think that the film industry especially doesn’t discriminate against AfricanAmericans, given the number of high profile actors from that community, there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise. Firstly, there are very few absolutely top draw black actors who could sell a film on their own: maybe only Morgan Freeman, Will Smith and Eddie Murphy. However there are probably twenty or thirty white actors (male and female) who are in the same class. Also, out of the top thirty grossing films in recent history there was only one in which a black actor plays one of the main roles, which was Eddie Murphy in Shrek as the voice of Donkey.

Complete equality will only come about once there is economic parity between blacks and whites.

There are a number of reasons for this. Firstly, once there is economic parity it will mean there is no discrimination in salaries which is the first step. Then, black and white children will be able to be educated together, at the same top quality schools and universities which in turn will dispel stereotypes about blacks and therefore in the long run no one will believe that there is a difference between white and black, thus achieving Martin Luther King’s aims of complete social equality along with economic and educational equality.

This can also be seen in sport. There are many high quality black basketball players, footballers and athletes, however these sports aren’t proof of anything as they rely on physical build. If you are tall, as long as you practice enough, you can play 14

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Why Racism in America is Simply a Xenophobic Stereotype In a bizarre twist, Abhishek Senapati argues that Americans are not racist, and that by perpetuating such a stereotype we must ourselves hold some culpability

O

ne hundred and fifty-five years ago, in 1857, Chief Justice Taney delivered his infamous ruling on the Dred Scott v.

Sandford case, declaring that people of African descent brought into the United States as slaves or their descendants were not protected by the Constitution and were not American Citizens.

Since then there has been incredible progress for the Civil Rights movement and the formation of an African-American identity. Whilst there has been the occasional hiccup in race relations, such as in the current Trayvon Martin murder case, the extent of the progress made means that, on the whole, the United States of America is impartial towards different races and ethnicities. In particular, the American establishment in its various forms – due to its willingness to engage in affirmative action as well as willingness to engage in its policies – is simply no longer ‘racist.’

safeguarded through Supreme Court rulings such as that of Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), which upheld the University of Michigan Law School’s interest in promoting class diversity, they seem to have little effect. Despite the many scholarships and grants on offer for low income students, this has failed to deal with the root cause of this fundamental disparity: the crushing, grinding poverty and limited educational aspirations of many African-Americans.

Indeed in 2011, 9 out of the 10 poorest American states were in the south, where people of AfricanAmerican origin make up 55% of the population.

In the sixteen states in the Deep South region (as defined by the United States Census Bureau to consist of Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, Delaware Alabama, Kentucky, Mississippi, Tennessee, Arkansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma, and Texas) there are the lowest average household incomes, but also the highest Gini coefficients, representative of a high level of income inequality.

Average personal incomes do seem to show some economic disparity between African-Americans and other races in America today. In 2009, African -American households earned on average $32,584 per year. This is below the $49,777 average amongst all races, in particular the $ 51,861 or the $65,469 average earned by white and Asian households, respectively. However, this contrasts with the success of other black communities, namely African first-generation voluntary migrants, who earn an average $36,691 across America and $52,9980 in the Washington D.C. metro area. How is that a newly settled African migrant racial group (of which 38% percent have limited English proficiency) is more successful than the deeply established and fluent African American population?

The answer would seem to lie in educational standards; it is no accident that these African-born Americans also have the one of the highest college degree attainment rates as 38% have a Bachelor’s degree or higher. This figure is almost twice as large as the 19.8% of African-Americans and significantly larger than that of the 30.3% of white Americans who have the same qualifications.

Whilst affirmative action policies in admissions have been beneficial to minorities and have been

Is it all about money?

Even those in the north who sought to escape previous racial tensions through the “Great Migrations” of the early 1930s and 1940s are often stuck in northern ghettoes and ignored or simply forgotten, something that has happened again during the current economic climate.

15

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 The difference between the African-American population in the ghettoes such as those in the Washington D.C. area are different from the first generation African migrant settlers in that they are often condemned to a life of crime due to the limited educational aspirations and lack of access to decent facilities and thus may place less importance on gaining a college education. This is also due to the incredibly high average college fees; the average annual tuition fees and cost (including room and board) of attending a private nonprofit 4year college is $35,636 – a figure larger than the average annual household income amongst African -Americans.

caused the establishment of the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) in 1941. It also provides evidence of the sustained pressure exerted by the Civil Rights Movement. This can be shown in Executive Order 10479 signed by President Dwight D. Eisenhower on August 13, 1953 and the Executive Order 11246, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 24, 1965 (influenced by the Moynihan Report on the 1964 Harlem Riots). These executive orders sought to ensure non-discriminatory, equal employment opportunities for federal employees and federal contractors. The latter is particularly notable, as it required United States government contractors to “Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.”

This may paint a depressing picture of AfricanAmerican educational and occupational prospects, however there is still hope for the future. KIPP, the Knowledge Is Power Program, and Questbridge are just two examples of charitable organizations which attempt to increase educational attainment at High School level but also aim to aid and encourage increasing numbers of inner city economically deprived students from minority backgrounds to apply for and, most importantly, complete College degrees. As well as these nonprofit programmes, there has also been significant governmental intervention. Most notably and recently, was the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, that aimed to increase the quality of education and the accountability of the teaching in public schools nationwide through

Whilst this shows the quagmire in which many African-Americans are stuck in, thanks to organisations such as Questbridge and KIPP, there are positive signs for the future in repairing the effects of previous racial discrimination, lower living standards and crushed hopes in inner-city ghettoes. As their first generation immigrant counterparts have shown, with determination and ability there is a path to success. Institutional racism in America has been gradually worn down through affirmative action and the continued perseverance of the Civil Rights Movement.

Therefore while more targeted affirmative action is required to correct for past injustices, I would argue that the American establishment and political systems are now objective and fundamentally non-discriminatory. Maybe it is time to look at the inequalities in our own society before we condemn those of others.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If you are interested in America and her on-going problems with racism then you might be interested in:

Dwight Eisenhower introduced anti-discriminatory legislation in the 1950s



Why They Just Can't Get Over It: A Spiritual And Psychological Approach To Overcoming Racism in America by Kenneth Skelton



Black Resistance, White Law: A History of Constitutional Racism in America by Mary Frances Berry



Freedom’s Sword: The NAACP and the Struggle against Racism in America, 1909-1969 by Jonas Gilbert

annual standardized testing programs to narrow class and race gaps in performance.

Furthermore, the fact that African migrants are able to succeed in employment shows the successful legacy of A. Philip Randolph’s efforts in the March on Washington Movement, which 16

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

From the Buses of Montgomery to the Pinnacle of Power: How Barack Obama has taken African-Americans to the Mountain Top Josh Lee examines the rise and rise of Barack Obama, from humble beginnings to President of the United States

N

men knew the ins and outs of the electoral system incredibly well.

ow that we are well into 2012, the hot topic of Obama’s re-election chances is now on the tips of everyone’s gossiping tongues. Nevertheless, this article doesn’t intend to bore you with the maybes, the potentialities, or any possible outcomes. It would rather present you with a bite size review of why a man who was a relatively unknown senator just 4 years prior to his 2008 election campaign, was able to climb to the top of US political power and become the first African – American president, giving black Americans arguably their most significant political success in America since the Montgomery bus boycotts of 1955.

Obama not only breathed history into America by becoming its first black president, but also injected a new feeling of hope into a broad range of traditionally marginalized and disaffected groups in America with his campaign slogan of “Change we can believe in.”

Initially, the first question to answer is how did Obama become victorious in the primaries and pave his path to victory?

He gave sceptics an excuse to believe in politics again by publicizing his desire for a united government, of a bipartisan approach and not one simply consisting of red Republicans versus blue Democrats, whilst giving African-Americans the belief they needed to fully realise their potential as his ambitions and plans over the evacuation of Iraq and economic regulation were not only being heard but also favoured over those of his democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton. Such views made him a plausible president.

What arguably separated Mr. Obama from the pack of his fellow Democrats during the primaries was the vast scale of hope he had inspired throughout not only Democrat states, but also swing states such as Ohio (eventually winning this state by 3.82% in the national elections), making promises of a better nation from the hopeless one in which they were living under. Initially, both Obama and black Americans did not believe he could gain any success, as questions over his political inexperience and race were being put under scrutiny: many thought he was not ready for the cut-throat political battle that awaited him as a presidential candidate. Not only this but the common thinking was that Obama could not muster up enough skill to persuade the Deep South (which was arguably not ready to accept a black president) and Republican dominated states

Once he realised he had the potential to win, Obama knew that he could cause a real stir in American history and so had to set up arguably the most formidable campaign organisation in US political history. With David Plouffe (campaign manager), David Axelrod (media adviser) and Robert Gibbs (communications director) in his campaign team there was quality, substance and expertise provided to team Obama as all three 17

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 it reminded voters that she wasn’t on her own (this seemed to prove those doubters right who had the traditional view that a woman was not independent or strong enough to be head of the US). Such an apparent inability to separate herself from her husband raised questions such as - if she could not control Bill in the primaries, how was she to control him in the White House?

to vote for him. Support, however, was thrown behind him after the Iowa caucuses (which is the first election in the primary season and is seen as a crucial one) when he proved that white America was indeed prepared to accept him, as he won the poll by gaining 37.6% of the votes compared to 29.4% won by Hillary Clinton (Obama’s main Democratic competitor) and 29.7% won by John Edwards (another Democratic competitor)

Bill Clinton not only blocked his wife from having an independent image but also often overshadowed her, mostly for the wrong reasons, as he was seen commenting on controversial issues such as race.

Arguably, the most famous controversial thing the former president said was whilst pressing for an endorsement from Ted Kennedy: “A few years ago, this guy (referring to Obama) would have been getting us coffee.” As a result of such patronising words, Teddy Kennedy refused to endorse Clinton as belittling Obama in such a way was very offensive to him. Demeaning and irrespective comments such as this proved to be costly towards his wife’s final voting results.

This was a race that Clinton could have won and probably should have won, as she was the apparent front runner for the Democratic Party from the start. Although she came very close to success, owing to various reasons she fell short to Obama, even though people saw her as a serious candidate.

The main reason, however, for Hillary Clinton’s eventual primary failure was down to her strategy.

She ran for months and months, wasted many resources and much time arguing and building a campaign based on experience whilst two-thirds of Democratic voters wanted change, proving why Obama’s campaign appealed so much to the electorate. Not only did her campaign slogan prove to be costly, but so did the Clinton tactical strategy. The Clinton campaign was banking on an early knockout blow to Obama, demonstrated by a record-breaking early fundraiser (as a result of her early over-expenditure, the Clinton campaign was $12 million in debt). With a loaded primary schedule, Clinton and her top strategists thought that they would have the nomination wrapped up

by Super Tuesday (a crucial date as this is a Tuesday in either February or March of a presidential year where most states hold primary elections) on Feb 5. When appearing on ABC News 2 months beforehand she foolishly stated:

Hillary Clinton: Obama’s opponent in the Democratic nomination of 2008 One main factor why Obama won the primaries over Hillary Clinton was because of her inability to sculpt a strong image as a sole wielder of power, as she never distanced herself enough from Bill Clinton in the course of this race. He was often under media spotlight because of his controversial mishaps (more on this further on). Voters wished to see her stand more on her own two feet in order for her to understand that she could do the job and it would be her own presidency, with others wanting to see whether Hillary could indeed be a strong independent figure that was needed to become the ‘Commander-in-Chief.’ The evident inability to become indivisible from Bill did not help to persuade people that she could be a sole leader, as every time Bill showed up on the radar

“I’m in it for the long run…it’s not a very long run.

It’ll be over by Feb. 5.”

The result was a colossal miscalculation as Clinton had little political organization in place in the states that followed and was outspent by more than 4-to-1 by Obama, who eventually won 11 contests in a row (the majority of them being 18

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 caucuses) with Clinton never being able to catch up. Eventually Obama received enough superdelegate endorsements on June 3 to claim that he had secured the simple majority of delegates necessary to win the Democratic nomination.

president, using his speeches as a vessel which carried his visions and hopes of peace to the nation. Obama’s ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech made a very positive impact in America as the Pew Research Center polled that that 85 percent of Americans said they had heard at least a little of the speech and 54 percent saying they heard a lot about it. This speech was delivered in response to controversial remarks made by his former pastor Reverend Wright who was accused of denouncing the United States and saying that the government was guilty to crimes against ‘people of colour’). As a result of such remarks made by someone closely associated with Obama, this could have fatally undermined his campaign. However he reacted well, almost mesmerizingly. Obama’s charisma, discernment and intelligence was demonstrated in the contents of the speech.

Having analysed the reasons for his success in securing the Democratic Party nomination, what persuaded people to vote for him as president?

From the start, Obama’s views contrasted with those of George W. Bush and this had immediately answered those who had grown weary of Bush’s reign, giving them a glimpse of promise that he would take them out of the 8 year period of economic and political volatility, owing partially to Bush’s prosecution of the Iraq War. People wanted to see a new leader, one who represented change, and who had potential to overcome the war crisis – and Obama offered such potential. John McCain (Obama’s Republican opponent for president) however did not. The Republican senator was strongly in favour of the war in Iraq, stating that he “Would rather lose his campaign then lose a war.” For many people this showed that his military pilot mindset was still with him, revealing that victory in war was his true priority, going against the many voters’ desire for an end to the intractable Middle East conflicts.

Obama’s anti-war message gave him an advantage, as George W. Bush had become a very unpopular figure amongst the nation as a result of his bellicose policies, thus arguably providing virtually any Republic candidate with a potential millstone for their campaign. Though John McCain spoke for the proposed continuation of the occupation of Iraq as a peacetime presence, like the United States maintained in Germany and Japan after WW2, his statement that “the United States could be in Iraq for as much as the next 50 to 100 years” inevitably proved costly as Obama used this slip up to his advantage, thus tying McCain’s policies with those of the unpopular Bush administration. This pro-war stance was corroborated with his controversial running partner, the pro-gun, inexperienced, former governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin all of which tarnished McCain’s hopes of becoming president.

Obama addressed the long tension between the ideals of equal citizenship and freedom expressed in the Constitution and the Civil Rights Movement, alongside the goals and ideas of his own campaign. Whilst dismissing his former pastor’s comments as wrong and divisive, Obama continued to say that on the other hand, even after centuries of racial inequality, Americans could come together to solve the nation's problems, in particular the problems of health care, education and the Iraq War. He concluded his speech by relating a story about a young white woman who organised for his campaign in South Carolina and

Barack Obama’s oratorical skills proved to be a necessary skill too if he were to convince the voters why he was the best man to become their next 19

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 serve an evident need on the part of white voters to be able to identify themselves with him rather than the racial ‘other’, as white America could also claim his success as a victory of their own.

the personal connection she made with an elderly black volunteer.

“By itself, that single moment of recognition between that young white girl and that old black man is not enough. It is not enough to give health care to the sick, or jobs to the jobless, or education to our children. But it is where we start. It is where our Union grows stronger. And as so many generations have come to realize that over the course of the two-hundred and twenty one years since a band of patriots signed that document in Philadelphia…that is where the perfecting begins”

This emphasis on race is not intended to downplay certain other factors that undoubtedly contributed to Obama’s success: instead it is an acknowledgment that race played an integral role as he was both a biological and visual symbol of a fusion of black and white America which had appealed so much to liberals (with liberal states such as California and New York providing Obama with massive wins in the electoral college votes) and he spoke of race in terms which could be accommodated to all sides of the argument.

This speech epitomised his dream of a united America: all citizens together working in unity, ridding problems both domestic and foreign. It is now a commonly held opinion that this speech proved vital in Obama’s winning of the presidency .

After a long period of controversy and division, Americans would not have fallen for Barack’s easy charms and mile-long smile if the underlying promises and hopes of unity he offered were not what they were seeking. His appeal to black America had proved critical with 95% of black population voting in favour of him, and even though he only gained 7.6% more of the popular vote by McCain, it still had proved that his ideas and plan were being heard. He received over twice as many electoral college votes as his opponent did.

Arguably the biggest factor which ties all the factors together is down to how he dealt with the race issue. Obama did not simply try to prove he could speak only to black people and tie himself to a ‘black campaign’ like that of the more radical politician Jesse Jackson. Instead, his goal was to romance the entire country as the candidate who could transcend the racial hostility which has been a burden for America for so long, which was demonstrated in his ‘A More Perfect Union’ speech.

Such sentiments can be tied in with the concept of colour blindness – where people, regardless of race or colour, should be treated as equal as a solution to racial disparity. The ‘colour blind’ point of view in relation to Obama’s success is taken to be extremely important, as the potential of a black man in the White House was a signal for the last racial hurdle to be cleared, which seemed a very attractive idea to a country that has been scarred by the legacy of slavery.

Americans knew that he might not have even been the real deal: that he was all talk and no substance. However, ultimately, they were prepared to grasp at the chance of change, a black liberal in a conservative country, and the prosperity of a new nation. However slim a chance of being realized, it was just this adventure into a potential journey of hope that Barack Obama had to offer the nation. Politically speaking, it turned out to be extremely effective.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? The rapid rise of Obama is so interesting that one would find it hard not to be interested in his story. Here are some suggestions you might like:

Also, by setting up a campaign that was not aimed at the black community only, Obama had opened himself up to winning more white votes, which arguably he would have never received if he did ran a racially themed ‘black campaign’. Despite the fact that Obama had made no secret of his strong sense of African-American identity, he did not disregard his white heritage and thus a plurality of white voters understood the point that he was half-white or a mixed-race politician, rather than a black one. To assert that Obama is mixed-race: half-white and half-black seemed to 20



Change We Can Believe in: Barack Obama's Plan to Renew America's Promise by Barack Obama



The Bridge: The Life and Rise of Barack Obama

by David Remnick



Race of a Lifetime: How Obama Won the White House by Mark Halperin and John Heilemann

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Was Watergate Inevitable?

Ed Green explores the greatest political scandal of the 20th century and asks: had the seeds already been sown before the scandal hit?

E

ven forty years after the event, Watergate is still regarded by most as one of the greatest political scandals of all time. In the midst of the Cold War, Richard Milhous Nixon became the first president to have impeachment proceedings brought against him in a hundred and four years, and was the first president to resign the post in America’s history. Such events have ingrained Watergate in every aspect of American life, even to the point where large political scandals now haw –gate tacked onto the end of them. Yet Watergate did not suddenly emerge out of nothing, rather it is a historical event and, like all other historical events, can have its causes evaluated.

but outside the normal channels (at this time, the President did not have to seek a court order to wiretap anyone, although it must be noted that only two people were wiretapped under previous administrations). As more articles poured out of the NYT, more wiretaps were ordered, all illegal and all with aims more sinister than the prevention of leaks. The Kissinger Wiretaps (the man himself fought for years to prevent them being named in his honour) lasted just under two years and included seventeen people, many of whom were political rather than national enemies.

Nixon had showed what kind of President he would be already.

The greatest problem one encounters when assessing the run up to Watergate is the knowledge that Richard Nixon lied about practically everything while in office, and then continued to lie up until his death. This, coupled with the lack of other real evidence that is accessible makes garnering the truth from the ‘Nixonian’ language used in the White House problematic. His memoirs are full of errors, and the memoirs of his aides are either written in his defence or as an attempt to damn him for the whole scandal and so objectivity takes a back seat.

One of things that is certain is that the bungled Watergate break-in was not by any means an isolated incident in the Nixon White House.

Watergate, John Dean (former special-council to the President turned prosecution witness in the Watergate hearings) would argue in 1972 was caused in part by an ‘insatiable appetite for political intelligence’. Nixon’s thirst for knowledge would reveal itself virtually as soon as he entered office. In May 1968, The New York Times published an article on the bombing of North Vietnam, which sat very uncomfortably with the president’s promise that he would not escalate the war. Henry Kissinger asked for one of his aides to be wiretapped by the FBI, who, strangely, did so

Richard Milhous Nixon: the 37th President of the United States and the first to resign the office

For all the things that the FBI and CIA would do for Nixon, they drew the line at some requests (for example they would not wiretap Nixon’s brother Donald when it appeared he might be in trouble).

21

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 Nixon clashed again with the New York Times in 1971 when they published the first set of what became known as the ’Pentagon Papers’. These were in effect seven hundred pages that documented in detail the US involvement in Vietnam dating right back to the time of President Kennedy. Despite the major security leak, Nixon initially thought that he could use this information to discredit the Democrats (the Papers themselves stopped with LBJ, probably because most of the things Nixon was doing in Vietnam were grossly unconstitutional). The leak was traced back to Daniel Ellsberg, a low ranking former Pentagon employee who had stolen one of the seven copies of the report and given it to the NYT. After failing to get publication of the documents halted by the Supreme Court, Nixon was incensed. In a time when he was attempting to negotiate with the USSR and the PRC (People’s Republic of China), the last thing he needed was an internal leak as it gave the administration a sign of weakness. He therefore wanted Daniel Ellsberg destroyed and humiliated rather than simply indicted, and so he turned to his special intelligence unit and told them to get busy. This decision would b returned to again and again during the Watergate Hearings, and would play a significant part in the downfall of Richard Nixon.

To that end, Nixon decided that he needed his own people, ones that worked for the White House rather than the country, ones that would obey his every order no matter how illegal. Eventually the man they found was John Caulfield, who had worked for the Nixon campaign in 1960 as a police liaison. He in turn acquired Tony Ulasewicz, who was paid covertly out of political funds, although Caulfield himself had a White House office and extension number. Simultaneously, Nixon created the Interagency Committee on Intelligence, which was effectively his method of proving who was boss. He appointed Tom Charles Huston as White House Liaison (Hoover chaired the group, but Huston was the only one who could call meetings and he set the agenda). From this committee emerged a report explaining the methods behind obtaining more political intelligence. It amounted in effect to break-ins, kidnapping and slander (Huston had himself in a memorandum to Nixon noted in the margins that ‘use of this technique is clearly illegal’). Nevertheless, Nixon passed the Huston Plan on July 14th, before rescinding it two weeks later after Hoover complained. Of the four security agencies that this plan effected, it is worrying to note that only one opposed the measures, and even then only because it endangered himself. Nixon was operating in a climate suited to his interests.

Meanwhile Ehrlichman set to work on Ellsberg. A lawyer by trade, Ehrlichman himself had neither the ability nor the inclination to go digging for dirt on Daniel Ellsberg. He turned therefore first to Egil Krogh and David Young to form another group in the Whitehouse: the Plumbers, so called because they would stop the leaks coming from the White House. These two men then found the two men who would soon become the architects of Watergate: Howard Hunt and Gordon Liddy. The former had worked for the CIA and had a long history with the Nixon camp (they had sent him disguised as a journalist in 1969 to find out about Ted Kennedy and Chappaquiddick, and he had also in 1971 faked official cables that linked JFK to the assassination of Vietnamese leader Ngo Dinh Diem), and the latter was a former FBI man with a love of guns. The two together discovered that Ellsberg had seen a psychiatrist and so burgled the office of Dr Fielding turning up nothing of interest, using a group of Cuban exiles that would also find fame later as the instigators of the Watergate break-in. The Fielding break-in would resurface during the Watergate hearings, but it demonstrates either Nixon’s sheer

Daniel Ellsberg: the publisher of the Pentagon Papers

22

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 brazenness and disregard for the law or the laxity with which he ran his administration.

A darker more illegal campaign was being run as the primaries went on. John Caulfield suggested a plan, codenamed Sandwedge, that involved kidnap and break-ins. Even Nixon gave his support to the plan, but doubted Caulfield’s ability to carry it out.

Gordon Liddy was roped in as director of intelligence gathering after being interviewed by John Mitchell. Liddy took over the office in December 1971, and within a month had adapted the plan into something much greater and more expensive. That plan was called Gemstone, and was based on the promise of $1 million made by Jeb Magruder, one of the treasurers of CRP. The whole of that money was to be spent on break-ins, kidnapping, mugging and using a boat filled with prostitutes to entice Democrats. Mitchell at the time was still the Attorney General, and the meeting about the plan took place in his office.

Mitchell objected to the plan, but only to the cost and the sabotage elements. A second meeting took place in which the budget was halved and the idea to break into the Watergate (the Democratic National Committee headquarters were there) and Lawrence O’ Brien’s office, and the office of the Democrat candidate, but the plan was still shelved until Mitchell was instilled as head of CRP. A final version of the plan, Gemstone III, was put forward with a budget of $250, 000 and the immediate priority to bug the office of O’ Brien at the Watergate. The burglary was botched, and the ensuing scandal brought down the presidency.

The President himself was busy in 1971 with planning the election the following year.

Incumbent presidents traditionally have an advantage but Nixon intended to do something unheard of in American politics up until this point: he would effect the race for the Democratic candidature and in effect pick his own opponent.

The Committee to Re-Elect the President (CRP, or CREEP if you are a Democrat) would run the President’s campaign. This in itself was nothing new: Presidential candidates had run their own campaigns since the 1950s (Nixon himself had done better than his party in every election he had participated in except the 1952 gubernatorial).

What was new were the methods that the Nixon campaign used to ensure his re-election. ‘All politicians use dirty tricks’, but the Nixon campaign expanded the programme to the point where the ring-leaders would later be imprisoned for their actions.

The objective of the Republicans was identified fairly early on: Edmund Muskie must not under any circumstances become the Democrat candidate. The task was handed to various members of the Nixon campaign, none of whom talked to each other and none of whom had authorisation from the White House to carry out their objectives. CRP led the offensive and hired Donald Segretti, a former soldier in Vietnam, whose job it was to trip up the Democrats and encourage them to go against each other. Segretti came to prominence during the Florida primary, when his assistant stole Muskie stationary and suggested that another candidate, Henry Jackson, had fathered a child with an unmarried teenager and had had several homosexual encounters. The denial offered by the Jackson camp about the allegations combined with the denial from the Muskie camp about sending it in the first place did nothing to allay the suspicions on either side. In a particularly bizarre episode, Segretti organised for a naked woman to run through a hotel at the precise moment that Edmund Muskie was giving a speech. He withdrew his name after losing the Pennsylvania and Massachusetts primaries on April 25th. How much the Dirty Tricks campaign contributed to this decision is perhaps not as relevant as the decision that was taken in the first place to carry it out, not under the direct auspices of Nixon but in his name.

Richard Nixon would not have been impeached for the Watergate break-in. He had no direct knowledge of it and never agreed it, but it was the rock on which he perished because he covered it up. Of all the events that his men carried out, it is perhaps strange that this is what he was punished for, but it was the manner in which his entire presidency was run that invited mistakes and illegality, and by the end there was, in the words of John Dean ‘a cancer on the presidency’. It was the spread of this cancer that doomed him.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If scandal and political intrigue attracts you, then you might like to try the following:

23



Watergate by Fred Emery



Richard Nixon: Alone in the White House by Richard Reeves



RN by Richard Nixon

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Interview Section Ed Green and Hugh Williamson interview Dr Mike Foley, Senior Lecturer in America and the Wider World at the University of Sheffield, and ask what effect draft resistors had on the eventual US withdrawal from Vietnam.

Why is Vietnam such a controversial war, considering the United States’ actions in Korea and her embracement of the Truman Doctrine?

Well, Americans stood up against the Korean War too, and I think that’s something that most Americans don't understand and pretty much every American war has had a significant anti-war movement, with the exception of the Second World War, where there was an anti-war movement but it was small and limited to religious pacifists. But in Korea, for example, there was a significant anti-war movement but it was over so quickly and the action on the ground was over very quickly. Vietnam was the longest war in American history (with the exception of the ‘War on Terror’ blanket term). As for why Vietnam is so controversial, we could spend months talking about. I think primarily the Vietnam War is so controversial because the Americans don't win and by the time you are four or five years into it you have already surpassed the amount of involvement in the Second World War. The American public was expecting that within a three or four year period you were going to vanquish the enemy and that obviously did not happen in Vietnam, where the enemy were so ingrained. There is also the way the draft functioned, in a way that no one today would argue is a fair and equitable method and this turns it into a working class war and one that affects disproportionately the working class and the ethnic minorities against the backdrop of the Civil Rights movement and the wider urban unrest of the period. There’s also economic implications, so there are a lot of reasons why this war becomes so controversial and one of the things that is interesting to me is that they are not always reasons that you would think of or hope for. Certainly some people in the peace movement thought that the main critique of the war should be to do with war crimes and crimes against humanity, due to the fact that America killed 3.2 million A piece of draft resistance propaganda Vietnamese in a ten year war, but that’s 24

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

not what is privileged in the national discourse. Instead there is this Cold War construction of Communism versus anti-Communism, and the debate emerges as to whether it’s acceptable to fight proxy-wars, in kind of geo-political terms rather than moral or legal terms. The United States is a very pluralistic society and there are a lot of different viewpoints, but when you look at public opinion turning against the war it’s not because everyone was opposed to the immorality or illegality of it. Like the draft resistors that I wrote about, some opposed it because the United States had not won and the war seemed to be failing.

We study in the A-level course one module of Civil Rights and then one on Vietnam and Korea. How much are the two linked? Does one fuel the other?

Civil Rights are really important. By the time that the anti-war movement begins to gain some traction, and this doesn't really happen in any significant way until 1967, that’s 13 years after the Brown Decision, 12 after the Montgomery Bus Boycott and 10 years after Little Rock, and almost all the people who participate in the Draft Resistance movement are, even if they did not participate in the Civil Rights movement, they were inspired by the Civil Rights movement as a model. By 1967 there are people who are not sympathetic to the Civil Rights movement, but the majority of Americans hold Civil Rights activists in very high regard and think of it as a very successful campaign so in terms of the tactics and the civil disobedience and non-violence, that was vitally important to a vast number of the subfactions of the anti-war movement. For the draft resistors that I write about, public support is key because by disobeying the draft laws they think of themselves as doing the same thing as Civil Rights activists did on the freedom rides or the sit-ins.

To what extent was the draft resistance movement a youth movement?

The anti-war movement was enormously diverse, although the caricature is obviously the long haired hippies and college students leading the protests, but that’s pretty inaccurate.

There were demonstrations on college campuses and in cities like Boston there was an enormous concentration of students and graduates so that makes for a ready base of organised potential, but there are people of all ages involved in the anti-war movement. The business community organise around ending the war because they think it’s bad for the economy, and even in the draft resistance movement, although the majority are draftable men (19-26 years old), there are groups of older sympathisers that form to support it because they think that the draft resistance movement is a piece of the peace movement. When there is a trial in 1968 of five ’conspirators’ in the draft resistance it includes Dr Benjamin Spock (the famous paediatrician who wrote ‘Baby and Childcare’), William Sloane Coffin (the Yale Chaplain), so there are a lot of older, respected academics involved. By the time you get to the 1970s there are huge amounts of people turning out for demonstrations in Washington as well, so it is an extremely diverse group of people and that is something that is lost in American memory because of the way that popular media presents protest.

Nixon was very keen to project them as a minority, to what extent were their views shared by the American people?

Well it’s hard to say because we don't have good data on it. We have public opinion polls which show that by the end of 1969 public opinion was turning and it was about 50:50.

25

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Immediately after the Tet Offensive it turns decidedly against Johnson’s handling of the war and then it stays that way from then on all the way through Nixon’s presidency only fluctuating depending on the mood. But it’s hard to say why people say that they are opposed to the policy. Certainly, people are opposed because America, in their view, is not using enough military force to secure victory while the majority of those who oppose it simply oppose it because it has gone on too long and it’s costing too many lives. Nixon was a master at playing the political card where he casted opponents as a minority and created the idea of a ‘silent majority’ in favour of the war, which we know is really a construct that becomes useful to him politically, but even in the public opinion polls after the war, the majority of respondents always describe the Lyndon Johnson: liar or victim of the Tet offensive? war as ‘a disaster’ or ‘a tragedy’ and generally as a bad thing. But we don’t have clear evidence because people weren't collecting data in the way that I wish they had been.

Why did successive presidents not ‘get out’ of Vietnam?

One interpretation that historians point out is that the three men who presided over the Vietnam War (Kennedy, Johnson & Nixon) were in Congress in 1949 when Truman ‘lost’ China, and the sense from documentation and memoranda in all those administrations is that they were all terribly concerned with bringing international embarrassment on the United States and particularly with making their administrations look weak in standing up to the Communists (a legacy of McCarthy—Ed.). What’s important is that the Second World War was only a generation before this and if you look at a film put out by the Defence Department in 1965 called ‘Why Vietnam?’ (it’s available on YouTube– Ed.) it shows part of the speech in which LBJ explains why the US was escalating the war in Vietnam and introducing all these ground troops. The most important set-up for all of this is the Munich Conference of 1938, where the British were seen as foolishly appeasing the Nazis and that was the lesson that the US learned from history: “Look what happens when you appease these kinds of aggressors.” So the United States’ policy was consistent to the Truman Doctrine i.e. we go around the world and we make sure that the forces of Communism understand that we will fight them in every corner of the world. All three of those presidents buy into that idea. They are very serious ‘Cold Warriors’ and even when Nixon is talking about ‘an honourable peace’ what he’s really talking about is winning.

Did the nature of Vietnam as the first televised war bring home to the American people the sheer brutality of conflict?

Certainly the presence of images being beamed into peoples’ living rooms is important 26

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

because the level of knowledge and understanding that the ordinary American family might have about the war was affected by this. There’s a lot of scholarship on the press and the war, as you may know, afterwards. in a kind of post-mortem after they had lost, the people who were in charge of the war, particularly military and government officials, tended to blame the press and the anti-war movement for stabbing the military in the back and undermining the war effort. All the studies that historians have done regarding press coverage all found that the press up to the years before the Tet Offensive basically presents a pretty positive view of the war to the American public. There are a few exceptions, but for the most part they rely only on government sources and follow the government’s version of events. It’s only after Tet, which comes as a surprise to the government and the American public, that the press starts to question the credibility of the Johnson administration and then starts to broadcast more critical views on the war. Television is important, certainly.

Subsequent administrations learned their lesson and stopped reporters going off on their own and doing whatever they wanted in a warzone (as they did during Vietnam), but I don't think it affected public opinion. Once public opinion turned the media started Was television a factor in the opposition to the war? following it rather than the other way around.

If we compare it to modern day conflicts, there was domestic opposition to war in Iraq and Afghanistan but nothing like that with the Vietnam War. Why was Vietnam so special?

The United States fights wars differently to everyone else. It doesn't put in massive numbers of ground-troops and therefore doesn't lose massive numbers of personnel and that was so important, because in Vietnam they lost 58,000 people, and while that’s nothing compared to the First and Second World Wars, it’s still a lot, when you’re talking about losing hundreds a week on television. The Americans have lost about 5,000 in the last ten years. It’s still a lot, but it’s nowhere near the losses in Vietnam, so that’s a factor. The way that governments fight and manage the information in these recent wars is massively different. From the start the Bush administration embedded reporters in positions where they would be naturally sympathetic to the war and then really restrict the images that can be published so the American public to this day almost never see civilian casualties, even though we know there has been hundreds of thousands of civilian casualties. You also almost never see coffins with American flags draped over them (American servicemen killed in combat) coming home, so there’s been much greater control of information more recently and then I think there are other things about American culture which have changed. In the 1960s you did not have a thousand television stations and people did not commute long hours to work, and worked fewer hours than they do now. Being an activist and deciding that you are going to protest is a real commitment of time and energy that I think most Americans don't seem to have now, or if 27

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

they have that kind of time they put it into other things. If you look at all this technology that we have at our disposal now, as well as just consumerism, it takes up a much greater portion of American life than it did in the 1960s, and the fact that there’s no draft is significant because the overwhelming majority of Americans don’t know anybody affected by the wars, whereas with the draft functioning the way that it did in the 1960s, you were much more likely to know someone.

Even if they weren't your neighbour, you would know someone in your community that was getting drafted and sent off. The war felt closer to home. Political scientists have studied this, and there are some good articles on how the proximity of you knowing someone that has died in the war more directly affecting the way you think about the war. That’s more relevant to the Vietnam War, but my guess is that that’s why it’s very easy for most Americans today to tune out the fact that your country is at war all over the place.

Could you sum up the political legacy of Vietnam on the US? I think it’s still an unfolding process. I used to say before the current wars that in a purely practical sense — in a foreign policy and military strategy sense — that men who fought in the Vietnam War around the turn of the century would now be in command, both in the military and in Washington. Someone like Colin Powell for example, served in the Vietnam War and then became chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in the first Iraq War. He took a view that held sway for a long time that to avoid another Vietnam the United States would do two things (1) the US would fight any war in the future with overwhelming force and (2) the US would always have an exit strategy. So in the first Iraq War obviously it’s over in a matter of weeks but in the second Iraq War not so much. There is overwhelming force used, it is overwhelmingly from the air, and that is still the case in Afghanistan, and there’s a sense that there are no real rules. The US tortures people in Guantanamo Bay, holds people indefinitely, does all kinds of things that a generation of Americans never thought their country would do. There’s like a no-holds barred approach to it. On the other hand there seems to be an acceptance that is inconsistent with the lessons of Vietnam, that this war might go on forever, that the ‘War on Terror’ might be an unending war and the US has to be perpetually vigilant. Maybe you could relate that to the kind of similar ideas of perpetual vigilance during the Cold War and that Communism was a growing threat, but I don’t know. The control of the press is an important legacy of the Vietnam War, and I think the fact that there’s no draft and that they would rather use reserve units and an allvolunteer military, and even more than that they would prefer to use air strikes and unmanned drones and things like that. All those things are legacies of the Vietnam War because no president today would suggest re-introducing the draft or sending half a million troops into a warzone. Even in Iraq it never approaches those numbers.

WANT TO KNOW MORE? If this interview has sparked your interest in the draft resistance movement or the Vietnam war then here are some suggestions to further your knowledge: 

The Vietnam War by Katie Daynes



The Vietnam War: History in an Hour by Neil Smith (yes, Head of History Mr Smith)

28

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

Review Section The world of historical literature can be vast and daunting for even the most experienced of academics, so allow members of the History Department to provide you with some recommendations Malcolm X: a Life of Reinvention

By Manning Marable Publisher: Allen Lane Marable was Professor of History and Director of the Center for Contemporary Black History at Columbia University, until his death just prior to this book’s publication last year. Malcolm X: a life of reinvention was universally acclaimed, and was awarded the 2012 Pulitzer Prize for History.

The book focuses on three central issues: how Malcolm X find his way to the upper echelons Islam? What forces drove him to leave the Nation Who was responsible for his murder in 1965, and up?

did the teenage of the Nation of of Islam in 1964? subsequent cover

Breaking with the conventional view that Malcolm was converted by a fellow inmate whilst serving time in jail, Marable places Malcolm X’s radicalisation into a broader context, emphasizing the role of Marcus Garvey’s ideology and the radicalism of his family; all of which is brought into sharp focus for Malcolm by the murder of his father by white racists and his own lack of prospects and experience of prison. This context is critical for gaining an insight into the wider forces which firstly lead him to the NOI and then influenced his later detachment from it. His independence, drive and charisma were as important in directing his life on the margins in Boston as they were in cultivating his power base in Harlem.

Malcolm’s break with the Nation of Islam unfolds gradually, driven primarily by ideological tensions but also due to his re-evaluation of Elijah Muhammad’s conduct and role within the movement. The consequences of this break are presented in stark detail, culminating in Malcolm’s assassination on 21 February 1965 in the Grand Ballroom, Audobon Building, Harlem. Whilst three men were convicted of his murder, Marable believes two of them were innocent and instead he suggests that the FBI may have conspired with the real killers to allow the killing to take place and engineer their flight from justice.

Perhaps the most compelling reason for reading this book is that it provides a timely corrective to the heroic visionary version of Malcolm X created by Alex Haley in his 1965 Autobiography of Malcolm X and perpetuated by later generations of black radicals and artists. Marable presents a more rounded view of Malcolm, shining a light on previously hidden aspects of his private life and aspects of his work with the NOI which do not sit easily with the messianic, almost reformist, character depicted in Haley’s hugely popular and influential account.

Marables’s revelations about Malcolm X’s private life have probably attracted the most headlines, but this should not be seen as an attempt to inject a salacious element to the book. Instead, the author uses these to highlight both the flawed nature of Malcolm’s character and the tensions which existed between his personal and public lives.

In many ways, the book also serves as a companion piece to Taylor Branch’s acclaimed trilogy on the civil rights movement in the sense that it reminds students that the struggle against white oppression was neither confined to the South nor simply concerned with ‘setpiece’ protests. A Level examiners frequently ask students to reflect on the extent to which conditions improved for blacks in America, and this book consistently highlights those areas which seemed impervious to change, and standard A Level textbooks tend to overlook.

NEIL SMITH A version of this review also appears in the September 2012 issue of 20th Century History Review, published by Philip Allan.

29

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 The Origins of the Second World War

By AJP Taylor Publisher: Penguin

When one thinks of controversial historical figures, the list is long and varied, from Caligula who made his horse a consul to the rise of Hitler and Mussolini in Twentieth Century Europe. The list of controversial historians, on the other hand is perhaps harder to fill, but the chances are that AJP Taylor will make an appearance on there somewhere. The Oxford graduate made a living in the latter half of the Twentieth Century being controversial and questioning deeply held truths about the history of Europe. His crowning glory, in terms of being controversial at least, was The Origins of the Second World War, first published in 1961. Ever since its publication, the book has attracted both staunch criticism and undulated praise for its revisionist stance on the leader of the Third Reich, Adolf Hitler.

In this book Taylor expounds the view that Hitler, rather than having a definite plan to conquer Europe and a timeframe in which to do it in, was an adventurous but ultimately lucky international gambler. He was willing at various points to challenge the Western Allies and their fractious alliance, but was never prepared for war on the scale that broke out in 1939. Taylor actually takes a lot of the blame for the German invasion of Poland and places it on the Polish government itself (a view one might notice is repeated in an article in this publication).

Taylor takes every major event up to the break out of hostilities with the eye of a cynic. Did Hitler plan the crisis in Czechoslovakia or did it fall into his lap? Moreover, was he entitled to demand the return of three million Germans to their homeland? He invites questions and evaluates appeasement as a policy towards Hitler. Far from disparaging it as the action of cowards, Taylor holds the policy of appeasement as an unmitigated success up until the point when the Allies stopped doing it. It is these perceptions, or more importantly the questions that Taylor leaves the reader with, about not only the events themselves but the study of history itself that makes this book so worthy of attention.

Taylor provides an alternative interpretation of the events leading up to the outbreak of the (hopefully) last total war, but simply because they are alternative does not mean that they should be dismissed out of hand.

This is a book that will not only provide a cynical and interesting history of the twenty years between the wars, but will also be thoroughly entertaining. Taylor is adept at bridging the gap between scholarly and accessible writing, simultaneously informing and entertaining. To use an old clichĂŠ, this is a book that one would find very hard to put down once it is started, simply because the synthesis of the narrative and the analysis is so well crafted. If you only read one book this summer, then you will not go far wrong with this one.

So if you are in Year Ten or above and have studied the development of dictatorship or if you simply want to annoy your history teacher with controversial theories about the outbreak of the Second World War, then you would be well advised to give the great controversial AJP Taylor a try. Who knows, you may yourself one day emerge as the next great controversial historian!

EDWARD GREEN 30

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

A Biography of Sidney Smith: Dangerous or Devenir?

Max Hudson, the previous assistant editor, bids farewell to The Shoardian and ponders on the reputation of the great British naval officer Sidney Smith.

I

he’d popped out for a sandwich) he looked around for another fight.

n the window of a second hand bookshop in London, next to a dusty copy of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (C-F – Congo to Formosa) stands an age faded front cover of what appears to be an ‘Adventure Stories for Boys.’ It could have been published anytime between the fall of Khartoum in 1881 and 1950, just before Britain discovered a degree of self awareness and when war, empire and glory were still things to be celebrated. (Generally by stamping on a Frenchman’s croissant).

He didn’t have to wait long for in 1788 he was delighted to be able to offer his services to the Swedes in their war against the Russians. He was an instant hit, mentioned frequently in despatches to the Swedish royal family, and ultimately awarded a Swedish knighthood. Whilst clearly not as prestigious as a British knighthood it did have the distinct advantage of never having been awarded to a Scottish Banker and for that reason attracted higher bids on e-bay. This, and his subsequent insistence upon being addressed as Sir Sidney at all times, led to an enormous amount of resentment amongst naval officers such as Nelson and Collingwood (not least because the majority of his Royal naval colleagues who had fought and died in the conflict did so fighting for the other side.)

In a blue naval uniform and a heroic stance, reminiscent of Horatio Hornblower, poses a ship’s captain, one foot on the guard rail and one on the deck. He waggles a large officer’s cutlass at an enemy that one instinctively feels to be French. He sports large epaulets, and a chest of medals which appear ridiculously encumbering for someone soon to be found rolling on the poop deck attempting to punch a matelot in the mouth.

The character could be straight from a CS Fry novel were it not for the title of the book ‘Sir Sidney Smith, Hero of Acre.’ No fictional character, Smith swaggered through the latter part of the eighteenth century like a boastful Simon Cowell – though infinitely more egotistically. Throughout his naval and diplomatic career, Smith became the fly in the soup of some of the most powerful figures of the late 18th century.

Indeed Smith was regarded by no less a megalomaniac than Napoleon; as a man more dangerous to his ambitions than Horatio Nelson.

He was once overheard telling Josephine that Smith was giving him pain in the Acres.

Born in 1764 into an affluent, yet minor, family with royal connections, Smith (like Nelson) joined the navy at the age of 13 as a midshipman and took part in the important victory over the Spanish at Cape St Vincent whilst still only 15.

Fighting the Spanish, Americans and French gave him not only a thirst for battle but an insatiable hunger for advancement and when a ceasefire was declared (disappointingly in his absence whilst

The iridescent Sidney Smith painted by a French Artist in 1823 31

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 By this time Smith was already regarded largely as an irritant by his fellow officers. He had a hunger for recognition and advancement that went well beyond the drive normally associated with ambition. The sheer volume of letters that he wrote to anybody and everybody in positions of authority seeking advancement are testament to his tenacity - though his tendency to approach the most senior commanders and government ministers over the heads of his immediate superiors led to a great deal of resentment.

best man for the job. He must have been extremely persuasive for the admiral agreed with him and allowed Smith to draw up a daring plan to destroy the ships belonging to (until that moment) Britain’s French loyalist allies. (Allies they may have been but as Smith explained to the admiral “They’re still French aren’t they?!”) This final argument clearly won the day. Working with a less than enthusiastic Spanish team, Smith moved from ship to ship, setting explosive charges and occasionally landing on shore to help the city’s defenders fight off the besieging Revolutionaries.

Looking from the shore Colonel Napoleon noted the blaze appearing suddenly like ‘the eruption of a volcano….an unparalleled spectacle.’ Trés jolie.

His eccentric, Mr Toad-like, self aggrandisement may well have been dismissed as lunacy, were it not for one hugely inconvenient truth: Smith was actually very good at what he did. Throughout the late eighteenth century Smith repeatedly took it upon himself - whether under orders or not - to hamper French efforts to dominate Europe. (A true ‘self starter’).

Despite having managed to destroy much of the fleet, just over half of the frigates still remained (those ships whose burning was entrusted to the Spanish – or so Smith later claimed) Napoleon soon got to hear of the man who had burnt half of the entire fleet and gave him a nickname that suggested a grudging admiration; ‘Capitaine de Brulot’. (Smith on hearing of the accolade was initially offended, until it was explained that Brulot had nothing to do with a crème brulet). As was often the case in Smith’s career, the French perception of him was however very different to the British reaction. He was subsequently made the scapegoat of Toulon (which was seen as a disaster) and charged as the man who had allowed the French fleet to fall into revolutionary hands.

Neither support for or defence of Smith was forthcoming from the Admiralty within whose ranks he had few friends.

On his return to England Smith was given a chance to redeem himself when he was put in command of a flotilla of flat-bottomed gunboats (his suggestion based on types of vessels hehad used when fighting for the Swedes) with which to harass the north French coastline. However within a few months he was captured and sent to l’Abbaye de St Germain, a Revolutionary prison in the centre of Paris. His deeds during his time in captivity would fill an entire spy novel series.

Contacted in code by three beautiful French girls; digging tunnels whilst employing a child to march up and down with an enormous drum in the street above to disguise the sound of the tunnelling; seducing hundreds of young women (including the jailer’s daughter) and finally convincing the guards of his honourable character as an officer and a gentleman (“Sir, I swear on my honour to

From the light emerges Sir Sidney Smith Whilst passing the British fleet defending the French loyalist city of Toulon on his way home from a small diplomatic mission to the east in 1793, he dropped in for a casual dinner with the admiral and suggested that as the city was about to be taken by the Revolutionaries, the entire French fleet should be burned. Smith, with characteristic modesty put himself forward as the 32

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 accompany you wherever you wish to take me,”) on the night before he made his daring escape. So well had he convinced everyone of his intentions as a non-escaping Englishman gentleman that the alarm wasn’t raised for two weeks. (No wonder they hate us.)

the admiral from Toulon and they found Smith’s arguments compelling. It was here that Smith finally bestrode the stage that he had long craved.

He tirelessly organised both the defenders and the defences and planned the resistance in minute detail.

A combination of the courage of the Turkish defenders, the British naval bombardment of the French troops and Smith’s organisational and motivational abilities ensured that the city did not fall.

It was, however, an episode involving Napoleon whilst in captivity that reveals the arrogance and entertaining brilliance of Smith’s character. After bombarding Napoleon with letters demanding to be exchanged for French prisoners of war, and being completely ignored, Smith decided to write a large message on the outside wall of his prison cell detailing exactly what was going to happen when he escaped.

During the siege, Smith demonstrated his personal daring when he led an ambitious sortie of 800 marines through a breach made by French artillery. He then prevented the local people siding with the French by conducting a major propaganda campaign where he persuaded them that Napoleon was attempting to make separate alliances with each different warring faction in the region.

Having lost nearly half his forces attempting to take Acre, Napoleon was eventually forced to withdraw back to Egypt and abandon any ambitions he might have had to overrun the Ottoman Empire.

“Sleep in peace. Before six months have passed, if not today, you will learn what the reward is for serving [your] masters. He [the jailer] gave me the best room and I will do as much for you.”

Whilst not on the same level as Banksy, this was a masterstroke in psychological warfare that reportedly made a lasting impression upon the superstitious Corsican (he later ordered the prison to be demolished during his withdrawal back into France). A short time later Smith made good his promise by escaping and finally making his way back home to receive the attention and public acclaim that he had desired for so long. Napoleon heard the news of Smith’s escape two days later on the brink of leading an expedition to annex Egypt and initially seemed pleased that there would be no more letters from the irritating Englishman.

Little could he have suspected that this, “Seemingly ordinary escape was destined to wreck the most gigantic project and the most audacious plan.”

Unfortunately for Smith’s ego he arrived home just in time to see Nelson appointed as commander of the Mediterranean expedition charged with defeating the French fleet headed for Egypt. This Nelson did spectacularly well at Aboukir Bay, whilst Smith was sent to Constantinople to advise the Turks on their campaign to repel the French from their territories. Despite having lost his fleet, Napoleon began to move his army north heading deeper into Ottoman territory. Smith persuaded his Turkish masters that the ancient city of Acre would be the best and most strategically crucial place to halt the French advance - despite the besieged force being outnumbered three to one.

Fortunately the Turks had clearly not spoken to

Another picture showing Sidney Smith in a typically confident pose

Despite having halted the French campaign and handed Napoleon his first notable defeat on land, Smith received a flurry of angry letters from his superiors (who had not yet received news of his exploits) complaining of his insubordination, overstepping his command and general isolationism. Apparently he hadn’t filled in the correct forms and some of his expense claims 33

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 appeared dubious.

he had helped to defeat, just a few hundred metres from where he had once spent two years in prison.

He also kept cats but that’s irrelevant to his place in history.

Nelson, however, was never one to bear grudges and knowing a good thing when he saw one recognised the scale of his achievement and struck up a lasting friendship with Smith. Buoyed up by his new found friendship with Nelson and still dining out on tales of Acre, Smith acted on his own initiative and attempted to orchestrate a truce with the remaining French troops stuck in the Levant. On hearing of this he was reprimanded by the Admiralty and summarily relieved of many of his diplomatic duties. He was once again seen as a vainglorious meddler who had usurped the responsibilities of his superiors.

A few months after Napoleon died in exile on the tiny island of St Helena, a paper was released in Paris of his conversations with the island’s doctor.

Throughout the transcript Smith was mentioned half a dozen times whereas he spoke of Nelson only once and some guy called Keith from Wakefield whose importance is sadly unknown.

He remembered Smith to be; “Active, intelligent, intriguing and indefatigable; but I do believe he is half mad,” and, “I am sorry I spoke ill of Smith.

His government does not appreciate his services in

The ever capricious British public however sided with Nelson’s view of Smith and on returning home he was greeted by cheering crowds as the ‘Hero of Acre’ Bowing to public pressure and fearful of appearing ungrateful the Admiralty gave Smith a flotilla of ships with which to harass the north coast of France (presumably hoping that he would be captured by the French again). Smith’s key role was to prevent a French invasion – whilst Nelson was on holiday.

Whilst commanding this fleet, Smith demonstrated his vision by pushing for greater use of torpedo and rocket technology. Whilst the limited degree to which such weaponry had advanced did not allow for any notable successes it was remarked that they lit up the sky and made satisfyingly loud bangs. (Which kept his men’s minds off the weevils in the biscuits)

Sidney Smith’s grave Egypt and Syria.”

His most telling reported comment was perhaps the one in which Napoleon said, ‘That man made me miss my destiny’

As he was preparing to join Nelson and the Mediterranean fleet blockading Cadiz, news reached Smith that he was too late, the combined French and Spanish fleets had already been defeated at Trafalgar and Nelson had become an even bigger hero by stomping along the deck in full Admiral’s regalia until a short sighted French sniper shot him.

Perhaps after two hundred years, it may be the case that the perspective of his biggest adversary was more accurate than that of his nation.

Either that or Napoleon just couldn’t bring himself to talk about Nelson – who he clearly hated more than Swiss cheese. You decide.

Throughout his career, Smith managed to fall out with virtually every one of his seniors due to his bumptious manner, his perceived insubordination and his extreme initiative. His connections with Italian monarchs, Turkish Sultans and politicians back in Britain made sure, however, that by 1810 he had bludgeoned his way to become a ViceAdmiral. Smith then spent the remainder of his life campaigning for tougher action against Mediterranean based slavery, living as an eccentric Parisian in the capital of the country that

WANT TO KNOW MORE? Sidney Smith is certainly worthy of investigation, and as such you might like to try:

34



Overlooked Hero: A Portrait of Sir Sidney Smith

by Joseph Parsons and Tom Grunder



A Thirst for Glory: Life of Admiral Sir Sidney Smith

by Tom Pocock

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

A Day in Auschwitz Last November, Chris Hobson travelled to Poland, to visit the largest concentration camp, Auschwitz-

Birkenau. Here he reminds us all of one of the 20th century’s most harrowing events

me painfully aware of the millions of other innocent victims, each with their own story that will never be told. Suddenly I saw the camp in a different light, one of personal and emotional devastation to ordinary people and families– to individuals just like you or I.

uschwitz: even 67 years after the liberation of the most notorious Nazi concentration camp the name is still surrounded by an intense stigma, an echo of the 1.2 million victims that were inhumanely murdered on that desolate scrap of land in southern Poland. Yet already there are signs that British society is beginning to forget the messages that the Holocaust has taught us about ourselves, the events becoming just another page in a history textbook and the 1.2 million victims of the camp (the equivalent of a 9/11 attack every day for a year) becoming a meaningless number.

We have all seen the infamous photographs that have come to embody the suffering of the Holocaust: the train track running under the watchtower towards the gas chambers, the six-foot high piles of victims’ hair and the sign above the entrance to the camp that read “Arbeit Macht Frei” (works sets you free), yet somehow they are in a completely different world compared to physically experiencing the camps. After visiting the sights, Auschwitz becomes part of real life, transcending our mental barriers between what we hear or read about and reality. It is only after taking this step that it is possible to accept and begin to come to terms with the Nazi genocide.

In an attempt to remedy this the Holocaust Educational Trust, a charity which aims to raise public awareness of the Holocaust, has been organising trips, funded by the government , for young people from schools and colleges across the country to visit the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. My own opportunity to take part in the one-day trip, along with around 400 other students, teachers and MPs, came last November. We left Manchester Airport at 6am, beginning a day that was to be one of the most moving of my life.

In preparation for the trip, we were addressed by Holocaust survivor Kitty HartMoxon, who had suffered two years imprisonment in Auschwitz and survived the ‘Death Marches’ that occurred during the last months of the Nazi regime. This gave us a direct and personal link with the camp at the height of the genocide, making the things we witnessed all the more heart-rendering.

Beginning with her family life before the Holocaust, a normal life with which we all could identify, Kitty’s story of loss and physical and psychological struggles made

The infamous gates of Auschwitz-Birkenau, the Nazi’s largest extermination camp

35

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 co mmitted by the Nazis intensified everything I had felt during that day: an overwhelming sense of pity but also resilience. Their names had been forcibly taken from them but their individualism and human dignity could not be extinguished.

Perhaps the most striking of my first impressions of the camp was the size. From the main entrance to the labour camp at Auschwitz II, my field of vision was entirely taken up by the outside line of huts stretching into the distance on either side.

There were three hundred in total, covering about 175 hectares: the largest factory of death in the world.

In fact after the war, the process of dehumanisation that the perpetrators of the Holocaust so ruthlessly forced on others was turned on themselves. Society has come to regard them as barbaric, their deeds such an extreme example of heartlessness and cruelty that they can be dismissed as outliers, not representative of human behaviour in general or of the human psyche. Yet this is just a blanket justification in which it is easy for us to take comfort and hide from the truth. Germany in the 1930s was a developed and civilised nation, and a large scale project such as the Holocaust could not have functioned without the knowledge or even the collaboration of ordinary people from all over the Third Reich. Many would not necessarily have supported what was going on, but in their failure to speak out about what they knew and condemn it as immoral they were, in effect, endorsing the Nazi regime by allowing it to progress. The simple decision to do what was easy rather than what was right led to the largest genocide the world has ever seen.

I was somewhat taken aback by the gas chambers that we saw. Despite the thousands of innocent lives that had been extinguished there, they seemed small and assuming. They had been built for efficiency, nothing more.

This degrading form of death epitomizes the process of dehumanisation that the victims suffered during life, working as slave labour during the day and crammed shoulder to shoulder in wooden huts by night. In many ways the Holocaust was ideological, as Jewish people, gypsies and other so-called ’degenerates’ tried desperately to cling onto their human dignity in the face of Nazi oppression that deliberately treated them as sub-human in attempt to confirm their own irrational hatred.

The Holocaust has shown us the dangers of submissiveness, and acts as a constant reminder of the necessity to respond wherever we can to human suffering, in local communities and around the globe, rather than remaining passive.

WANT TO KNOW MORE?

The horrific scenes at the train station in AuschwitzBirkenau

One of the greatest humanitarian crisis in history has, understandably a wealth of historical literature on it. If you want to extend your understanding of the period, then these books will help you:

It is for this reason that it is so important for us to understand and respect those who were targeted by the Nazis, to re-humanise them in our minds and restore their dignity. The final room we entered was taken up entirely by floor-to-ceiling display boards bearing hundreds of photographs: of men and women, the young and the old, rich and poor, each face, each expression individual but all nameless.

This symbol of the crime 36



If This is a Man by Primo Levi



Forgotten Voices of the Holocaust by Lyn Smith



Survivors: True Stories of Children in the Holocaust by Alan Zullo and Mara Bovsun

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

The Problem With Appeasement The last word in this edition is handed to the editor, who examines the policy of appeasement in the 1930s and asks: what more could have been done?

A

The First World War changed everything, but made the policy of appeasement even more necessary. The countries of Europe had spent four years stuck in the trenches of France, had lost effectively a generation of young men and had seen their economies destroyed by war. The need to rebuild was tantamount, particularly in France.

For this the French needed money, money which she intended to extort from the defeated Germans.

It was her country that had suffered most, and she who had lost the most men in western Europe (the Russians, as in every war they have fought, lost the most men, but they had dropped out early and so didn’t count). The reparations France so desperately fought for were enshrined in Article 231 of the Treaty of Versailles, with the Germans having to accept full responsibility for all aspects of the war and therefore were liable for its costs.

The French were most anxious for this condition to be fulfilled, as they required the most money, but were also the least able militarily to enforce it. No country wanted to go to war, but all countries wanted Germany to pay for the last one.

ppeasement for many historians represents the lowest form of diplomacy that the Allies could have chosen. The decision to appease the Germans, others would argue came out of a necessity in the post-First World War climate. Neville Chamberlain's decision to negotiate with the Germans continues to be one of the most controversial foreign policies in history.

The legacy of appeasement is such that the US decided to adopt a strategy of containment of Communism rather than risk the political furore of the American people by attempting to appease them. Yet appeasement at the time was not considered weak or foolish by the British people in any great number, and so the question must be asked why appeasement has now seen as being synonymous with cowardice.

Therein lay the greatest flaw in the Treaty of Versailles: it required the acquiescence of the German government. Germany should not possess an army greater than 100,000 men, yet the Treaty made no condition for what would happen if Germany failed to adhere to this clause (in fact rearmament had begun under the Weimar Republic).

The French realised fairly quickly that if they wanted to stop Germany rebuilding its power then they could not wait for them to break the Treaty, but would instead have to act pre-emptively.

However, France now relied on Britain for military aid and so would at every juncture have to obtain British consent and military support if she were to engage in an attack against Germany. This is where the problem for the rest of Europe lay: as soon as the German government realised that the Treaty of Versailles was based intrinsically on the Germans obeying its conditions then there would have to be concessions in order to avoid another war. One of the biggest obstacles in this process

Neville Chamberlain: staunch advocate of appeasement

Appeasement, in of itself, was not a new policy. In a Europe defined by treaties, subsequent negotiations concerning these treaties were fairly common, which followed the course of what one would today call ‘Appeasement.’ The threat of war and the damage that it could do to the victorious, as well as the defeated, nations was often sufficient to prevent the idea of war from permeating into the psyche of politicians. In the event that a war did eventually break out, most conflicts resulted in a quick and decisive victory for one side. Appeasement, therefore, was not only an accepted form of negotiation technique but was perhaps the most common of them all.

37

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 “I have seen my enemies at Munich. They are worms.” So said Hitler when he returned from the conference in which he had taken the first step towards a greater Germany. He had two options remaining: conclude his ambitions or abandon them completely. He chose the former. In 1938 he began proceedings to achieve an Anschluss with Austria. This required delicate negotiation or the showing of force. Hitler went for a mix of the two.

He knew that the German Army could not engage in a full scale war yet, and he also knew that the British, French and Americans had no desire to partake in one either. If, therefore, he could insinuate that he was prepared to go to war over the issue of Austria, the chance was that the powers would cede it to him without a fight. There was also a chance that he would be invaded and stopped by two powers. In any other case, a man in Hitler’s position would not take the risk of involving his country in a war that she simply was not prepared for. As it stood, Hitler went for the country by stationing German garrisons on the border. Chamberlain once more said he had no desire to fight over Austria, and so the move was

would be the French, as they knew that every German gain was in effect a French loss, and they desperately wanted to cling on to their status as a great power. Britain looked towards isolationism and the possibility of an end to all wars. The political conditions were now such that all Germany needed to re-establish herself was a strong leader, one that would not only break the conditions of the Treaty but would be prepared to take on the Allied countries at all points.

This man emerged in 1933 with the election of Adolf Hitler to the chancellorship of Germany.

Here was a man who in just over six years brought the tensions of Europe to the brink of war, through a mixture of gunboat diplomacy and actual military engagements. Mein Kampf can in effect be summed up as two ideas: Lebensraum and the elimination of the Jewish race. Under Hitler, Germany began to re-arm and break the terms of the Treaty of Versailles with abandon. German planes flew in the Spanish Civil War and within 5 years of coming to power he was aiming to unite Germany with Austria and he was looking to annex part of Czechoslovakia. How could appeasement have hoped to deal with such an aggressive and unreasonable man? Surely a limit would have to be placed on what he could have asked for?

To answer these questions, one must first understand what Adolf Hitler had actually asked for, and also the response given by the British and the French (the US had long returned to isolationism and had no real interest in the politics of Europe). Hitler did re-arm Germany in breach of the Treaty, but this process had been begun by the Weimar government of the 1920s. The first territory that the Nazi Party asked for was Czechoslovakia in 1937, and while this request was again against the provisions of the Treaty it actually followed one of US President Wilson’s famous ‘Fourteen Points’, that of selfdetermination. There were three million Germans living in what was now Czechoslovak territory who had no real desire to do so and would have liked to be re-united under the banner of Germany. The British did not oppose this move for precisely this reason: the people wanted to be German. There was no error made in the agreement at the Munich conference, at that time at least. The Allies had decided to walk the path of appeasement, and there could be no return without another ‘War to end all wars.’

Adolf Hitler: the man who pushed the statesmen of Europe to the very limit allowed to go forward. Hitler was testing the resolve of the British, but as of yet war had been avoided.

Hitler’s third attempt at territory was Poland. The state to the east of Germany had been created at the end of the First World War and actually separated the main body of Germany from east Prussia in the Polish corridor. Britain and France had a treaty pledging to support Poland in the face 38

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012 of German invasion, but they had also signed up to the ideas of Wilson’s Fourteen Points, one of which was self-determination. Poland was, for Hitler at least, no different from Czechoslovakia and Austria. So many conditions of the Treaty of Versailles had been broken before: the rearmament of Germany, the establishment of an air force and a navy, the abandonment of reparations and the establishment of a German empire in Europe. Why would Poland have been different?

Yet this was what the British and the French were prepared to go to war for.

Britain and France were effectively forced into the conflict with the Germans over Poland. The Polish government, which was itself a rather unpleasant authoritarian regime, was in equally determined not to give up their territory to the Germans and completely unable to do so on their own.

Negotiation between the great powers was however still in force until virtually the day war was declared, to such an extent that Chamberlain, in his declaration of war, said “Up to the very last it would have been quite possible to have arranged a peaceful and honourable settlement between Germany and Poland.” As it stood, in spite of Hitler’s Four Year Plan to ready the country for war, and in spite of Chamberlain's gentle and constant pleas for a negotiated settlement, Britain declared war on Germany on the 1st September 1939, in a war in which millions fought, millions died and the German leader attempted the extermination of a race of people.

The style of negotiation for the acquisition of Poland began in the same way as those for Austria and Czechoslovakia had done: Hitler let it be known that he was once more prepared to use force to obtain not only the land surrounding the Polish corridor, but also the city of Danzig on the coast, a free city since the First World War. Once more this was not an intrinsically unreasonable request, as Poland was in effect a created nation, one built up to be a buffer from the aggression of the east in Russia and the west in Germany. The people there had no desire to be Polish as such, and had a much more real desire to be German.

Therefore it was in no way the intention of the British or the French to maintain Polish hegemony of Danzig, and the ‘Polish’ people living in those areas had no desire to see Danzig remain Polish.

The decision to stand against Hitler came from the most unlikely of sources: the Polish government themselves.

The causes of the Second World War are long and varied, as they always are in conflicts of such magnitude. The policy of appeasement was a legitimate cause of action in an illegitimate time, and a time of selfishness and isolationism. At any other period in history and in any other situation the world would have avoided war. As it stood, faced with a tyrant with global ambitions, and an uncomfortable presence growing in the east, there was no real alternative. However, as AJP Taylor argued, perhaps the only failure of appeasement in 20th century Europe was that the British abandoned it in 1939. Once they allowed the Germans to break one condition of the Treaty of Versailles and so take the first step on the road to appeasement there could be no turning back. If a small scale war was desired, then it would only ever have happened over Czechoslovakia in 1937.

In reality, the Polish government had no right to demand their interests be placed above those of general European peace. The question of Danzig was one that quite frankly was not worth going to war over, certainly not a war as violent and long as the Second World War. The question must therefore be asked: why did it happen?

WANT TO KNOW MORE? The legacy of the Second World War is such that the causes are often forgotten. If however you enjoy being controversial then you might like to try the following:

Danzig: the catalyst for war?

39



The Origins of the Second World War by AJP Taylor



The Second World War: A World in Flames by Max Hastings



Origins of the Second World War Reconsidered

by Gordon Martel

The Shoardian │ Summer 2012

The Shoardian’s Game Corner Test your brain with Sam Baker’s historical-themed word search.

P I S V Y H Q T W I I O V T I F S Q D F

I K L N R I W A V H J D L U I X A U N O

H J J F A S N V M J E W I S C Y E K Z I

N J H W Q B T U K A V K N N J D E Y P C

C A F F K Q A N N I L K I T D E P I C N

V K U V C O H J C S R C L M R N M N R I

M A C H I A V E L L I L O E E N C P O V

O P Y D S K A F X U N Q S L W E T A M A

G L M V Z S Y F D V I E S Y M K K Q W D

E A I I A S X E O S A B U C H X E J E V

O J M R N A L R U T G R M U P M E P L W

E Y A Q C L E S N E F F E I L H C S L C

J T O D Q A F O O A A F C D S U S Y M O

E Q Z M C D E N E U I I P V S A A E W L

P G E U Q I T U L A L E X A N D E R V U

W C D Z E N Y L O H M A U S W D P F L M

D J O C P C V H P R J G E U P C P N D B

D L N S J L P Y A R X J S D Q D A J F U

U C G B B E J P N S U E T F R X W D D S

M S M P H G P V I C T O R I A R X C U S

Can you find the names of the fifteen famous historical figures listed below? There’s a prize on offer for the first person to do so. Completed word searches should be left in the box in E6

Jefferson

Schlieffen

Columbus

Machiavelli

Caesar

Cromwell

Saladin

Malcolm X

Alexander

Kennedy

Mao Zedong

Victoria

Napoleon

Mussolini

Da Vinci

40