The Shoardian issue VI by Neil Smith

The Shoardian Issue VI Spring 2013

Produced by MGS History Students

WHAT IF?

From the Editor

The Shoardian A product of the Grammar School.

Manchester

Editor: Harrison Edmonds Deputy Editors: Will Barnes, Josh Ellis & Sam Heath

Staff: Mr Ashley Hern & Mrs Eleanor Carter

Contributors:

Mo Abdah Greg Alexander George Alldred Richard Birch Ryan Emerson Jamie Horton Tom Makin Tayyeb Shiekh

Special Thanks: Ed Green Dr Till Geiger Dr Patrick Hagopian The Shoardian, named in honour of the legendary history teacher Mr Shoard, is an (almost) entirely student written and student produced journal. If you would like to write for the next edition, please contact the editor (edmoha-y07). Many thanks to all those who wrote articles for this edition. Front Cover, 1st Row: Franco, Guy Fawkes, Napoleon; 2nd Row: Richard III, Von Schlieffen, Malcom X; 3rd Row: Francisco Solano López , Chiang Kai–Shek, Alfred, Prince of Windischgratz

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

FROM THE EDITOR

ello and welcome to the sixth edition of The Shoardian. May I thank you for picking one up. Following on from the themed nature of the last two issues this Spring 2013 edition will focus on the what ifs of history. Counterfactual history gives us the opportunity to examine the turning points of the past and allow us to have a better understanding of history in general. It should not be taken for granted that the world is what it is today; it has been shaped by the actions, desires and mistakes of people and simple twists of fate. I hope that through the articles in this issue you will develop a greater understanding of the unpredictability of events and that you will have a greater appreciation of history. This issue also has an interview with Dr Till Geiger discerning the Cold War and Dr Patrick Hagopian on the Vietnam War– ideal for Sixth Formers. There are also book reviews as well as reports from Year 9 boys on a trip to the Imperial War Museum North. While on the subject of history outside the classroom, I would also like to make a mention of the Archives room, next to the Memorial Hall. It contains artefacts from the history of the school (and more besides) and the archivists often put on exhibitions. Boys are welcome to enter on most days. Room 25 also has the a bookcase full of magazines, from the present dating back to the 1950s, meaning that you could learn almost every conceivable aspect of history from the contents of that room. There is also the Senior History Society led by sixth formers that meet every Wednesday and offer (usually) intelligent debate on a historical topic. I hope that you read through this issue of The Shoardian with interest and that it sparks a desire for investigating history that is not covered in the classroom. It could even inspire you to contribute with an article for the next edition! If It does, please read page 52, which will show you how to contact the team. I hope you enjoy Issue VI of The Shoardian.

Harrison Edmonds

Contents

The Shoardian

Spring 2013 Volume VI

From the Editor

What If? Part 1

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939? Ryan Emerson looks at the possibilities if the fascist did not take over

What if Napoleon had achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805? George Alldred examines this turning point of the Napoleonic Wars

What if the Habsburg Empire had collapsed in 1848? Jamie Horton investigates the 1848 revolutions and the effects they could have had on central Europe

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605? Rahul Ravi returns to discuss one of the earliest attempted acts of terrorism and asks what would have befallen England

What if the Germans had won at the Battle of the Marne in 1914? Mo Abdah explores one of the few pitched battles of World War One

24 Reviews & Interviews

Interview with Dr Till Geiger Dr Till Geiger met The Shoardian and shared his views on why he studies history and in particular the Cold War

Review Section The world of historical literature is examined critically by sixth formers and Year 9s recollect their trip to the IWMN

Interview with Dr Patrick Hagopian Dr Patrick Hagopian talks about Vietnam with The Shoardian

What If? Part 2

The War of The Triple Alliance Sam Heath explains how South America would be different if this conflict had had a different outcome

The Nauruan Tragedy Sam Heath also examines the sad little island in the Pacific

What if Malcom X hadn’t been assassinated ? Richard Birch looks at the icon of the Black Power movement

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field? Harrison Edmonds explains why Richard III was so important to the world

What would China be like now if Chiang -Kai Shek had remained in power? Greg Alexander looks at the nationalist leader of pre-communist China

48Letters to the Editor

The Causes of the Indian Uprising 1857 Mrs Carter writes back to the Shoardian considering last issue’s article on the ‘Sepoy Mutiny’

Hern’s Historical Helpline: Volcanoes and History In which a colleague of the Venerable Hern asks about the connections between history and volcanic eruptions

Fun & Games

Obituary

Find Your Perfect Wife A dubious flowchart from the (twisted ) mind of Josh Ellis

The Legacy of Chavez Sam Heath looks at the life and rule of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939?

Ryan Emerson examines the Spanish Civil War and explores what would have happened to Spain if the fascist dictator did not take power

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939? Left– UGT Propaganda Below– Franco, 1939 in Madrid

he history of Spain since the start of the Civil War in 1936 has been defined by Franco. Not only did he rid Spain of the threat of communists and anarchists, rule the country as a personal dictatorship until 1975 while carefully balancing himself skilfully between the monarchists and the Falange (Spanish Fascist Party), but he has inevitably shaped what Spain is today. Although not the absolute monarchy of the movimiento (the movement encompassing all the groups of nationalist Spain) that he wanted to follow him, Spain is a monarchy nonetheless with Juan Carlos, grandson of Alfonso XIII and his chosen successor, as King. So it would be interesting to imagine what would have happened to a Spain that has not been defined and shaped by the Caudillo. There are a number of possibilities as to what would have happened depending on the circumstances, had Franco not come to complete power in April 1939, if there was no uprising in 1936, no Generalísimo and no Victory. What if there had simply been no uprising? Had Franco, Mola, Goded and Queipo de Llano under the leadership of Sanjurjo, the leading and most influential Spanish generals, not decided to rise up in July 1936, what would have happened? After all, it had been five years since the declaration of the republic, when Alfonso XIII had fled Spain, and nothing had been done about the republic which was seen by most of the right as nothing more than unconstitutional treason. In fact the leading generals had positively invited the King, who had lost the support of the Guardia Civil and the general people, to leave. After the dictatorship of Primo de Rivera, backed up by monarchical support,

Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939? the hostility to monarchy was too great to ignore. With assurances that their own position would be very safe in the republic, no sooner had the King left than they were saluting the flag and singing El Himno de Riego. With the narrow victory of the Popular Front (a political group of most left and centre-left parties) in the 1936 elections, mainly socialists and republicans, and the election of the committed republican Azaña to the Presidencia in 1933, so any uprising of the Falange that November in 1936, with only 6800 votes in the election and without any police support, would easily have been crushed without the essential support of the Army of Africa and foreign aid from Germany and Italy which were essential in Franco‘s own victory. The Falange had begun to plot since they started to be targeted by the new Popular Front government, José Antonio Primo de Rivera (the leader) being imprisoned in Alicante on July 6. With the passing of the Basque Autonomy Statute in October 1936 and the likely passing of a further Galician Statute already planned by PM Casares Quiroga, the power of the left would have seemed unstoppable. With the death of leading monarchist José Calvo Sotelo by the police and the near collapse of CEDA (the catholic conservative party) and Gil Robles, the only hope for a traditional catholic Spain lay with the army, thus it seems easy to say that a leftist Spain would have survived, without the military uprising. But, in all fairness, as the 1931-33 period showed clearly, the problem of the Left in Spain was its disunity. It was a mixture of all degrees of people, who couldn‘t and wouldn‘t work together. After the 1936 elections, with a surge of arson, vandalism and church burning uncontrolled by the police, Azaña being forced to denounce it publically, and a radical uprising in Granada, the death toll reaching 269, it seems very unlikely that the republic could have kept control as people took to the streets against the right and the church who had kept them under control since the 1934 elections. Even had land reform been successful, which had begun in 1932, the radicalism that had seized the streets did nothing but spell the end for centre-left control. With the more radical communists and anarchists, mainly in Catalonia and Andalusia, kicking out landlords and forming collectives, either the centre-left went with the flow, as Azaña, the moderate President, then PM had done in 1931-33, in destroying the power of the church in Spain and beginning to introduce land reform , or they tried to take control themselves with the civil and assault guard, in which case the uncontrolled violence would have been directed against the relatively wealthy elite in the Cortes. Thus it would create a situation where without the excuse of defence against the army uprising, the government would not have been able to keep control as it did in the civil war, where it had done

Manuel Azaña

so albeit officially. Thus we would be back at stage one, where to keep control, which was nearly nonexistent in the uproar before the rising, the government would either need the army support who would be only too happy to crush the radical left, take control with government support and dissolve the republic, which the majority had always intended to do, replacing it with

a military dictatorship, or support the radical left against the right and provoke army intervention later when the leading generals saw their position as under threat, both cases leading to civil war. Thus, the government would not have been able to keep control in Spain, with the working class masses demanding revolutionary change during the world wide depression on the one side and the rightist, traditionalist catholic elite on the other, both powerful forces, much more powerful than the centre-left itself, which had little popular support. Thus war was, essentially, inevitable. Had Sanjurjo, the leading general then in exile, not died in a plane crash as he did at the start of the civil war in 1936, while returning from exile in Portugal, would Franco be in charge? If Sanjurjo had survived then any victory of the army later would be dominated by Sanjurjo, a traditional fervent monarchist and the elected leader of the Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939? Franco which kept him in power after the war, thus the stage would have been set for the transfer of power, with post-war pressures, to Juan, son of Alfonso and the recreation of a constitutional monarchical system to create the legitimacy needed, with US security guarantees, i.e. NATO and huge economic support in the form of the Marshall Plan, which was denied to Franco‘s Spain, to protect against communist subversion. Thus Spain could have rejoined the west much earlier and profited from the huge support of US loans and aid to rebuild the devastated metallurgy industry of the Basque Country and textile industry of Catalonia and produce the economic wealth needed to prevent the industrial and agricultural strife that had plagued both Alfonso and the republic, and would also plague Franco until the Spanish miracle (a period of economic boom) in 1959. Whether it would be a true democracy is hard to say, but Juan, father of Juan Carlos, was always considered a liberal, especially by Franco and surrounded himself with many constitutionalists including Gil Robles. And so what was started in 1975 with the democratisation of Spain by Juan Carlos, could and most likely would have happened much earlier, had Franco not impeded national re-unity which has largely been achieved by Juan Carlos, who until the financial crisis in 2008 consistently achieved approval ratings of over 70% (Centro de Investigaciones Sociológicas) .

uprising and Franco would be on a level similar to the other generals. It was only with the death of Sanjurjo and later Mola in June 1937 that gave Franco the opportunity to take effective control of the army and then to unite the Carlists and the Falange into his Movimiento Nacional. But, without the title of Generalísimo, and control of the army, so a single dictatorship would not have formed. It is far more likely that Sanjurjo and the generals collectively would have formed a dictatorship similar to that of Miguel Primo de Rivera after his Pronunciamiento in 1923, which they intended to and not a collective ―movimiento‖ of the army, monarchist groups and Falangists, Franco‘s creation to keep himself in power and deny the monarchy it‘s return while he flirted with fascism. An openly monarchist military command of conservative generals would more likely return control to the King, as was the overall aim than one man with absolute power. With similar purges of communists and anarchists, who would have fled or been killed in the war, still likely under a military dictatorship, it would have been possible to give the crown back to the King earlier. Without Franco as de facto Head of State, the leading generals would be much less inclined to Falangist and Carlist mutterings, with only 35000 and 42000 troops respectably compared to the 600000 overall. Without the fascist influence of the Falange, it would be unlikely that the King of the liberal monarchy, whether on the throne or not, would side with Hitler (or let the generals side with Hitler), despite likely aid in the Civil War to overt the threat of communism, especially after the country had been battered by internal strife and civil war and considering the strong monarchical connections with Britain through his wife Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg and the lack of ideological support of the elites for widespread fascist reforms. Thus, it would in all likelihood remain neutral in the war. With the end of the war, the leading generals, like Franco, would have feared American intervention to bring down the dictatorship and without the strength, skill and popular support for

Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

Anarchy in Barcelona in 1933

But, of course, what if the uprising simply failed? Much of the success of the nationalists was based on the essential help of German and Italian weaponry and credit: the Condor Legion, Corpo Truppe Volontarie and £43 million in German funds provided the essential boost that the Spanish Army, which couldn‘t even defeat the tribesmen of the Rif in Morocco (1920-1926), desperately needed. At the start of the war, it was due to German Junkers and Italian Savoias that the Army of Africa, stuck in Morocco, was transported to Spain in the first major airlift in history. The Navy had remained loyal to the republic. An officer, Benjamin Balboa, on duty in the military radio station had informed the navy of the uprising, while sailors formed councils and arrested their officers. Thus, the way across the Straits of Gibraltar was blocked and so without this support from the axis powers, the main army that was needed for the push through Andalusia onto Madrid would have been stuck in Africa, leaving Mola and his Carlists in Pamplona and Queipo with his tentative hold on Seville to hold out against the recently armed working class and police onslaught, who had already defeated the uprising in Madrid and Barcelona. Similarly, what if the republicans had won the battle of the Ebro, their attempt to reconnect the centre with cut off Catalonia, thus halting Franco‘s march on

What if Franco hadn’t emerged as leader of Spain in 1939? Cataluña and the vital industry of Barcelona? What if Léon Blum and his own French popular front had secured itself in the National Assembly and sent thousands of crack French troops in defence of the republic, similar to that which happened in 1823? No matter how, what would have happened? Would there have been a truce, had stalemate continued? Unlikely. After the advance on Madrid and the 3 year stalemate, the battle of the Corunna road and later Guadalajara doing nothing but chewing up vital men and supplies, Franco utterly refused to compromise. His head relied on a nationalist victory and so he would never have agreed to one, just as the republicans never gave up claiming that they were the rightful government (until they accepted Juan Carlos in 1977). But what if there was total disaster for Franco. Had Franco fled in exile to friendly Portugal, and the Army of Africa surrendered, what would have become of the republic. The problem again is infighting. With the working class armed in pro-soviet communist/ anarchist fashion, the left republic would likely have had to adapt to the Soviet line, considering that most of the support had come from USSR, it would have to have allied in some way to the USSR to avoid isolation and rebuild its battered economy, while hoping that national solidarity would stop the increasingly extreme socialists/UGT (Unión General de Trabajadores) and the anarchists/CNT (Confederación Nacional de Trabajo), who had already begun setting up collectives in Aragón, from taking control. In the war it could have tried to remain neutral, fearing a repeat of the civil war, especially considering the economic and political problems that would have existed, but the last thing that Hitler needed was a country, socialist in all but name, on his borders. An extreme left Spain would not have survived Hitler‘s march across Europe. In fact, it was Franco who stopped them marching through Spain and cutting off the Allies in the Mediterranean. By seizing Gibraltar which would all but destroy Anglo-French hold of North Africa, it would open the way for German-Italian forces to seize the oil rich Arabia and Persia which the British, struggling against the Japanese on its Indian border wouldn‘t have been able to cope with. After the war, it was an excuse used by Franco that he saved Gibraltar for the allies which in all fairness would have fallen had the German War Machine decided to march over the divided and devastated republic and installing in its place a pro-axis, whether monarchist or Falangist, government in its place. It is not at all wrong to over-estimate the importance of Gibraltar which gave the allies control of the Mediterranean and so had the republic survived the civil war, it would not, in all likeliness have survived WW2. Of course had the allies turned it around and won, by some miracle, then Spain, occupied by the allies, would

Could the democratic Spain of today have been created by Franco’s dictatorship?

like Italy and West Germany have been remodelled

as a capitalist democracy, in opposition to the USSR and quickly rebuilt and economic stability created. Considering that the monarchy had fallen in Italy in 1946, it would be highly unlikely that Spain would have

become a monarchy but, yet again, it would have become something new in its history, a democracy. In some ways, it‘s a blessing that Franco won the civil war. For a politicised Spain would have been a thorn in the side of everyone, considering its importance geographically and the war raging around it, at least with Franco there was stability in Spain, something that it hadn‘t really had since the dictatorship of Miguel Primo de Rivera and it‘s thanks, in a way, to Franco‘s strange military, monarchical and fascist dictatorship that Spain did survive and democracy does exist today. Of course it is not Franco‘s genius or brilliance that created a democracy for he deliberately halted the return of the monarchy for 36 years after the civil war, till his death and always despised democracy as a weak system. But perhaps what Spain needed was a relatively conservative hard man, to stop it destroying itself in bitter internal fighting. For indeed, Spain could have ended up in many forms, but what is it today? A democracy.

Want to know more? If Ryan inspired an interest in the Spanish Civil War, why not try:

‘Franco’ by Paul Preston (New York: Basic Books) ‘The Spanish Civil War’ by Hugh Thomas (London: Penguin Books)

Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

What if Napoleon had achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805?

WHAT IF NAPOLEON HAD ACHIEVED VICTORY AT THE BATTLE OF TRAFALGAR IN 1805? George Alldred explores one of the turning points of the Napoleonic Wars and asks what would have happened if the French won

fter the end of the Peace of Amiens on the 18th May 1803, France wanted to weaken and humiliate the British by destroying their navy, effectively wiping them out of the war. Many have also argued that Napoleon had the intention of invading Britain,as he had a large army based in Boulogne, northern France; this scenario did not occur in the end due to the combined armies of the Russian and the Austrian forces that were massing in the East. However, despite this theory, it is equally likely that Napoleon merely wanted to ―disable‖ Britain and force her out of the war. He was unsuccessful in achieving this goal and Britain ended up continuing the War Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The Battle of Trafalgar was a turning point in the Napoleonic Wars

of the Third Coalition and causing havoc in the Peninsular War, which arguably eventually led to Napoleon‘s downfall. It also led to France pouring lots of resources and men into shipbuilding in multiple ports (he produced a fleet of 80 ships by the time of his fall from power in 1814), and into quelling the British in Spain. So, the main question is: what if Napoleon had succeeded in his aims of destroying the Royal Navy? The 21st of October 1805 was the day on which Britain‘s 27 ships, commanded by Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson (a true master of naval combat, independent in outlook, ambitious and having extraordinary moral 8

What if Napoleon had achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805? courage) annihilated the French-Spanish fleet of 33 ships, commanded by Admiral Villeneuve (a defeatist admiral who lacked confidence ever since the battle of the Nile which he narrowly escaped from). The battle of Trafalgar was Napoleon‘s first disastrous defeat and it established Britain as the dominant naval force for the next 100 years. The battle led to the death of over 1700 British and over 6000 casualties, but in the long term, the effects were much more significant. Therefore another key question is: did the Battle of Trafalgar have a significant impact on Napoleon‘s campaign? Was it key to his downfall or were the events to follow inescapable anyway? Would a win at Trafalgar have had a significant impact on Napoleon‘s conquest of Europe? There are many different views on the battle‘s significance; for example, distinguished French scholars such as Jean Tulard say that 'after Trafalgar, the emperor was beaten, though he did not yet know it‘, and other scholars preferred to dismiss the battle ‗as an unfortunate but essentially marginal affair‘, Both of these argue two separate opinions on the significance of the battle. In order to determine the significance of any historical event, it is advantageous to use counterfactual history and discuss what could have happened if things had turned out differently. In terms of the populace of the French empire, a French victory in 1805 would have boosted the morale of French troops everywhere. Knowing that they had humiliated the British and become master of the seas would boost the war effort on the front line and at the homes in France. It would also have granted the French empire a feeling of security (as the only country that could have invaded the French empire by sea would have been Britain, which would not have been possible anyway due to their miniscule army) as with the Royal navy wiped out, the French could feel safe, boosting morale; this could have led to an increase in production as many more people in the empire would be trying to help the war effort and their would have been perhaps an increase in conscription for the army. With regard to the economy of the French empire, the French empire would have been granted multiple trade routes (which had all been previously blockaded by the British) via which to import exotic, luxury items from colonies in the Caribbean, increasing the standard of living of the French populace. If Napoleon had been able to utilize such trade routes, it is most likely that he wouldn‘t have used them to their full economic potential (as Napoleon believed that real wealth derived from land and people, while 9

Nelson died in the battle aboard his flagship, HMS Victory

trade was essentially parasitic) and so the French empire may not have changed as much as it could have and therefore this is not a very significant consequence. However, we can tell that trade is essential for economic growth from the way in which the French empire‘s economy suffered after he introduced the Continental System (a system where no countries controlled by France were permitted to trade with Britain, it was an attempt to cripple Britain‘s economy) in 1806. It contributed to British exports falling between 25% and 55% compared to pre-1806 levels. As a consequence, it caused the people of European nations to lose a variety of luxury items such as cotton textiles, coffee, sugar and tobacco and more importantly, trade in southern France drastically suffered and staple food prices rose dramatically. With the Royal Navy destroyed, there would have been no need for this Continental System, therefore leading to French trade and economy not having to have suffered. Furthermore Napoleon would not have been wasting his empire‘s resources and finances in the years after the battle, trying to construct a new navy with the view of challenging the British again. All of these economic gains from a victory at Trafalgar could have led to many military and social impacts. For example; with more money and resources, Napoleon would have been able to recruit many more troops and construct many more armaments, perhaps leading to more victories, a more sustainable empire and perhaps even the continuation of Napoleon‘s conquest in Europe. Also from a social perspective, a larger French economy would have raised the standard of living for many of the people under Napoleon‘s rule and so would lead to less discontent in the French empire and more support for Napoleon. Militarily, if Napoleon had succeeded in Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

What if Napoleon had achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805? Coalition would have led Russia into diplomatic negotiations with Napoleon and so a war on the East could not have had to be fought. An increase in military power and troops could lead to more control over the nations which he was conquering and less discontent throughout his empire. A final consequence of a victory at Trafalgar would have been that Napoleon could have invaded Britain. This seems like a probable consequence as Britain‘s army was very small. There is evidence that from 1803 to 1805, an army of 200,000 men

destroying the Royal navy, it would have granted Napoleon complete, unrivalled, naval domination. It would have allowed him to transport his troops with ease from one location to another and could have perhaps allowed him to expand his colonies or continue his conquests into Africa without being attacked by the British fleets. Also, with the British out of the war, there is a possibility that the Peninsular war in Spain might never have happened (as Napoleon could have easily have crushed the Spanish guerilla forces if they had not had Britain aiding them) and so this then could have led to France not having to pour resources and men into Spain, and it could have led to them instead being concentrated on the Eastern front, fighting the much bigger threat of Russia, leading to a possible victory at Moscow and possibly after that, victories in all of Asia, as Napoleon and his French forces could now focus on the Eastern front rather than in Spain. Ultimately however, this seems improbable as there are many unrelated reasons as to why Napoleon‘s rule of Spain was viewed as being disastrous. An example being in Napoleon‘s decision to put his incompetent brother, Joseph Bonaparte, on the throne of Spain in 1806. Also, the prime reason for the French defeat in Moscow was mainly due to the lack of supply, even though the French armies greatly outnumbered those of the Russians, therefore a win at Trafalgar would have most probably still have led to a loss in Moscow. Nevertheless, the battle of Trafalgar and the removal of the British from the Third Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Lord Admiral Horatio Nelson commanded the British Fleet

known as the Armée de l'Angleterre, was gathered and trained at camps at Boulogne, Bruges and Montreuil and a large "National Flotilla‖ of invasion barges was built in Channel ports along the coasts of France and Holland. However an invasion would never have occurred regardless of a victory, due to the massing forces of Austria and Russia in the east that Napoleon had to deal with. Furthermore, Napoleon would had to govern Britain and send troops to control Britain (which is likely to have become an unruly country to govern considering the British were strongly nationalistic and ‗anti-French‘) and so more resources and troops would be spent trying desperately to govern Britain than they would receive from the country. This reinforces the fact that an invasion of Britain seems unlikely, had Napoleon won at Trafalgar. However, the possibility of an invasion is indisputably a very significant consequence. As for the consquences for Britain, there would be numerous different impacts if the battle had had a different outcome. However, unlike the French, a loss for the British could have been disastrous. The British economy heavily relied on trade and credit and so without its navy, Britain‘s trade routes could have been easily blockaded by foreign countries, rendering her without an income; also, Britain would eventually lose all her colonies in India and the Caribbean and with them, her source of income. This would effectively cripple Britain‘s economy rendering her powerless. Without her navy, trade or colonies, Britain would just become ‗another island‘; she would lose her world status and her dominance and could be effectively ‗bullied‘ by foreign countries. A lull in the country‘s economy would have led to even fewer soldiers and even more susceptibility to invasion. Without an army Britain would not have been able to help any further in the war of the third coalition and so would lose its world status even further. The second consequence would be that Britain would have been defenseless. For years Britain has utilized the seas around her in order to defend herself by creating vast 10

What if Napoleon had achieved victory at the Battle of Trafalgar in 1805? navies. However without this Royal navy, Britain would have become very susceptible to invasion from foreign countries (especially France). Britain also might have become demoralized and humiliated which would have led to political instability. This instability could have led to a series of strikes and a lull in production (leading to a slippery slope of economic decline) and in the worst case scenario (however, still very likely) a revolution or even civil war. This would have led to an even further slump in the country‘s economy and morale. The third and perhaps most detrimental consequence on a more global scale would be the delay (or even the halting) of the industrial revolution in Britain, which would lead to a less civilized Europe as industries which drove economies and sciences in the early modern period may not have developed (e.g. cotton production). Also, the key financial ideas of the capitalist Adam Smith would not have developed fully. This system of investment and private banking led to people wanting to further the industrialisation process and gain money. The competition created a boom in economic expansion. This is just one example of the many consequences that an invasion of Britain would have caused on the modern world. An invasion of Britain therefore could have led to the world not being as advanced as it is now in the 21st century. This would truly be a disastrous consequence on modern civilization, in all aspects of life.

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte

So, after looking at a few of the possible consequences of an alternate outcome to the

Admiral Villeneuve was in command of the combined French and Spanish Fleet

Battle of Trafalgar in 1805, we can conclude that it would have led to significant consequences that could have changed the course of the whole 19th century. It would not only have impacted politics and economics but the day to day lives of millions across the globe from Britain and France to Russia and even places seemingly unrelated such as India. This evidence proves the indisputable significance of this historical event and provides an example of the usefulness of using counterfactual history. Counterfactual history is an alternative, controversial method of tackling history with one group arguing that it is entertaining, but not an effective method on analyzing history (probably due to its speculative nature) and another arguing that it is essential to help our understanding of the significant impacts of key historic events. Based on this essay, it is sound to argue that counterfactual is, in fact, a useful method of analyzing history.

Want to know more? For more on Trafalgar and the Napoleonic Wars try: ‘Trafalgar in History: A Battle and Its Afterlife’ edited by David Cannadine (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan) ‘The Napoleonic Empire’ by Geoffrey Ellis (Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan)

Spring 2013 │ The Shoardian

What if the Habsburg Empire had collapsed in 1848?

Jamie Horton, one of the International Baccalaureate cohort, asks what would have happened if these revolutions in the Austrian Empire had succeeded

hat would have been the consequences if the Habsburg Empire had fallen in 1848, as seemed likely at the time? What would it have done to the balance of power in Europe, and how would it have affected the development of different countries? This article is going to examine all these questions, and investigate the possibility that this collapse could have established Germany as the major world rival to the United States in the 20th century. So, what was the Habsburg Empire? Probably better known as the Austrian Empire, this vast state compromising many different nationalities was ruled over by the Habsburg dynasty. Founded in 1278, the Habsburg Empire emerged as a great power in the early 18th century after struggling and Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

The Hapsburg Empire in 1848

triumphing over the Ottoman Empire. In 1848, its territory stretched from Switzerland and northern Italy, up to Bohemia, down to the borders of Serbia and Bosnia and east to border with the Russian Empire. This patchwork of 11 different ethnic and national groups was ruled from Vienna, under the power of the Emperor, who at the start of 1848 was Ferdinand I. Austria was seen as a crucial linchpin of Europe, and played a vital role in maintaining the all-important balance of power among the Great Powers (Britain, France, Russia, Prussia, Austria) as laid down at the Congress of Vienna in 1815, where the mainly conservative rulers of the strongest countries looked to restore and secure peace after the defeat of Napoleon. Austria was expected to act as a bulwark against both French and Russian 12

What if the Habsburg Empire had collapsed in 1848? expansionism. 1848 was a turbulent year for Europe, with a tide of revolutions that shook the foundations of conservative rule. The two ideologies of liberalism and nationalism that were unleashed by the French Revolution were playing an ever more important role as the 19th century went on, and the internal tensions in many countries came to a flashpoint in 1848, with widespread civil unrest. Sparked by a revolution in France on 23rd/24th February, liberals across Europe rushed to act and a crisis quickly ensued. Hungary‘s most prominent national leader, Lajos Kossuth, called for Hungarian independence; revolution flooded through Vienna, causing the staunch symbol of conservatism that was the Austrian Chancellor, Metternich, to resign; uprisings in Italy took place, with the state of Piedmont declaring war on Austria. The Austrian government was in turmoil, and the Emperor fled the capital (after granting a constitution), leaving the city in the hands of the revolutionaries. The Habsburgs were eventually able to regain control, and reimpose centralised rule, due to their decisive military victories over the revolutionaries. General Windischgratz brutally quashed an uprising in Prague, and marched to take back Vienna whilst his compatriot Radetzky was busy defeating Piedmont in northern Italy. The Hungarians were eventually beaten in 1849, and autocratic rule and order were restored to the Austrian Empire. But what if? What if the Habsburgs had not been able to regain their authority in 1848? Let us say, for example, that the Austrians lost at the battle of Custozza (23 July 1848) in northern Italy. More men would have been sent to Italy to reverse the loss, leaving the Austrian army weaker on other fronts, possibly leading to their defeat in Hungary, and a subsequent lack of ability to establish control over their territory. A defeat at Custozza would probably have inspired revolutionaries across the Habsburg Empire, and illustrated the fact that the Austrians were truly vulnerable to the rest of their subjects. (From this point on, hypotheticals will be referred to as if they actually took place to avoid repetition of phrases like would have/could have – actual events will be duly 13

Ferdinand I, Emperor until 1848 (note the unfortunate consequences of inbreeding )

signposted). A Piedmontese victory at Custozza led to the aggrandisement of Piedmont in Italy, and the development of a state covering the entire northern part of the peninsula. Venetia and Lombardy were only too willing to join with Piedmont after the defeat of the Austrians, and without Austrian support, the Central Duchies were quickly subsumed into the growing power of the kingdom of Charles Albert (King of Piedmont). This left Piedmont in a dominating position to control and influence events in Italy, and even to begin to play a larger role in the affairs of Europe.

The defeat of the Austrians at Custozza emboldened the Hungarians, who possessed a relatively strong military force in their own right – they were able to drive the Austrians out of Budapest in 1849 after it had been taken (actual event). This proves their inherent strength anyway, but a differing scenario against a weakened Austria may have led to more long-term positive results than was actually the case. Despite fierce opposition from the Austrian military, Hungary was able both to establish itself as an independent state with its own constitution and representative body, and to beat off the Russian troops that came to help Austria (as actually happened) and eventually bring an end to the Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Habsburg Empire had collapsed in 1848?

massive shift in the balance of power in Europe, as the newly formed Germany, led by Prussia and the Kaiser, began to dominate affairs on the continent.

fighting by defeating the pro-Austrian conservatives, who were unable to have as much Austrian support as they expected because of Austrian defeats in both Italy and Hungary. The collapse of the Habsburgs had a monumental effect on Prussia and the German states as a whole. Without Austria acting as a counterbalance, Prussia was able to move into a position of complete dominance over the German states, founded upon her pre-existing economic supremacy that she possessed on account of her leadership of the Zollverein (an economic/customs union of German states with Prussia at its head – Austria was not a member). Due to Austria‘s collapse, Prussia was able to use her strength to push for German unification that included the Germanspeaking but Austrian ruled parts of the German Confederation (the Grossdeutschland solution – ―Greater Germany‖). This didn‘t happen immediately, but with Austria no longer posing a significant long-term challenge to Prussia‘s authority, this unification was practically inevitable. Without the conservatism espoused by Metternich and backed up by the power and political influence of the Austrian Empire, the ideology of nationalism was able to play a much more important role in creating popular support for unification. This much expanded German state caused a Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Lajos Kossuth declaring Hungary's independence

Alfred, Price of Windischgratz commanded the loyalist troops in Prague

Russia also benefited from the demise of Austria, especially in the Balkans. At this time, Russia was keen to portray herself as the champion of pan-Slavism, and act as a protector of the interests of the Slavic people. This can be seen as merely a convenient excuse for Russia to expand her political influence and possibly her territory in Eastern Europe. Without the power of Austria to restrain her, Russia was quick to increase her sphere of influence, especially over the new state of Hungary and the other, weaker Balkan states. This, along with Russia‘s desire to take advantage of another weak state in the Ottoman Empire, caused consternation amongst Britain and France and led to a conflict between Russia and an alliance of France, Great Britain and the Kingdom of Piedmont (as actually happened with the Crimean War, but without Austria this would probably have taken place sooner, as Russian expansionism would not have had the same checks on it). Russia was defeated in this conflict, but she still possessed major geopolitical advantages because of the weak and vulnerable states on her borders. It is possible to argue that the fall of the Habsburg Empire in 1848 may not have made that much of an impact in the grand scheme of things, as after all, Italy

What if the Habsburg Empire had collapsed in 1848?

emerge triumphant in any European war due to her strength in industry and manpower.

and Germany were still unified in the actual events of the second half of the 19th century, and Austria was declining as a power anyway. However, this would severely underestimate the role that the Austrian Empire was playing at this time. It was the Austrian presence and political leadership of the German Diet (a federal parliament) that acted as a firm hindrance to the growing power of Prussia, and meant that it was necessary for someone like Bismarck to manipulate and manage the situation in order to achieve the territorial gains that Prussia made. Without this hindrance, Prussia would have been able to stamp her authority over the other German states and take both a diplomatic and economic leadership role over the other German states, which would have led sooner or later to a more or less unified German state under Prussian control. What would happen next would rest on whether or not Germany would look to engineer further conflict in order to increase her already sizeable territory. As Austria would not have the strength to be interfering in the Balkans after the collapse of her empire, it is difficult to see how a war on a similar scale to the First World War could start, and the system of alliances that proved so crucial to increasing the scale of WW1 would work more in Germany‘s favour without a weak Austrian ally that needed to be propped up and supported. Realistically, a German state of the size envisaged here would almost certainly 15

A popular uprising in Vienna

Germany would look to increase her standing on the world stage, and it is very possible to see her overtaking Britain as a world leading power and challenging the United States for global supremacy. Germany would dominate the continent economically, and she would be a serious rival, if not even stronger than America in terms of economic influence. Do not forget that without the massive boost to her economy provided by her actions in the First World War, America would not have been in anyway near the position of such superiority that she achieved in the 1920s. Before WW1, America was growing rapidly as an economic power but she was still second to Britain (with a much smaller German state than the one that would have been created by these events also rivalling those two). To finish, the collapse of the Habsburg Empire in 1848 would have created a totally different Europe, which would have been much more German dominated. But would this Germany have been involved in two worldwide conflicts in the 20th century? That is a topic that can be argued at length, but when it all comes down to it, history pivots infinite times on what if questions, and any analysis of a counterfactual past, just like any analysis of the future, is more than likely to be wrong.

Want to know more? If Jamie has inspired a passion for all things Austrian, try: ‘The 1848 Revolutions ’ by Peter S. Jones (London: Addison-Wesley Longman) ‘1848: Year of Revolution’ by Mike Rapport (New York: Basic Books)

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605?

One of the most audacious plots in British history is analysed by Rahul Ravi, who asks if the Catholic conspirators had succeeded in blowing up Parliament and the King, what would have happened next and what effects it would have had on England and the rest of the British Isles

James I of England and VI of Scotland

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605?

n the 5th November 1605, Guy Fawkes was brought into the bedroom of King James I of England for interrogation. The gunpowder plot had failed. It could be argued that it was doomed to failure from the very start, owing to two reasons. Firstly, in order to make a rebellion work, it needed the support of a great number of people, and as a result a great number of people could blow the whistle, which is what happened. The chances of this were accentuated by just how sensational and morally disturbing would have been to people at the time. Secondly, when the plot was discovered, the gunpowder that was to be used was discovered to be decayed; separated into its relatively harmless chemical components, and so would not even have exploded. While with hindsight, the plot seems to have been orchestrated with great incompetence; both of Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605?

these factors were in fact dependant on a seemingly separate accident of history. The plot was originally scheduled to meet on 3rd October, except Parliament was postponed on that day, due to the bubonic plague still hanging over London. If this one variable is removed however, there was a very real chance that the House of Lords would have exploded, taking almost the entirety of Britain‘s political elite with it. And what would have followed? Following the plan of the conspirators, while Guy Fawkes was blowing up the Houses of Parliament, the others would capture the King‘s younger son, Charles, flee to the Midlands and seize the king‘s daughter Elizabeth from her residence in Warwickshire. She would be then be used as the Catholic figurehead for an armed rebellion against James‘s successor, that would hopefully, gather support throughout the country. In actuality, however, the much more realistic outcome of a successful plot would be greatly increased persecution against t he E ng l i s h Ro ma n Ca t hol i c community. Fawkes‘ co-conspirators continued with their plan as if it had been successful. They tried to capture Prince Charles but could not find him. Even after this second hurdle had thwarted them, they nevertheless persevered. On top of all this, the conspirators had also greatly overestimated the amount of popular support the movement would gain. This is well demonstrated by the fact that even as they lied to locals about the success of the plot so far, very few recruits joined them. They could not 17

Parliament in the late 16th century, with James I in centre position

even muster enough support to take the Princess Elizabeth from her residence, let alone create an armed force of meaningful size. In fact, as false news of the success of the plot spread throughout the country, the majority of the Catholic population, rather than being supportive, were appalled by the scale of the crime. Their most likely initial reaction would have probably been fear of a nation of Protestant retribution, who would have been aware that Catholics were responsible for both the attacks and the kidnapping of the royal children. Had the mass murder at Westminster been successful, there most probably would have been a mass murder of Catholics by Protestants, akin to the wave of hate that had caused the French Catholic‘s massacre of Protestants on St. Bartholomew‘s Day in 1572. These Protestant vigilantes would not just converge on the Midlands seeking the conspirators, but also imprison or massacre ordinary Catholics, who for Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605?

obvious reasons would have been completely unaware of the plot. The would be tragedy of this is that one distinguished member of the English Catholic community, Henry Garnet, the leader of the English Jesuits, stumbled on the plot and mortified, ordered them to desist. Furthermore, Catholic powers in Europe, whilst being critical of this hypothetical persecution, would probably not respond with action, as at the time, such brutality would be a perfectly understandable response to the murder of a nation‘s king, queen and peerage. The long term effects of a successful gunpowder plot should also be

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The Catholic conspirators of the gunpowder plot (below), such as Fawkes (above) would have been executed even if the plot had succeeded

considered. The implications it would have had on future British history would have been more significant. Charles I would still succeed his father (assuming James‘s older son was also killed in the plot), but twenty years earlier, at the age of four. Charles would never have had the difficult relationship he had with his father, and as a result, would not have veered so greatly from his policies, and he would never have made an ill-advised friendship with his father‘s unpopular favourite, Buckingham, and so would never have tarnished the start of his reign. At the age of four, he would probably have been placed under the control of a Lord Protector until he came of age, and history tells us that the consequences of this would have been unpredictable, even if we knew who it would have been. However, Harrison is making me write more. If we assume that the regency ran smoothly, we could also assume that instead of opposing his father‘s every policy, Charles would have instead

What if the Gunpowder Plot had succeeded in 1605?

revered the memory of his dead parents, and most probably from a young age, would have developed an intolerance, even hatred of Catholicism. Tending towards almost an evangelical wing of Anglicanism, as he may well have done, would have made him much more popular in England and Scotland rather than the more tolerant, Catholic friendly attitude he actually employed. In addition, when he lost his lands to Catholic nations, as a devout Protestant monarch, would have entered into war wholeheartedly on the Protestant side, and so would have retained the support of the general populace. It goes without saying that, if this had actually been the case, there would have been no English Civil War during his reign, as he could have may well been almost Puritan himself. However, another potential conflict could have arisen out of Charles‘ hypothetical evangelicalism. There quite possibly could have been a rebellion borne out of rising discontent in Ireland, where there remained a Catholic majority. This actually happened in 1641 against 19

Oliver Cromwell‘s Puritan government and was dealt with, and so the only difference would have been that this would have in fact occurred much sooner and would have most probably been put down by the secure and popular monarch. However, this could have led to further political repercussions, as once the Irish problem had been solved by mass evangelisation, the three Protestant kingdoms of Scotland, England and Ireland would have been united. Such a state would have mirrored the Protestant absolute monarchies of Charles I would Sweden and Prussia, and like these have followed his kingdoms, may well have collapsed in father’s policies revolution in modern times. and would not have become as But such speculation probably takes unpopular and things too far; who knows what other there would have been no civil war variables may have come into play if Guy Fawkes had been successful? The immediate effects would probably have resulted in the arrest and execution of conspirators and perhaps further Protestant persecution of Catholics, so probably not that di fferent from w ha t a ctually happened. But the longer term effects on government and the mind-set of Charles I would probably be greatly different and very much like his character, extremely difficult to predict.

Want to know more? If Rahul has spiked an interest in gunpowder treason and plot, why not try:

‘The Gunpowder Plot: Terror And Faith In 1605’ by Antonia Fraser (London: Phoenix, Orion) Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Germans had won the Battle of the Marne 1914?

What if the Germans had won the Battle of the Marne in 1914? The Schlieffen Plan was a daring strategy in the beginning of World War One. Mo Abdah examines the German tactics and the Battle of the Marne, one of the last battles before the trenches of the Western Front to ask what would have happened if the Kaiser‟s troops had won.

n late 1914, when Europe was ravaged by war and conflict, in the early days of The Schlieffen ‘the Great War’, German troops were Plan foresaw both marching through France as part of the an attack from infamous ‘Schlieffen Plan’. The plan was to France and from the Russian invade France via Belgium in 6 weeks, which Empire was the estimate for how long the Russians would take to mobilise their army. By the time France was invaded, the Germans could deploy their victorious armies to the eastern front where high morale, superior skill and advanced technology would see the invasion of Russia. The timing, as count Schlieffen emphasised, was absolutely crucial to the success of the plan. If France was not invaded within 6 weeks, then the Russians will have mobilised and the Germans would be fighting a war on two fronts. This, count Schlieffen predicted would result in defeat. So, let us return to our story of the Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Germans marching through France: their resistance? The British Expeditionary Force (BEP) and the French army. The combined allied force resisted bravely but the Germans were not to be stopped and enjoyed a series of victories, notably the Battle of Mons and the Battle of Ardennes. This led to what was arguably the pinnacle of the war of movement in World War I, the Battle of the Marne. The French led by Commanderin-chief Joseph Joffre had retreated to a line south-east of Paris. The Germans complacent due to their early success had even deployed armies to the eastern front (although some argue that this was due to the aristocrats complaining to the Kaiser that Russians were damaging their property in eastern German countryside), had made a fatal mistake. In response to Joffre ordering an attack on their right flank the 20

What if the Germans won the Battle of the Marne 1914?

Germans split in order for some troops to fight the French. A sizeable gap approximately 45 km in length appeared. This was spotted by allied reconnaissance air patrols and exploited by the BEP and the French. The two, now separate, German armies were caught in a classic mistake in military science with an allied army between the two sections of their ranks and were defeated in the ensuing battle. It was something of a miracle in Paris where all hope was lost, typified by the French government migrating to the safety of Bordeaux. Simon Galliéni a military advisor, was credited for his heroic efforts in Paris (much to the anger of Joffre), where he famously ordered all Parisian taxis to meet and transport 8000 reinforcements to the battle taking place about 40km away from Paris Field-Marshal von and return to Paris where they would await Schlieffen was Chief payment! of the Imperial The history books were written, the celebrations were enjoyed. The allies had halted the German onslaught! But this is where I ponder on a different, hypothetical outcome to the battle. A German victory. After all the Germans not only outnumbered the combined allied forces by about 400,000 troops, but they had firm, organised leadership. There was constant internal strife between the allies with Sir John French (leader of the BEP- rather confusingly) not getting along with Joffre. Joffre was passionately patriotic and meant well for the allied cause but he was rather ruthless at times, known for sacking dozens of officers in one go. Sir John had gone in to a sulk about Joffre for ‘a lack of consultation’ in a time where lack of unity was punishable by death by the Germans. The Germans were in an excellent position to win the battle of the Marne were it not for a simple, simple military error. ‘What if the Germans had won the Battle of the Marne?’ can be divided in to three sub questions: would the Schlieffen plan have worked? If so, would the Germans have won the war? And if they had, then what effect does this have on the way 20th century Europe unfolded? Let us focus on the first and most immediate question: if the Germans had won at the Marne would the Schlieffen plan have succeeded? It is safe to assume that if the Germans had won at the Marne that they would have gone on to capture Paris seeing as the fighting happened 21

barely 40km away from the French capital and the combined Anglo-French armies were the last line of defence. If the Germans had indeed conquered Paris then the chances of a successful counter-offensive seemed very slim if not downright impossible. The French, in their German General Staff before the war nature would resist but Germany’s occupation and devised the of Paris in WWII springs to mind here, where plan to knock French resistance was courageous but France out of a unsuccessful. There would be other strongholds European-wide in France mostly in the south such as Bordeaux, conflict but when the capital has been captured, history has shown us that the most likely outcome would be a full invasion of the country. Diverting our attention to the eastern front, it must be noted that the calculations that the élite German strategists had come up with turned out to be wrong. Russia defied their backward economy and dire state to mobilise an impressive 1.2 million man army before the estimated six weeks. The dreaded idea of fighting a war on two fronts had become a reality. Some would therefore argue that due to this, the Schlieffen plan was an impossibility. I would disagree. Quality over quantity is a perfect phrase in the context of the German army against the Russian army. Although the Germans where ghastly outnumbered the soldiers had good training, were well armed and were under clever leadership (Erich Ludendorff). The Russian army was in a horrendous state. Groups of soldiers shared a single rifle and sergeants sold the military equipment on the black market. The battle of Tannenberg summed this up in a nutshell. Superior military tactics from Ludendorff saw his troops envelope the Russians in Tannenberg Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Germans had won the Battle of the Marne 1914?

and the fighting could only he described as a massacre with the Russian 1st and 2nd armies both decimated. Further Russian defeats at masurian lakes and Austro-Hungarian pressure influence my judgment that Russia was not a problem for the Germans providing that they could focus all their troops there. I say this because although the Germans didn’t need numerical advantages to win confrontations with the Russians (their quality did the trick), Russia is the largest country in the world and has a huge area. The landscapes are difficult especially during winter as the Germans of the Nazi area learnt the hard way during operation Barbarossa. Hefty man power is required to conquer the geographical obstacles in Russia. Many historians still believe that Russia simply poses too many geographical impediments for the armies of the early 20th century and that it was simple ‗un-invadable‘. Some would argue that victory at the Marne and the fall of Paris inevitably meant that France would fall to the Germans. If this is so, then the Germans could divert the manpower to the eastern front and a highly interesting hypothetical situation would come up, the Germans with access to their full armies attempting to invade Russia. I think it was possible. In WWII the Russians were industrialised, much better equipped, had the advantage of the valuable Russian weather and had years of Stalinist propaganda instilled in to their heads (they were very patriotic to the motherland). Everything was different in World War I. Almost every advantage listed above was reversed. The soldiers lost whatever morale they had after Tannenberg, had no confidence in their superior officers and were poorly equipped and organised. The weather however didn‘t change and would have been a major factor if this hypothetical invasion had indeed happened.

state of Russia at the time. If Russia had indeed been invaded, then the fate of France was a foregone conclusion. This leaves Britain as the surviving member of the Triple Entente. I honestly think that if the Germans had reached this degree of success in mainland Europe, having won the Marne, then they would have left Britain. Britain was still the dominant navy at this point and an invasion of the island would in my opinion have been unsuccessful simply due to the inferior German navy. It must also be pointed out that this German régime did not seek to invade Britain. Many would argue that the Germans were simply defending themselves after numerous events on their borders, including Russia and France signing a secret treaty, instilled paranoia in to the Germans. The role of the United States in World War I would be non-existent as a result of German victory at the Marne. Technically none of the events which dragged the US in to war would have happened. Unrestricted submarine warfare was a last ditch attempt by the Germans to counter the British barricade and this is what drew the US in to the war. In fact, the US was fairly undecided about which side it French troops supported in the war during the early advance at the years. Woodrow Wilson was under a lot of Marne; one of the mixed pressure between 1914 and 1915 more decisive but USW (unrestricted submarine moments of the warfare) unofficially made up his mind, Great War and that of the entire population. Many who study critical thinking would accuse me of the slippery slope fallacy, but hopefully this article has emphasised

The invasion of Russia was a viable conclusion to the battle on the eastern front in 1914 considering the horrific Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if the Germans won the Battle of the Marne 1914?

General Josef

the importance of the Marne. It was a Joffre , known as junction to so many different outcomes ‘Papa Joffre’ led the and possibilities to the war. Having Allied troops at the painted a vague idea of the war I Marne imagined if the Germans had won at the Marne, I will briefly discuss the possibilities of what would have happened when the Germans won the war (hypothetically) and the effects of this on the 20th century as we know it. For a start, Germany would greatly increase its territories, most probably into major industrial areas of France and overseas colonies in Africa where France had a lot of land. The Germans would work hard to negotiate payments and peace out of Russia and they will have access to its vast resources. The external affairs are rather predictable, the internal affairs however are less so. The power struggle which arose from the Kaiser abstaining saw the Weimar republic formed. The national socialists arose from the economic mess caused by the Wall Street crash of 1929. However If the Germans had won the war then the Kaiser Wilhelm II wouldn‘t have abstained and the autocratic system of government would have continued. This would have essentially led to communism being a more appealing ideology because communism is always more appealing in 23

an autocracy (i.e. Russia). The Spartacists, it must be said, may have enjoyed more support and success if the Kaiser had still been in power. To suggest Germany would fall into a socialist republic is optimistic but much more plausible with the Kaiser in power. Furthermore, the Wall Street crash wouldn‘t have affected the Germans because they wouldn‘t have borrowed money from America for reparations as part of the treaty of Versailles. This means that the medium Hitler used to gain power would be non-existent and the existence of Nazism as a party with leverage within 50 years of the war seems doubtable. History has taught us that the parties with extreme ideologies enjoy the most power in times of extreme trouble. If the Germans had won WWI, such extreme trouble would not have arisen. Adolf Hitler, as the man we know him to be, would not have existed. To conclude, the Battle of the Marne, as explored in this article, was a turning point in World War I and modern history. Its effects could have been colossal had the Germans avoided their mistake, but instead the Marne simply lead to an entrenched 4 year stale mate. France would have been invaded allowing the Germans to deploy their bulk to the eastern front and Russia’s economic, social and military vulnerability would have seen a German invasion which paints a completely different Europe to the one we now know.

Want to know more? For more on the Marne and the Great War try: ‘’The Marne, 1914: The Opening of World War I and the Battle That Changed the World ’ by Holger H. Herwig (London: Random House Trade Paperbacks) ‘Playing the Game: The British Junior Infantry Officer on the Western Front 1914-18’ by Christopher Moore-Bick (London: Helion & Co. Limited) Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Reviews & Interviews

Interview Section Dr Till Geiger is an expert on Economic History and has written the book „Britain and the Economic Problem of the Cold War‟. He came to MGS on the 6th Feb 2013 and gave a talk titled „The Rise of an American “Empire”‟ Can you explain your passion for history? ‗When I was younger I was really interested in History, but unfortunately in order to study History at a higher level in Germany, one must also study Latin and not being a great Latin Scholar, I chose to study economics at university. The reason I returned to my passion for history was because economists don‘t explain the world, whereas historians do, therefore I studied Economic History at LSE for my masters.‘ What period of history fascinates you the most? ‗The immediate post-second world war period and the Cold War fascinate me because it is life History. I say this because my father was only fourteen at the end of the war, and living in Western Germany, was greatly influenced by postwar American foreign policy and the global politics of the time.‘ What would you say was the pivotal moment in the Cold War, and what do you think may have happened, if events had unfolded differently? ‗For me, the most important point in the Cold War was in 1945. If the Soviet Union had announced to the world that it had been devastated by war, that its economy lay in ruin and was in desperate need of financial aid, then the West would have seen that the Soviet Union was no real threat to Capitalism. Moreover, the US would probably have viewed Soviet expansionism as opportunistic and a result of the USSR‘s own insecurity. However, would the ‗West‘ have been prepared or able to offer financial aid to the USSR? I think the answer is that Western Europe was certainly in no position after the war to offer financial aid, and the USA would have been unlikely to prop up the Soviet Union as a communist state. However, that is not to say that the US foreign policy of containment and subsequent wars in South Eastern Asia [Korea] would still have existed. Therefore, I can only hypothesise, but I think that the US foreign policy would have been far less aggressive, if the USSR had let America see its real political aims and post-war position.‘

Reviews & Interviews

When would you say the Cold War began and what would you say was the main tension between the Communists and the West? ‗The conflict of ideology and culture was really important in the Cold War and in Europe there were huge doubts over capitalism after the war. In the Soviet Union the period after the war confirmed for the communists that capitalists squabbled amongst each other and that the capitalist system was close to collapse. The Soviet Union was very effective in demonstrating to Europe that the USSR had saved the continent and its cultures from Nazism. The Soviets stressed their admiration for European high culture, especially German classical music and ballet, in order to show the rest of Europe that they had shared values. It was more an uphill battle for America, which still had the stereotype held by Europeans (and other Americans themselves) that the Americans lacked this high culture. But in the late forties the USA managed to convince Europe of its cultural worth through opera and American art exhibitions, with Jackson Pollock‘s artwork becoming popular across Europe as well as many other artists. The rest of the conflict revolves around power and preserving either the capitalist or communist economic system.‘ ‗In between 1945-1947, these battle lines become drawn more clearly and the start of the Cold War for me is 1948, following the breakdown of communication when the Liberal and Social Democratic Ministers in Czechoslovakia resign and the Soviets take over. The Berlin Airlift Crisis seals this division of the major powers.‘

The Berlin Wall was eventually overcome by the people of Berlin

Reviews & Interviews

Review Section Sixth formers review books that they have been reading recently

The Jaguar Smile: A Nicaraguan Journey Sir Salman Rushdie Vintage Books, 160pp. £8.99 Though best known for his magical realism and historical fiction novels, Salman Rushdie‘s The Jaguar Smile shows us that his factual work is no less worth reading. In it he describes his journey around Nicaragua in 1986, when the country was in the midst of a period of political and social instability after the end of the Somoza dictatorship and the takeover by the left-wing Sandinista Front (FSLN), all against the sombre backdrop of the waning Cold War. Through his literary contacts, Rushdie was able to meet with and interview several members of the FSLN leadership, not least President Daniel Ortega – whom he likens to a ‗bookworm who had done a bodybuilding course‘. He reveals a group of patriotic and intelligent men, dedicated to their country‘s cause and more sensitive to public opinion than most US or British politicians, and by the end of the book is unashamedly admirative of their sincerity and determination in the face of intense economic and political pressure from the north. He does, however, present a balanced and fair view of the government – one particular concern to him, as a writer, was its decision to shut down the daily La Prensa, which had expressed some support for the US-backed opposition, an action he viewed as a potentially dangerous threat to press freedom. One of the key themes that runs through this work is the USA‘s ignorance of, or more likely refusal to admit, the true nature of the Nicaraguan revolution. For example, Ronald Reagan insisted on calling the Sandinistas ‗Stalinists‘ and a ‗dictatorship‘, even though, as Rushdie points out, the 1984 elections, in which the FSLN won a landslide victory, were rated some of the fairest ever seen in Latin America by foreign observers. Instead, the US supported the Contras, right-wing guerrilleros who terrorised rural communities and used kidnapped child soldiers to fight for them. Not for the first time, the United States of America‘s refusal to see the politics of the rest of América as anything more complex than left vs right resulted in tragedy for innocent Latin Americans. Rushdie‘s portrayal of the Nicaraguan people is particularly fascinating: throughout his journey he made a great effort to meet and communicate with the ordinary inhabitants of the country, be they soldiers, midwives, poets or rural peasants. This root-level investigation into those who make up the majority of Nicaragua‘s population gives us a perspective on revolution that is, unfortunately, left out all too often in historical literature: the opinions of ordinary people. Among the numerous revelations about the Nicaraguan people, one in particular stands out: when asked for their views on the solution to the dire political and economic situation, not one favoured negotiating with the Contra rebels – in one of his most poignant observations, Rushdie notes that the Sandinistas felt secure enough to arm the peasants with AK-47s to defend their own villages from the terrorists. What other Central American régime would have dared to do the same? If you‘re after a straightforward two-sided history of the Nicaraguan Revolution, this book is not for you. Instead, full of the linguistic eloquence and lucid insights of a novelist who has lived in both East and West, this book presents the reader with a thoroughly absorbing portrayal of a nation whose Cold War experience could be a microcosm not only of Central America, but of the entire Third World.

Sam Heath Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Review Section

Juan Carlos – A People’s King Paul Preston Harper Collins Publishers, 519pp. £25.00 Paul Preston‘s ―Juan Carlos – A People‘s King‖ is an extensive insight into the life of Spain‘s King and the fortunes and conditions surrounding his rise to the throne through the Francoist régime. He basically tries to answer why he accepted his father‘s decision to be educated in Spain under Franco away from his family and why, brought up to accept the ideals of the movimiento and the régime, did he crusade for the change to democracy after Franco‘s death. Juan Carlos attempts to tackle his relationship with his father, his rise to prominence in Franco‘s Spain and the depth of work done to create a vibrant democracy in place of the absolutist system of the Caudillo. As a historian who specializes in Hispanic studies, which he has studied for more than 30 years, he has strong knowledge and expertise on the matter which is reflected by his strong use of contemporary evidence and sources to back up his ideas and points. As an answer to the two questions, Preston seems to imply that much of Juan Carlos‘s ―self-sacrifice‖ was down to his responsibility and sense of duty to his dynasty to reclaim the Spanish throne for the Borbóns. The evidence, clearly shown, is that despite his constant moving during his early education and up-bringing away from his parents in Spain by the Caudillo, he essentially remained loyal to his family, never really adapted to Franco and remained determined to bring democracy which is seen clearly by his comments to the Chicago Tribune and New York Times on the need for change, his own personal torment at accepting the throne over his father and the obvious changes that were made after he became king to free the press and create a constitutional system. This is indeed backed up by much evidence, quoting almost every major Spanish newspaper and key figure to present a credible account of what happened and why. Nearly every point is backed up by some quote or statistic, his range of knowledge, facts and degree of detail making it very convincing and impressive to read. However, despite this, much of the book is based solely on the history behind the man and thus the man himself does remain a bit of a mystery. Whether down to his noted ―shyness‖ or Preston‘s focus on Franco and the situation of the dictatorship instead of Juan Carlos, it is less of a biography than a book on the relationships and intrigue in the Francoist bureaucracy. In focusing on public life and events, which are nonetheless well researched and explained, the character of Juan Carlos and what he was like is not so clear cut. Although he had an obvious sense of duty to Spain and to his family, he is described by Preston indeed as a bit of a playboy, who had many infatuations, none more than with Princess Maria Gabriella di Savoia and enjoyed hunting, skiing and yachting. Furthermore, the fact that he accidentally shot his own brother while playing with a loaded gun hardly suggests the dutiful King implied by Preston. Thus, much of the personal character remains double-sided. He ended a dictatorship and brought freedom, but was not an outstanding student at school and didn‘t have much popularity before the democratization after he came to power. It is indeed very similar to ―Franco‖, another book by Paul Preston, which revealed a lot about the man and his influence on Spain, if again, lacking in personal details and information on his private life, focusing mainly on his public role and the bigger picture at the time, although it‘s length and depth of knowledge are, again, something that must be noted. Thus, although it is true that Juan Carlos was a man burdened by responsibilities, described as a ―shuttlecock‖ played between two giants, and has been well documented by Preston, nevertheless, much of the man himself is not revealed. Despite the fact that we learn so much about his public life and problems in getting to the throne, not so much is revealed about his private life which is the only real problem for an otherwise excellent history on the man behind the throne. It is a very comprehensive book on what happened and why, and would be perfect for any historian interested in Spain, Franco or Juan Carlos.

Ryan Emerson 27

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Reviews & Interviews

IWMN Reviews by Year 9 During the Lent term the Year 9 forms went on a trip to the Imperial War Museum North to discover more about World War One The Imperial War Museum isn‘t exact- it caters for everyone. Its sheer size and scale will appeal to all couples and students wandering around for a visit, right down to groups of families and children losing themselves in search for the many more eccentricities and wonders of IWMN. It offers all an incredible insight into the Wars that will clutch on to them from the moment they enter right until they walk out of the exit doors. The thrilling adventure began exactly the moment I walked through the doors leading to the main exhibition room. I stepped into a dark yet vast room and already there was no leaving. The space you‘re given allows you to freely explore into the depths of World War 1. Surrounding myself were small glass cupboards positioned neatly around the room holding immense evidence about the War. I was stunned by the delivery of information on the war- unlike a lengthy essay, you are instead introduced to concise blocks of text which are easy to read and comprehensible. I also enjoyed how the structure of the main exhibition room worked as a somewhat timeline; you would be reading on the causes of the first world war an then would find the next pulse of light like some puzzle presenting you with the subsequent stages of the war. As I would pass every stage of the WW1 I marvelled at the beauty of the artefacts and how they carried great significance making IWMN even more special. When I approached the artillery stage I was mesmerized by the weaponry that IWMN had preserved and I identified each gun. There was a British Webley Mark IV revolver and a German PO8 Luger pistol. Then would follow more extreme weaponry, such as the German Gewer 98 rifle and Maxim machine gun. Attached to the ceiling would be the eminent aeroplanes displaying aviation in the wars. Walking on, there were on the walls exhibits of other disasters and wars. I passed one wall and saw the World Trade Centre after it had been fatally hit by the two planes. There was also on display a small piece of infrastructure that happened to be a part of one of the towers. In large bold text I read more depressing news about casualties and history repeating itself again as I passed other walls bearing more distressing information about World War 2 and the Iraq wars. Perhaps this was to be a disadvantage of IWMN. IWMN also showed the public the true veterans of the wars: those who had taken a life to save a life, Politicians working diligently for their country and Commanders of British Troops and armies who had fought bravely in the wars. I adored the dedication and the tribute to the veterans and all those who had fought. There were sections devoted to and explaining the roles of Sir Douglas Haig, David Lloyd George, Woodrow Wilson and of course Edith Cavell. The exhibition gave more intriguing information about the war including Naval Arms Races, USA, submarine warfare at the height of the Zimmermann Telegram and much more.

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The museum also talked more about life in the trenches and home front which gave me a vision about food, hygiene and hazards. What was also excellent about the museum was that it didn‘t just offer information and knowledge about the wars, but showed it. I was passing yet another glass cupboard when I was enticed by these cylinder cases. They were known infamously as the mystery smell boxes. One reeked of a man‘s feet in trench life and there were others which smelled awful that you had to identify. The timeline carried on and I began to lose myself. It was then that I saw these extraordinary filing cabinets which opened to show letters between families and soldiers. This talked more about life on the home front. I began to come more to my senses passing by the Gulf wars, Falkland wars and then to present day Afghanistan. After a full view of IWMN‘s display of the wars, I would definitely like to come back and revisit. It was afterwards, that I entered the ―Saving Lives‖ exhibition and noticed that the room was much brighter than the main exhibition hall. This was because the room resembled a hospital, the floor, the lights etc., as if it were trying to help feel I was about to step into a world of medicine and improved treatments for those who had suffered in the war. I was first introduced to the RAMC (Royal Army Medical corps) and read more about their practises. It was linked to the wars as it talked about the diseases one could get from the trenches and fronts such as trench foot and I saw gruesome images of victims of that and other diseases. Images only began to become more appalling with victims hit by shell fragments and suffering from IED‘s (Improvised explosive devices). After seeing such atrocities, I approach the second part of the exhibition: Treatments and Cures. This section also gave information about soldiers who had considered their friends and fellow soldiers before themselves. One of these men was Noel Chevasse who saved 20 men while already injured by a shell. As I walked along I learnt that soldiers can also suffer from a ―post-traumatic stress disorder‖ known as shellshock. It was then that I saw more about war accelerating change from the discoveries of penicillin to solve the problem of wound infections and blood transfusions to help those with little blood. There were also the breakthroughs of using prosthetics for amputated limbs and plastic surgery for those whose faces had been sadly distorted by shells and burns. It was these breakthroughs that made the ―Saving Lives‖ exhibition very unique to IWMN. The Imperial War Museum was truly delightful. It is inspirational and dedicated to its aims: to provide the general public with information about the wars of the past. It fulfils this aim in its own unique way making it a must-visit Museum for all ages.

Tayyeb Sheikh 28

IWMN Review On the 28th of February, I went to the Imperial War Museum North with my form and had a very enjoyable time. If a family were to go to the museum, the first thing they would notice would be the interesting design of the exterior and also the interior. The concept was thought up by an architect called who Daniel Libeskind and it is meant to represent the effects of war. It shows a world shattered by war and then being refitted by three interlocking shards which represent conflict on water, earth and in the air. When I went with my form, we first had a handling session. This is also available to groups. This involves handling replicas and real items from World War One, the Holocaust or World War Two. There is also an opportunity to listen to local people who have had their lives affected by war both home and abroad. We did a World War One session and this involved getting to handle replica grenades, gas masks and shell cases. This was particularly interesting as a member of staff would come over and give us interesting facts about the objects we were holding which helped us really understand what the war was like a bit more. After this, we went into the main museum to look at the information on all sorts of different conflicts from World War One to the present day Afghanistan War. This was an incredible hall brimming with information on every little detail of war. It is set out to make you feel a bit disorientated, as if you were on the frontline. On every hour there is a short show on a different topic. When we went we saw one on the effects war has on children. It was quite moving

and powerful but it made you think about what it would be like if your lives were affected like that and how you would feel if you were put into the same shoes as these children. After the short film, we moved into the best part of the museum; a special exhibit about the medical teams on the front line and the improvement of medicine in wartimes. Like all the other content in the museum, it was quite thought-provoking and it really made you stop and think. This is considerably smaller than the main hall, but the content in this room is absolutely fascinating. It shows all the minute changes to the changes that now save thousands more lives each year such as blood transfusions and the adaptation of drugs like penicillin. While in this room, you learn immense amounts about subjects you probably never really thought about when considering war. Just one of forty one special exhibits since the museumâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s opening ten years ago, there are sure to be plenty more incredible exhibitions just like this one. And, if the saving lives exhibit is anything to go by, the past and future exhibitions should be just as amazing. I would recommend this to any family that would like an educational day out that will leave you wanting to come back for more. Also, I would recommend keeping an eye on the special exhibitions being held there in order to be truly astounded by some of the small, forgotten details about conflicts. Overall, it was a great trip and it would be worth revisiting in the future when the new exhibition arrives. Tom Makin

Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

Reviews & Interviews

Interview Section II Dr Patrick Hagopian is a lecturer at Lancaster University specialising in the Vietnam War. He came to MGS on the 10th April 2013 to give a talk on Nixon in Vietnam. The Shoardian was able to question him on Vietnam and history at university What got you into history? ‗It was a bit of an accident. I was applying for a doctorate at the Johns Hopkins University in the USA to do Humanities but my application was sent to the history department. My doctorate was on the Vietnam War, but I was not sure if it counted as history; it was 1988, only 15 years after the USA withdrew but the professor who admitted me said that he was a full professor of history at Johns Hopkins University, and if he said it was history, then it is history!‘ The popular view is that US withdrawals were caused by the peace protests but this has been discredited by some historians. What is your view? ‗There is a lot of controversy over the influence that the anti-war movement had on US policy. Some historians do indeed believe that the movement prolonged American

President Nixon sought to find a solution to the Vietnam War that would bring ‘Peace with Honour’, yet he was not afraid to apply pressure on the communist forces try to bring them to the negotiating table Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Interview with Dr Patrick Hagopian

society‘s support for Johnson and Nixon‘s policies. The theory goes like this: The American public disliked the war in Vietnam but disliked the protesters even more and so the protesters actually buoyed up support for the war. I think that this view is wrong, as protesters maintained a visible opposition to the war and continually raised moral and political objections to it. They provided an effervescence that bubbled through the polity and encouraged elected officials in Congress to question and oppose the war. So I think that the protesters did influence the war, in part by staying the President‘s hand at significant moments and by preventing escalation. Let me give you a clear example: ‗President Nixon wanted to launch a decisive escalation of the war in autumn of 1969. ‗Operation Duck Hook‘, his name for a planned operation outside of South Vietnam, was cancelled as a result of two anti-war protests in October and November.‘ ‗This one clear example shows how the anti-war protests influenced the President. If we can extrapolate from that, the movement was influential in the sense of influencing what did not happen, not solely what did happen.‘ Would you say that there were any turning points in the Vietnam War? ‗There was a time before the war when it seemed possible that the USA would recognise that there were legitimate demands for Vietnamese independence from French colonialism; Roosevelt seemed inclined to acknowledge that these demands for Vietnamese independence.‘ ‗I would recommend a book that has recently been published [Embers of War: The Fall of an Empire and the Making of America's Vietnam], written by Fredrik Logevall on the first Indochina War, when France tried to re-establish its authority over Vietnam. Through this, one can see how U.S. decision making was driven by the imperatives of the Cold War. However, if in 1954, the USA had intervened at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu between the French and the Vietnamese it would have not made a decisive difference because the French defeat was inevitable at that stage. One of the problems was that the Americans had a tense relationship with the French.‘ What advice would you give to students looking to read history at university? ‗Come to Lancaster! It is a parochial point, I know, but I would hope that they would consider Lancaster as well as other high quality degree schemes. In a broader sense, if they have had a chance to read a particular historian whom they admire, they might investigate where he or she teaches and consider applying there. They should also consider the particular mix of subjects offered in different history departments with a view to studying the period, nation or region that most interests them. They should take all this into account. They should be drilling down into the particular strengths of each department where they are considering studying history; not just the obvious ones, but where there is a mix of subjects that they love or are open to becoming fascinated with. They should also keep in mind that they may have not found the right subject for themselves yet and must be open to other possibilities. And of course, they must try to visit open days to get a feel for the universities and what student life is like at each one.‘ 31

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The War of the Triple Alliance

The war of the Triple Alliance Sam Heath investigates the war in South America in the 1860s between Argentina, Uruguay, Paraguay and Brazil

he War of the Triple Alliance, known in Paraguay as La Guerra Guasú or ‗The Great War‘, was the largest and bloodiest war in South American history, pitting a coalition of Argentina, Uruguay and the Empire of Brazil, then (much as it is now) the continent‘s military and economic superpower, against a small, landlocked country of barely 500,000 inhabitants. Paraguay itself lost 40% of its territory to the victors, and half of its population perished. The story of this conflict, and its consequences for the belligerent powers, is little known outside the continent, even though it had such a profound influence on the future not only of Paraguay itself, but also of the whole of South America.

The war emerged out of a rebellion in Uruguay by the liberal Colorados against the democratically- elected, conservative Blanco government. Tensions between Brazil and Paraguay grew when the Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Left: Paraguayan President Francisco Solano López

Right: President Bartolomé Mitre of Argentina

(Beards were in fashion then)

former intervened on the side of the Colorados, culminating in the defeat of the Blancos at Paysandú in December 1864, an action which Paraguay‘s President Francisco Solano López viewed as an unconscionable violation of Uruguay‘s sovereignty and a threat to the balance of power in the region. The war officially began in May 1865, when Brazil, Argentina and the newly liberal Uruguay signed the Treaty of the Triple Alliance against Paraguay, leading to almost six years of ferocious land and river warfare.

It has traditionally been believed that Paraguay‘s fate was effectively sealed by the coalition of those three countries. In reality, however, the Allied victory was not so completely certain throughout the war, and the two sides were not as unbalanced as it may first seem. In early 1865, the Allies fielded a combined army of around 70,000 men, 40,000 of whom were Brazilians, backed up by their 32

The War of the Triple Alliance

relatively huge populations, and their economic, technological and naval superiority, while the Paraguayans numbered 60,000, mostly poorly-trained and equipped with out-dated weaponry, and with only a small population and economy to rely on. On the other hand, Paraguay had several advantages balancing the odds: their troops were all free men – (s well as a substantial number of women)– and possessed of a zealous fighting spirit praised even by their enemies, while the vast majority of the Allied armies consisted of conscript soldiers and, in the case of Brazil, black slaves, who had little reason to feel patriotic – indeed, many of them deserted to the Paraguayans to gain their freedom; secondly, Paraguay was aided by the geography of the region, as the only practical way into the country was via the Río Paraná, guarded by the heavily fortified citadel of Humaitá, and the Paraguayans managed to use the numerous swamplands and tributaries to their advantage, against the Allied troops who were more used to fighting pitched battles on open ground. In fact, Paraguay achieved several victories over the Allies, including at Curupayty in September 1866, where 5,000 Paraguayans and 49

cannon in fortified trenches successfully defended themselves against an Argentine-Brazilian attack: the Allies suffered 9,000 casualties, the Paraguayans just 54. Ultimately, López failed to take advantage of this overwhelming victory, but it showed that Paraguay could still fight a defensive war, and might still win it.

Another path which the conflict might have taken was negotiation between the opposing sides: this possibility was brought tantalizingly close to realization just days before the battle at Curupayty, when López sent a letter to the Argentinian President Bartolomé Mitre, proposing a conference to discuss the possibilities of peace negotiations. Whether this was a genuine gesture of desire for a political settlement on the part of the Paraguayan leader or simply a ruse to gain time to reinforce the Curupayty garrison was debated among foreign commentators, and will probably never be known; it is certain, however, that the timing of such a peace deal would have been very propitious for both sides. The Paraguayans found themselves in an extremely grave situation, with their defences at Curupayty still incomplete, and with López himself commenting that ‗things could not look more diabolical than they do‘. T; there were calls from the west coast republics, particularly from Peru, for the end of the war, and there was also the possibility of intervention by the European powers, whose trade along the Paraná was being interrupted. ; Ffinally, there was evidence that the war was becoming increasingly unpopular in all three Allied countries – the feeling was especially intense in the Argentinian provinces, which were naturally suspicious of any attempts by the centralist government of Buenos Aires to transfer more powers to the capital, and which now saw the war, and Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The War of the Triple Alliance

the demands for money and manpower that came with it, as part of this creeping centralisation – Salta even tried to secede from the republic. One Argentinian newspaper, La América, openly defended López and criticised Mitre‘s incompetence, while the opinion of ‗No queremos la guerra con López‘ (We don‘t want war with López) was being heard across the country. As it happened, the two presidents, informed of intense Brazilian disapproval, met at a place called Yatayty Corá, and spoke for five

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Paraguayan Refugees

The Battle of Tuyuti, 24th May 1866

whole hours. Exactly what they discussed remains unknown, although it appears that López invited Mitre to end the bloodshed. I, but in the end, however, no agreement could be reached, primarily due to Mitre‘s obstinate insistence upon López‘s stepping down as president – some commentators have suggested that López offered Mitre a compromise, proposing to retire to Europe to two years, but this cannot be verified. Perhaps the underlying problem was the fact that the futures of the governments of both Argentina and the Brazil were at stake and rested upon promises of a victory over Paraguay, and neither could afford to risk a possibly humiliating peace treaty with a comparatively tiny, and supposedly inferior, republic.

Let us imagine, therefore, that after the crushing Allied defeat at Curupayty on the 22nd of September 1866, López had followed up his tide of good fortune with a offensive campaign, rather than the

The War of the Triple Alliance

defensive strategy he actually adopted. Their armoury restocked with 3,000 Enfield rifle-muskets captured in the battle, and their troops in an almost festive mood, the Paraguayans could easily have overrun the Allied position at Curuzú – now guarded by only 8,000 despondent Brazilians – and driven the rest of their forces back across the Paraná. As the news of the battle reached home, there were demonstrations in both Buenos Aires and Rio de Janeiro calling for the end of the war, and Mitre was obliged to send 4,000 troops to quell an insurrection in the Andean provinces. If, in our imaginary situation, the Paraguayans‘ wave of success had continued, it is not inconceivable that some of the Argentinian provinces on the east bank of the Paraná – to wit, Entre Ríos, Corrientes and Misiones, collectively known as Argentinian Mesopotamia – would have seceded from Argentina and declared their allegiance to López instead, as the natural provincial resentment to porteño dominance was intensified here by a number of connections to Paraguay: they shared a history of Jesuit missions and gaucho culture, and; the trade in tobacco and yerba mate (a plant used for making a sort of tea) from Paraguay was vital to these provinces‘ economies due to geographical proximity; and, perhaps. Perhaps most importantly, a large proportion of their inhabitants spoke Guaraní natively, as in Paraguay. In fact, a number of disparate rebel movements did arise in 1867, calling for the restoration of true federalism in Argentina and an end to the Triple Alliance, proclaiming that the Brazilians were the real enemy. Admittedly, López would never have been able to win the war outright: the distance to the Argentinian capital was too great, and, with 20,000 troops remaining, he simply did not possess the manpower or resources to force the Argentinians into a 35

Brazilian uniforms during the war

surrender. Nevertheless, it could be argued that in the event of a Paraguayan victory at Curupayty and advance down the Paraná, and with revolts in the Mesopotamian and Andean provinces, Mitre would probably have been forced to try to reach some sort of agreement with the Paraguayans by mid 1867, in order to avoid a full-scale popular revolt in Buenos Aires or a military takeover.

Any negotiations at this stage would most likely be based on the (albeit rather vague) conditions proposed by López at Yatayty Corá a year earlier. By now, Mitre would no longer be able to insist on López‘s retirement as president of Paraguay, as he had done then, nor could he be so obstinately obedient to the rules of the Treaty of the Triple Alliance; the Paraguayans would now have the upper hand in the negotiations. While it is of course impossible difficult to speculate abouton the contents of any such agreement, we can at least suggest a number of terms that could have sufficed to end the war between Argentina and Paraguay: as regards territorial boundaries, Mitre would have relinquished control of the provinces of Corrientes and Misiones, which, though under the nominal control of Argentina, had never been officially assigned to Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The War of the Triple Alliance

either country – Misiones had effectively ruled itself until 1830. This territorial change would have been much more significant in political and economic terms than the 45,000 square miles it contained: not only would it have given Paraguay access to the Río Uruguay, another route to the country for trading steamers from the Atlantic, but it would also have enhanced Paraguay‘s, and thus López‘s, domestic and international prestige, especially as it represented the unification of all Guaraní-speaking regions under Paraguayan rule. Mitre would also have had to concede Paraguay‘s control over Formosa, a province in the Chaco which had historically been contested by the two nations, bringing Paraguay‘s southwestern border down to the Río Ypitá. In economic terms, López would almost certainly have demanded free trade along the entire lengths of the Paraná and Uruguay rivers, and an end to blockades by the Argentinian navy, to allow Paraguayan exports, principally tobacco and yerba mate, to reach the global market. Finally, the end of Argentina‘s cooperation with Brazil through the Treaty of the Triple Alliance would of course be insisted upon. Thus, Argentinian involvement in the war would have ended, presumably joined by Uruguay, which had never been in any state to participate anyway.

Brazilian artillery

There still remains the question of Brazil, which unlike Argentina, was geographically remote from the main conflict areas and therefore less susceptible to Paraguayan assaults. While there was no eagerness for the war among either the working classes or the conscript soldiers, the Brazilian upper classes remained reluctantly supportive of continuing the conflict – furthermore, the reputation of the monarchy was at stake, and the Emperor, Dom Pedro II, saw it as his moral duty to see the end of López‘s rule. Even so, the Paraguayans did manage to make some inroads into Brazil‘s western provinces of Mato Grosso and Rio Grande do Sul, and eventually even the Imperial élite must have realised the futility of continuing an increasingly pointless land war without the support of their two former allies to the south.

Being such a crucial turning point in South American history, the consequences of any premature peace settlement in 1867/8 cannot be underestimated. To appreciate this, we must understand the actual effects that the protracted six-year war had on Paraguay itself. The most obvious effect was the vast death toll: war casualties alone were as high as 220,000, not including the many thousands who died from disease and starvation provoked by the conflict – some have argued that the massacres committed by the Allied armies amounted to genocide, exemplified by

the order given to Brazilian officers to eliminate the Paraguayans ‗até o feto no ventre da mãe‘ (up to the fetus in the mother‘s womb). This scale of decimation would be deleterious to any country, but to a country as small as Paraguay, with a pre-war population of only 500,000, its result was catastrophic. Economically, the countryside was in ruin, the labour force severely depleted, and the strong modernisation that had been taking place for the last four decades halted in its tracks. Under its two previous presidents,

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The War of the Triple Alliance

José Gaspar Rodríguez de Francia and Carlos Antonio López, Paraguay‘s level of development had been the envy of the continent: agriculture became selfsufficient, with the land of aristocrats and clerics nationalised and divided among the peasants, and in the 1840s, with increased foreign (primarily British) investment, the first highways and telegraph systems had been built, as well as one of the first railroads in South America, from Asunción to Paraguarí. By 1870, Paraguay was the most backward nation in the region, and it was only in the early 1900s that economic development reached prewar levels. Paraguay also had one of the most stable political regimes in the postindependence Americas, with only three rulers between 1814 and 1870 – neighbouring democratic Argentina, on the other hand, saw more than 20 heads of state in the same period – and, compared to most other Latin American countries, social inequality was extremely low, as symbolized by the equal status of the indigenous language Guaraní with Spanish, even among white and mestizo inhabitants. The war set back these extraordinary social and political advances by decades, so much so that it was not until 1993 that Paraguay saw its first democratically elected president. Francisco Solano López himself was himself killed by Imperial soldiers in March 1870 at Cerro Corá, the last battle of the war, famous pronouncing the words ‗Muero con mi patria‘ (I die with my country) as he died – he remains to this day a hero of the Paraguayan people against foreign oppression. In the aftermath of the war, Brazil and Argentina forced Paraguay to cede 169, 174 km² of land – almost 40% of its territory – most of which consisted of the most fertile tobacco and yerba mate farmland, and it is likely that, if it had not been for its usefulness as a buffer state between the two giants, Paraguay would have been divided up completely. 37

In the event that the war had never arisen, or that a peace treaty had been signed in 1867 or 186/8, the international situation in the Southern Cone would have been radically different for the rest of the 19th century and even beyond. Paraguay would almost certainly have remained the most economically developed society in the region, with an economy based primarily on agriculture but also increasingly industrialized, aided by rising foreign investment, to an extent way to a significantly greater extent than above those of Argentina, Brazil or Uruguay. The level of social equality would have far outshone its neighbours, and probably most American countries today, and democracy would have emerged, if not under López then under one of his successors, as a result of the populist policies pursued by the government and the gradual development of a mercantile middle class. The War of the Triple Alliance really was a tragedy, the unjust triumph of superpowers over a defiant independent nation, that robbed the Paraguayan people of everything they had constructed over half a century, and which caused a huge gulf between what was and what could have been.

Want to know more? For more on South American history, try: ‗Tragedy of Paraguay’ by Gilbert Phelps (London: Cox & Wyman) ‗A Brief History of Argentina’ by Jonathan C. Brown (New York: Checkmark Books)

Spring 2013│ The Shoard-

The Nauruan Tragedy

The Nauruan Tragedy Sam Heath writes about the sad fate of the small island of Nauru The clichéd ‗Pacific paradise‘ did not seem so far away after all.

he tragic history of Nauru, the world‘s

smallest republic with an area of 8 mi² and 10,000 inhabitants, serves as a warning to us all about the dangers of economic mismanagement and over-exploitation of natural resources. . In 1906, the British Pacific Phosphate Company began to mine phosphate, a white powdery rock used in fertilizer, in central Nauru. It was only upon independence in 1968, however, under the leadership of the first president Hammer deRoburt, that the country began to reap the rewards of its own mineral wealth. Revenues from the phosphate brought the government around A$100 million annually from 1970 to the early 1990s, with this remarkably rapid wealth acquisition earning Nauru the nickname of ‗Kuwait of the Pacific‘. In fact, during the 1970s, Nauruans enjoyed the second highest GDP per capita in the world (after the UAE), and the entire nation embarked on an veritable spending spree. Politicians hired private jets to go on shopping expeditions in Melbourne, Singapore and Hawai‘i, while one police chief imported a Lamborghini, even though the island had only one paved road with a speed limit of 30 mph – all of this with public money. A prime example of the unnecessary expense was the flag-carrier Air Nauru, which started operating in 1972: the airline operated (often empty) flights to as far away as Manila and Auckland, and at its peak had a capacity equivalent to 10% of the population.

Yet the glory days were doomed to end. By the early 1990s, the phosphate reserves were runnning out, and new sources of revenue had to be found. Nauru began buying properties around the Pacific, notably Nauru House in Melbourne, its ‗jewel in the crown‘, and the Grand Pacific Hotel in Suva. Unfortunately, however, a succession of finance ministers, lacking any financial experience whatsoever, proved incapable of developping supposedly sound investments. The funds of the Nauru Phosphate Royalties Trust, badly neglected since its foundation in 1970, were drying up, and the government was running on a deficit of A$50 million per year. In an event symbolic of Nauru‘s downfall, Nauru House had to be sold off in 2004 when retaining it became unviable. Politically, too, the situation was deteriorating: protests by ordinary Nauruans broke out at Yaren airport in 1993 against the hosting of the South Pacific Forum, and the country saw 8 different unstable administrations come and go in the 1990s alone. By the turn of the century, the government was bankrupt, relying on AusAID donations to kept the economy afloat, and corrupt management by politicians such as President René Harris continued to deplete the country‘s funds, while public employees, who make up 95% of the workforce, had grown used to earning money for doing next to nothing. Now, four-fifths of the island has been stripped of nutrients for the mining industry and is a moonscape of jagged limestone pinnacles, totally unusable for farming. The population, once among the world‘s wealthiest, is now among its poorest and unhealthiest: around 80% of the population is obese, and 1 in 3 Nauruans is affected by diabetes. Most unjust of all, it has been estimated that if the phosphate revenues had been invested effectively, every Nauruan family today would have around A$4 million. Those most responsible for the tragedy, the incompetent, corrupt politicians and esurient Australian financial advisors, have still not received punishment after one of history‘s most unconscionable exploitations of an island and its people – whether the injustices caused by the errors of the past can be rectified remains to be seen.

What if Malcom X hadn’t Been Assassinated?

What if Malcom X Hadn’t Been Assassinated? Richard Birch examines the icon of the Black Power movement and asks what would have happened if Malcom had not been shot by a Nation of Islam Gunman

n the early 1960s, America was in a state of social upheaval. The civil rights movement had shaken Conservative white America to its core, with its promotion of nonviolent resistance in order to achieve equal rights for blacks. However, a far more controversial campaign was to take hold of America, led by a young minister of the Nation Of Islam called Malcolm X. As the civil rights movement took hold, this young, physically domineering and powerful orator emerged and gained support. He did not promote the integration of blacks and whites in an equal society: he promoted the punishment of whites, the use of black violence, black pride (including plans to return to Africa) and black superiority. The white supporters the civil rights movement had gained were put off by the violence and threat of the Black Power movement. But what if Malcolm X had survived the attempt on his life by a NOI gunman?

waste. The black cause was set back, yet anarchy spread nationwide as X‘s teachings grew more extreme; calling for total disrespect of white authority. The divide between Black Power and the Civil Rights movement increased as King spoke of his increasing disdain for X‘s violent tactics and X derided King as a stooge of the white authorities.

The Black Power movement retained its iconic leader and gained momentum and influence. Malcolm X rose to prominence and retaliatory violence from blacks increased. The use of fire hoses and police attack dogs against black protesters were met by acts of terrorism against white figures of authority and random acts of racially motivated violence also increased; as the violent and the desperate leapt on the chaos as an opportunity to attack and rob.

If Malcolm X hadn‘t been assassinated in 1965, it would not have taken long for another one of his many enemies to have killed him. He was a charismatic figure, yet was sure to bring only anarchy to America, using his considerable talents as a leader and orator to set the civil rights movement back years whilst encouraging nationwide violence. The violence would only have increased with his survival; and would have subsided with his eventual death.

As Martin Luther King struggled to win over Lyndon B. Johnson with peaceful methods, many blacks grew enraged by the lack of action. ―Mr Kennedy… there will be no cooling-off period for us.‖ spoke John Lewis as early as 1963. Many blacks identified with the self-righteous anger of the charismatic Malcolm X, yet many at the Nation of Islam were angry with his inability to follow their strict religious teachings. Threats on his life increased and he retaliated with a series of speeches condemning his former comrade, Elijah Muhammad. Put off greatly by the violence spreading nationwide, Lyndon Johnson refused to support the civil rights bill; sending all of King‘s work to

As black infighting grew, and the blacks all the while were attacked by white racist fringe groups such as the increasingly popular Ku Klux Klan, foreign governments spoke of the need to put an end to ―the race issue‖ once and for all. While Lyndon Johnson sought out a deal with King s a way to end the violence, Malcolm X made a pilgrimage to Mecca before visiting Nigeria (where he had been well received several years previously). However, as the civil rights bill was in the process of being passed (a year later than in reality) Malcolm X was attacked by Islamic extremists in Nigeria, resulting in his death on July 19th 1966.

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field?

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field? The most illustrious, intelligent and dashingly handsome editor Harrison Edmonds examines the final Battle of the War of the Roses and answers what would have happened if the Last Plantagenet had won at Bosworth

he Battle of Bosworth Field on the 22nd August 1485 commonly signified the end of Medieval England the start of the Tudor dynasty. The reign of Henry VII, his son and his grandchildren are some of the most heavily studied periods in English history (as Year 8s and Year 12s can attest to) because of the amount of change and upheaval that occurred in England, from the Break with Rome to the Dissolution of the Monasteries to the Armada and the founding of Virginia by Sir Walter Raleigh. But none of this would have Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

occurred if the outcome at Bosworth had been different. This article will try to answer the question of what would have happened if Richard III had won and what effects this would have had on England and the rest of the world. Please note though that one ca n ne v e r a nsw e r s u ch hypothetical questions with certainty; history, by its nature, is caused by a series of inter-linked and often accidental events that lead to today and so such a question one could never provide a completely sufficient answer as some events would have occurred in ways impossible to 40

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field?

probably been captured and hung, drawn and quartered as a traitor.

predict. Thus this essay is only hypothetical and hopefully by reading it you will gain a greater understanding of why this battle was so important. Richard III went to Bosworth expecting victory; he was a fierce warrior who often got himself in the thick of the fighting, having retook the crown from the Lancastrians in 1471. Indeed his army of 10,000 outnumbered Henry Tudor‘s 4,000 and the main cause of his defeat was because he was attacked by the treacherous Northumberland who had pledged support to the king but remained aloof of the battle before charging into the Yorkist forces and the King‘s bodyguard when Richard led a charge against Henry. But if Northumberland had not committed his 5,000 men to the battle or joined with the King Richard would have won and history would have been very different. If Henry had not been killed in the fighting, he would have

Richard III, the Last Plantagenet

Henry‘s claim to the throne had been weak at best, his mother, Margaret Beaufort, was descendant from John of Gaunt, who was the third son of Edward III, the man who had started the Hundred Years War. She was born out of wedlock, and although she was legitimised when Gaunt married her mother (who was his mistress) she was barred from the succession. Henry represented the last chance of the Lancastrians for final victory and if he had failed then there would have been no more claimants to legitimately challenge Richard for the throne. That is not to say that Richard and the Plantagenet House‘s reign would have been guaranteed to continue: both his wife and only legitimate son died before Bosworth. Richard had been negotiating with the King of Portugal to marry his sister Joanna and had made one of his nephews John de la Pole, Earl of Lincoln, as his successor. Whether Pole succeeded or Joana had a child is irrelevant for this essay. The main issue is that the Tudor dynasty would have never occurred. That means no Henry VII, Henry VIII, Edward VI, Mary or Elizabeth I. This lack of Tudors in English history is important, as the Great Matter and Henry VIII‘s divorce would have never occurred. This means that there would have been no Break with Rome and England would have remained a Roman Catholic country. Lutherans would have still existed in England, no doubt, yet they would have held little sway over the king as he would have no need to split with the Pope. This means that it is less likely that

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field?

Protestantism would have taken hold in England. That is the important point. 16th

A Catholic England in the Century would have seen no conflict with Spain and no Armada- which had boats filled with priests- to take England and reinstate Catholicism. More importantly, this means that there would have been no drive for the English to raid Spanish shipping and colonise America. America would look very different today, as a smaller English presence could have seen more of Spanish, French and Scottish colonists and influences. Englandâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s enemies would have been the Protestant Low Countries, whose maritime empire reached the East Indies. When Dutch ships came back to Europe laden with calicoes and nutmeg there was frenzy in England to cash in on the trade and in 1600 the English East India Trading

America would look very different in some ways, but not in others

Henry Tudor had a weak claim to the English throne

Company was formed. A Catholic England would have had a greater incentive to fight of the Dutch and gain trading posts and goods in the East Indies than a Protestant one. Therefore England could have focussed more of her resources on successfully colonising the East Indies and India and spreading her influence earlier on, such as in the 1600s, than on American expansion. This multicultural America would not be mostly united under Britain, as it was before the War of Independence, but instead ruled by other European states. When independence came, therefore, whether through peaceful or violent means, North America would be made up of multiple nation states with their own distinctive cultures. If these states did become united, the result would most likely have been a looser, more autonomous confederation and not a closer federation of states. North America may not have had English as its primary language and not develop any sort of The most important effect on England would have been no union with Scotland in 1707. The Stuarts would

Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

What if Richard III had won at Bosworth Field?

most likely never have come to the throne of England and the Scottish would not have lost £400,000 (half its capital) trying to set up a trading post in Panama in 1700, where the colonists succumbed to exotic diseases, instead aiming to colonise the northern part of the New World, where there would have been a reduced English presence. The British Empire would not exist and the English-only equivalent would have been far weaker, meaning that English values, traditions, customs, language and literature may not have spread across the globe in quite the same way. Shakespeare would have probably written a play about the hunch-backed traitor Henry Tudor, but may not have been world famous.

The Scottish would not currently be ‘oppressed’ by the English

So, in conclusion, if Richard III had won at Bosworth it would have led to a Catholic England. Without a drive to combat Spain she would have had a There would have been no Reformation

lesser presence in the New World. Scotland would have been stable enough to remain independent as it could send expedition into North America. Without an empire, English as a language would not spread and flourish across the globe and England would be weaker, politically, economically and culturally. North America would be made up of multiple nation states speaking different languages and without any affinity towards England. Of course, one must admit that this is all mere speculation and theoretical, but by thinking through such a scenario one can realise how important points in history were, and that it should not be taken for granted that events, such as the Battle of Bosworth, played out as they did.

Want to know more? Should you wish to expand your knowledge of the Last Plantagenet, you might like to try: ‘Richard III: The Great Debate’ by Paul Murray Kendal (London: WW Norton & Co.) ‘Richard III the Young King to be’ by Josephine Wilkinson (London: Amberley Publishing)

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if Chiang had won instead of Mao?

The French Revolution: the Birth of Bonaparte?

What would China be like now if Chiangâ&#x20AC;&#x201C; Kai Shek had remained in power? Greg Alexander examines the nationalist leader of China in World War 2 and the Chinese Civil War and asks what would have happened to China and the surrounding countries if Chiang had seen off Mao Zedong and the communists and had won the war Spring 2013â&#x201D;&#x201A; The Shoardian

n, October 1st, 1949, Mao Zedong declared the People‘s Republic of China an official state with its capital at Beijing. Chiang Kai-shek and two million Nationalist Chinese retreated from mainland China to the small island of Formosa (later called Taiwan), thereby declaring Taipei the temporary capital of the Republic of China, as he continued to assert his government as the sole legitimate authority in China. What was to follow for the Chinese people was Mao‘s strict regime; with famine, death and (of course) lots of failed economic policies. But would China have been any better off if Chiang had thwarted the Communist rebellion beforehand? If Chiang had won the civil war, then we can assume that he had been able to suppress the Communists, allowing him to consolidate his rule over the entire country. This would have had serious consequences for the history of the Far East. Korea would have been united as an economic powerhouse; during the Korean War, there were fears which came to fruition from the USA that Communist China would intervene to defend their territory. However, Chiang still had a form of alliance with the USA, so this situation would never have arisen. Also, it is almost certain that Vietnam would not be Communist either, since Mao‘s government would not have been there to influence it. It could be argued that China would be ahead of what it is today, in terms of a human development point of view. The Communists set China back in the 1950s to the 1970s with their 45

What if Chiang had won instead of Mao?

economic and social reforms. The Great Leap Forward (1958-1961) was Mao‘s attempt to put China‘s economy on a level playing field with America and the West, yet it saw the deaths of up to 45 million people from famine, whilst the Cultural Revolution which followed in the years to come left the country in a worse state than before, with uprisings everywhere against established ways of thinking and behaving. On the other hand, China may not have been that much different than it is now economically. Ruling on Taiwan, Chiang began a massive industrialization programme on modernizing principles long before the Communists did so in mainland China. Presumably, he would have pursued the same policy if he was still ruling the entire country. China would certainly have modernized sooner, but because of the inefficiencies in Chiang‘s rule – for example, the corruption of the government – it is hard to determine whether or not they would be ahead of where the People‘s Republic of China is now. The aim of the Northern Expedition in the late 1920s was to unify China under the Kuomintang (Chiang‘s government) by ending the rule of local warlords, which eventually led to Chinese reunification in 1928. Chiang was able to defeat a handful of warlords, who often held a substantial amount of power in small provinces, but the majority were bribed. If Chiang had stayed in power, then it is likely that at some stage they would rebel, or keep demanding more and more money. Chiang‘s regime was Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if Chiang had won instead of Mao?

China as being those of the Qing Dynasty, which encompassed territory currently part of Russia, Mongolia, India, Burma, Afghanistan, India and perhaps most importantly, Japan. If Chiang had taken the land that he believed rightfully belonged to China, Japan may have suffered greatly, especially economically, in the second half of the 20th century. With a larger nation, and a capitalist economy from the onset, China would have been the greatest economy in the Far East far sooner and may have been able to challenge on the world stage sooner.

massively corrupt in this way, so China could have struggled to establish a strong centralized state and even eventually been run by the warlords. Chiang also had to constantly deal with the Communists. If he were not able to subdue them, then he would have had to put up with their guerrilla tactics. If he could have found a way around this, then it is likely that China would not have been aligned with either the USA or the USSR, and could have potentially been a third ‗superpower‘. If this was the case, and because Chiang wasn‘t Communist, there would not have been as much tension with the West as under Mao. It could also have been the case that China would have been a third party in the conflict – in which case, who knows how that would have affected the rest of the world?

Chiang KaiShek was leader of the Kuomintang nationalists

The Kuomintang Flag

Talking of a greater amount of land, it is also likely that there would be a greater population than what there currently is. Policies such as the ‗One Child Policy‘ introduced by Deng Xiaoping after the Cultural Revolution would not have been put in place. This would have had incredible consequences for China‘s government, and it is difficult to know how they would have coped. Another important point to note is that ‗Generalissimo‘ Chiang Kai-shek had established Nanjing as the capital of the Republic of China which became internationally recognized once Kuomintang forces took Beijing

Following on from this ‗superpower‘ theory, China today might have been geographically larger. The Kuomintang, being a nationalist movement, saw the rightful borders of Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

What if Chiang had won instead of Mao?

in 1928. Beijing was renamed the capital in 1949 after the Communist takeover, but if Chiang had remained in power then it is possible that Nanjing would still be the capital. Did anyone get tickets to the 2008 Nanjing Olympics, by the way?! It‘s an absolute certainty that a Chiang-ruled China would have probably gone from crisis to crisis, with Chiang using the Army and Western backing to put down any major revolts – which could be just as damaging as Mao‘s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution. One thing is for certain, though Chiang‘s death in 1975, much like Mao‘s in 1976, would have been the best thing to happen to China in a long time, allowing his successors to remove out-of-date policies and make necessary reforms. To summarize, Modern China would probably still be a somewhat authoritarian state,

The Kuomintang’s army would have been used to supress the Chinese

roughly as strong – if not stronger – economically and militarily as it is today, friendlier with the West but still pursuing its own interests within the confines of its sphere of interest.

Chairman Mao would have never have come to power

Want to know more? If Chiang and the Kuomintang are your sort of thing, why not try:

‘Generalissimo: Chiang Kai-shek and the China He Lost’ by Johnathan Fenby (New York: Carroll & Graf Publishers)

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The Causes of the Indian Rising

The Causes of the Indian Uprising

Mrs Carter responds to an article in Issue V of the Shoardian concerning the 1st War

of Indian Independence, also known as the 1857 Sepoy Mutiny

he causes of the 1857 uprising in British ruled India are attributed in popular history to Mangal Pandey‘s rousing call to his fellow soldiers (see The Shoardian Winter Edition 2012 Issue V), this is somewhat like suggesting that the cause of the French Revolution was Marie Antoinette wondering why the people did not eat cake if they had no bread. The logic is questionable and the facts disputable. By 1857 Europeans had been trading and then ruling in Indian states for more than 250 years and this increase in direct rule was the overarching cause of the uprising. Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

In that time a series of developments had led to the gradual increase in power of the British over other European trading companies and over Indians in a range of states. Some of this increase in power had been resisted by Indians but much of it had been the result of greed and naivety on the part of local rulers and maharajas who had at first invited the British East India Company to assist them fighting against their neighbours and then found themselves in debt to the ‗Honourable Company‘ for these services. In agreements with the Indian rulers, the British traders took on the tax collection 48

The Causes of the Indian Rising

franchises and imposed political officers on the maharajas to ‗help them rule‘ their states. The most significant and disruptive extension of British rule occurred as a consequence of the ‗doctrine of lapse‘ pursued by GovernorGeneral Dalhousie (1848-1856); in order to consolidate British control, Dalhousie took under direct East India Company rule seven states in seven years throughout Northern India in circumstances where the direct line of inheritance had lapsed and only a female, adopted or minority heir was available. These included the states of Jhansi and Satara and Nagpur all of which were involved in the uprising. However the most important state absorbed by the British was Awadh, the richest state of all, on the grounds of misgovernment. The Indian reaction to this take over was directly linked to the uprising of 1857 because of the long established link between Awadh and the Bengal Army (the British army in Northern India). The deterioration of the conditions and terms of service of the British army in India, which far outweighed the culturally insensitive and overplayed issue of rifle cartridges, was the most significant cause of the uprising. A key element of British rule in India was an efficient and respected army funded and organised by the East India Trading Company, originally used to secure trading privileges and later used to ‗assist‘ 49

Indian rulers in ruling their states and fighting their enemies. So, this army which became known as the British Army in India, was also the instrument by which the British increased their dominion in India and was the same army which ‗mutinied ‗ in 1857. It was, of course, officered by young British gentlemen and made up of local troops called sepoys. The army was divided into sections and it was the Bengal Army sited in the North of India that rebelled in 1857 when the Madras Army remained loyal to the British. Between 65-80% of the Bengal army were high class sepoys including many from Awadh who had many reasons to rebel against the British even before their home state was taken over by the Company; changes to uniform which made it uncomfortable, changes to customs surrounding where sepoys were expected to serve, new insistence that soldiers had to be prepared to serve across the ‗black water‘ which was problematic for orthodox Hindus, the introduction of a new ‗Lee Enfield‘ rifle which was much harder to load and use than the Brown Bess musket and the 1856 General Service Enlistment Act. The status ensuing from being a sepoy in the British army was considerable, it reflected well on the sepoy‘s family and bestowed prestige as well as wealth. In addition it also allowed the sepoy‘s family legal protection as direct employees of the British they could Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The Causes of the Indian Rising

what the Indian sepoys expected from their employment and the views of British officers in the Bengal army was the context of the rumours surrounding rifle cartridges which formed a part of the causes of the uprising in 1857.

access special pleading for family cases and problems in the courts of their local states or rulers. When states like Awadh were taken over by the British the sepoys could no longer claim those privileges, this eroded the status of the high class sepoys who had been the traditional recruits for the Bengal army. The position of these sepoys had been further diluted by the new policy of recruiting Sikhs and Ghurkhas over the previous decade. Long serving sepoys therefore saw and resented a considerable decrease in their status, legal protection and pay in real terms as well as prospects for promotion or employment for their sons and grandsons. This significant dislocation between Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

The role of Mangal Pandey is apocryphal in this uprising, the details vague and less exciting. An eponymous film made in 2005 is worth watching, if only for the Bollywood dancing scenes. The difficult to load Lee Enfield rifle had been introduced in 1856; it was a better weapon which was more accurate at longer distances, but the loading drill involved biting of the end of the paper cartridge which was wrapped around the pre -greased bullet and contained the powder charge. The cartridges were made in Dumdum arsenal in Calcutta (yes, source of the name for the dumdum bullet), teething problems with the production of this new cartridge meant that too much grease was used making them unpleasant for the soldiers to bite and causing fouling of the rifle barrel which then had to be scoured out with sand and hot water. It seems that the rumours about the grease being a mixture of both cow and pig fat ‗were well founded‘ according to a letter from Lord Canning and of course this mixture was abhorrent to both high caste vegetarian Hindu sepoys and to their Muslim colleagues who made up about 15% of the Bengal army. The ingredients for the grease were 50

The Causes of the Indian Rising

quickly changed and in addition many regiments allowed the sepoys to mix their own lubricant from ghee and beeswax, but the damage had been done to the reputation of the army high command. It was quickly, but erroneously, believed by sepoys that it was a deliberate policy to defile and Christianise the sepoys who were already sensitive to erosion of their status and resentful of the social and religious dislocation already mentioned. Simmering resentment that had been growing over a number of years led to protests in individual regiments, sepoys refused to use the rifle or even touch it. In March 1857 at Barrakpore in Bengal a sepoy called Mangal Pandey shot and wounded two officers and encouraged his fellow soldiers to rise up, he was tried and hanged. Junior officers called for the rifles to be withdrawn but the Commander in Chief, General George Anson refused this request. Then followed arson attacks in the cantons (living quarters) of the sepoys and the victimisation of sepoys who had bitten the cartridges by their fellows who called them Christians. In may open revolt broke out in Meerut where the 3rd Light Infantry refused to fire the rifles and 85 sepoys were convicted of mutiny and sentenced to 10 years penal servitude. The day following the trial the rest of the regiment rose up in rebellion and massacred the Christian inhabitants of Meerut. Thus the rumours about 51

cartridges, which had in fact been replaced as soon as the problem was kno wn , f ed ye ar s of resentment, loss of status and social dislocation between the Indians and their British rulers resulting in the most serious uprising against colonial rule in India before the development of modern Indian nationalism. The significance of the uprising is both in the changes it brought to the government of India in the short term with the abolition of the East India Company and the imposition of full direct rule from London and also in the emergence of a proto-nationalism that would see its culmination with the division of the continent into Pakistan and India in 1947. While it is often tempting to give colourful characters like Mangal Pandey a key role in events like this in popular history, a deeper understanding of the background reveals that the root causes were both more shocking in their long term ignorance of the needs of British Indian subjects and more interesting in the foreshadowing of the key features of Indian nationalism.

Want to know more? For more on Indian history, try: The Discovery of India‘ by Jawaharlal Nehru (London: Penguin) ‗Bhagat Singh: An Immortal Revolutionary of India‘ by Bhawan Singh Rana (London: Diamond Pocket Books) Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

Hern’s Historical Helpline: how volcanoes have made History Dear Mr Hern, Some bearded fanatic keeps breaking into my classroom to lecture me that human history has been shaped by environmental factors and that the trajectory of past events were shaped by a series of major volcanic explosions. What can you tell me about this approach to the past? And do you know of a good locksmith? A Taser might be useful too. Yours sincerely, Mr Harrison

nvironmental explanations of historical change have become very popular over the last few decades. As historical sciences have become more sophisticated, Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

it has been possible to research ancient ecosystems with increasing precision. Archaeology, in particular, not only allows one to trace the material framework of historical societies, but has allowed us to reconstruct their climate, 52

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

sea levels, precipitation rates and vegetation levels. Alongside the technical details, such an approach has been influenced by the development of environmentalist ideas since the 1970s, which can view the activities of homo sapiens as a major threat to the Earth‘s viability. The relationship between humans and their environment is now thought to be more ambiguous than the views held a century ago. These trends in academic research have been brought to a wider audience by popular authors such as Jared Diamond. He argued, rather controversially, that environmental factors have been the major reason for the collapse of complex societies since the development of farming as the main means of human subsistence during the Neolithic era (c.5000 – c.2500 BC in western Eurasia). His particular focus was on the mismanagement of resources, such as overconsumption, by human societies and the damaging effects such activities could inflict on their natural environment, which made natural phenomena such as climate change exponentially more destructive. Diamond was criticised for taking a selective and pessimistic view of the past to mirror contemporary fears about the future of mankind, suggesting that the effects of anthropogenic (man-made) climate change and pollution would lead to the inevitable collapse of modern capitalist society. His rhetorical questioning of whether previous civilisations would have continued to thrive if they had looked after their environment better failed to appreciate how much continuity there was amongst the supposedly disappeared worlds. Evidence and relevance can be awkward bedfellows sometimes. Under the postwar influence of historians such as Fernand Braudel of the French ‗Annales’ school, scholars are increasingly coming to understand that the physical landscape is a fundamental way of understanding how human cultures 53

Left: Krakatoa

The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 is estimated to have had the power of 13,000 atomic bombs

function. The natural world shapes the way that we see the world and at its most extreme some would argue that all human activity is determined by its environment. If so, then one must take seriously the view that natural catastrophes have been underestimated in their capacity to shape human development: a particularly powerful example being volcanoes. Volcanoes are created by the complex chemistry within the earth as a result of the energy store deposited by the earth‘s cooling and the radioactive decay of various elements that occur within the earth‘s core. When the planet‘s tectonic plates on its crust converge or diverge, a gap is created which reduces the pressure being applied on the swirling mix of material below. This decompression leads to the rocks under the earth‘s surface melting (magma), and being pushed to the surface, where it emerges in a volcanic explosion bringing the melted rock (lava) to the surface. There are on average about 50 of these active every year according to the Encyclopaedia of Volcanos. In Britain, volcanoes are exotic phenomena distilled to us through our education systems enduring fascination with the written experiences of the classical world, by which I mean the eruption of Vesuvius in AD 79. The nubes mirabilis heralding the destruction of Pompeii by the ash cloud spewing into the atmosphere is an enduring image from my own schooldays, and while we feel sorry for Caecilius and Cerberus, and are appalled by the casts made of the ash bodies, we find it difficult to comprehend how devastating volcanoes can be. The 1902 eruption on St Martinique in the Caribbean killed all but 1 of the 28,000 inhabitants of the town of St Pierre. The eruption of Krakatoa in 1883 is estimated that to have had the power of 13,000 atomic bombs. It is not only the initial eruption which is the problem however. The large amount of material ejected into Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

the atmosphere by a volcanic explosion can create a significant dust-veil effect in the atmosphere which are regarded as significant contributors to hemispheric cooling. This is usually regarded as being quite a short-term effect, as the dust is soon washed out of the atmosphere. However, the effects on the highest levels of the stratosphere are much less well known and there is also the important point that modern studies are based on medium-size volcanic eruptions. We don‘t know how a large eruption would effect the atmosphere. While Pompeii and Herculaneum have almost become singular paradigms of settlements ‗lost‘ to volcanic explosions, there are large numbers of similar ―Pompeii‖ sites that have been completely covered by volcanic ash and have subsequently been rediscovered. In Iceland the small town of Vestmannaeyjar is known as the ―Pompeii of the North.‖ It was covered by the product of an eruption in 1973, and is being systematically excavated by archaeologists. Rather than being exceptional events, one needs to take volcanic activity seriously as an important factor in the key turning points in human affairs. The following are a few high profile examples of eruptions that may have changed the history of the world.

unit Queen‘s University Belfast under Mike Baillie in the 1980s and 1990s revolutionised this process by bring together , and allow one to trace the relative growth rates of trees across the world which are good indicators of changing climactic conditions. The other important development was digging through the ice sheets in Greenland, where a record of each year in the earth‘s atmosphere since the last Ice Age has been frozen each year and preserved by the next year‘s snowfall. Analysis of this data revealed that several years in the last 8000 years had striking markers of severe climactic shock. Were they the product of the eruption of a super volcano? Thera (c. 1550 BC – Middle/Late Bronze Age) Below right: Thera (modern Santorini)

One of the most intensely studied protohistorical volcanic eruptions is that of Thera (modern Santorini) which lies 70km to the north of Crete. The precise dating of this eruption has been difficult to ascertain with any precision, but it is estimated to have erupted between 1650 and 1450 BC during the archaeological period known as the Middle/Late Bronze Age. The rocks and ash (tephra) produced by the eruption column, along with the huge tsunamis that were generated have

There are two main areas of research that have made the reconstruction of the past climate possible. The first is the study of tree rings which record growth of trees dating back several thousands of years. In good years the rings are thick, and thinner in lean years. Many trees can be dated quite accurately, so by taking a broad range of samples one can match years to growth rates. This data tells you about local climate developments and varies across the world in the quality of research. Scandinavia and the USA tend to have the best records thanks to their trees and scientific research. A research Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

climate change which had effects as far afield as China. There are suggestions that the climate could have cooled between 1⁰c and 2⁰c, which would have led to cold and wet summers that ruined harvests and brought economic disaster.

been proposed as the reason for the apparent collapse of Minoan civilisation in Crete during this period. Minoan civilisation, named after the mythical King Minos (minotaurs, labyrinths etc.), was a remarkably wealthy culture that prospered on Crete during the Bronze Age and was based on enormous ‗palace complexes‘ spread around the island. These hugely impressive buildings are hard to understand, but they seem to have been the centre of a sophisticated administration that organised the surrounding countryside. The wealth and political influence of Minoan Crete can be seen throughout the eastern Mediterranean, which has led scholars to place it amongst the major civilisations of the Near East in the second millennia BC. There was a major shift at the end of the ‗neopoalatial‘ period which saw almost all the palace complexes destroyed by fire, and the emergence of a very distinct culture in the Late Bronze Age. The most stunning testimony to the eruption is the town of Akrotiri on the south of Thera which was smothered by the explosion and, just like Pompeii, the fabric of the settlement was preserved. This has made it an enormously important site in understanding the impact Minoan culture made on the surrounding islands. The Greek archaeologist Spryios Marinatos, who later discovered Akrotiri, first proposed the idea that Minoan civilisation was destroyed by the eruption in 1939. Pumice from Thera has been collected across the eastern Mediterranean, while the discovery of deep sea material such as fossilised shells on dry land sites contemporaneous with the eruption hints at the effects of tsunamis estimated to have reached the height of 12m. Some scientists have claimed the explosion had global consequences by affecting the chemical balance of the earth‘s atmosphere, leading to a major phase of 55

Below right: The Icelandic Hekla Volcano

Claims that the events triggered by the eruption of Thera laid historical foundations for the story of Atlantis are all very interesting, but such broad claims of the possible always obscure the strong likelihood of error when dealing with such problematic evidence. A major problem with the Minoan collapse theory is the lack of any consensus amongst specialists over the precise date of the eruption. The latest radio-carbon dates for Thera material tend to place the eruption between 1660 – 1600 BC. This is supported by the tree-ring data that has been compiled over the last few decades. On the other hand the archaeological evidence which, thanks to trade links, has s trong s upport f rom Egyptian chronologies would place the eruption a century later. The other problem is attributing everything to Thera. Evidence from the Greenland ice sheets shows there was a huge increase in sulphur emitted into the atmosphere during this period, which is consistent with large volcanic eruption. There is no way of establishing how the contribution of Thera was relative to other volcanic eruptions in the world. The physical evidence for the eruption is itself ambiguous. Akrotiri is a mysterious site, as no bodies were found there,

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

leading to the assumption that the inhabitants fled when they saw the plume of smoke from the volcano. Subsequent research has indicated that the city had been destroyed by earthquakes and partially (if not completely) abandoned before the eruption, which could explain the lack of bodies at the city. Other scholars have argued that evidence supports the idea that Minoan society was actually able to survive the calamity, whenever it happened, and that the effects were probably more local than regional. The lack of chronological precision is a major obstacle in attributing changes in the material record to the Thera eruption. Hekla 3 A parallel to the Thera eruptions can be found at the transition from the Middle to the Late Bronze Age between 1205BC – 1150BC when there was a major transformation of the social and economic landscape across the whole of western Eurasia but particularly well documented in the Eastern Mediterranean. Many complex states, such as the Hittite Empire and the Mycenaean kingdoms of Greece, collapsed in the 12th century BC. In the Near East several cities were destroyed and not reoccupied and there was a series of major military struggles in Egypt between groups of peoples named in the written sources as ―the Sea Peoples‖ accompanied by severe famines. Societal collapse is not unknown of course, but what is particularly interesting about this period is that it took a long time for recovery to be effected, and there is a subsequent ‗dark age‘ in the sources which makes it hard to know what is going on. The effects are also striking in northern Europe where many settlements were abandoned at this time and there were widespread patterns in the way that the land was divided up. In Wessex a series of ditches implying new division of the Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

landscape date to this point. All of this implies a major revolution in the mental world of the societies effected: agricultural societies are notably conservative and some major event may have occurred that caused people to abandon their previous belief system. This would quite feasibly involved a change in the organisation of their previous political and religious hierarchy, which would have been legitimised by the ability to bring favourable climactic conditions. Colin Burgess has argued that this period in Britain saw a population collapse on the same scale as during the Black Death in the 14th century. These speculations on the cause of objective changes have been attributed to the environmental consequences of huge volcanic eruptions in Iceland that are believed to have occurred in Iceland at the Hekla volcanic site. Tree ring data has confirmed that there was a major climactic shift datable to 1159 BC where there was almost no growth, attributable to a major biological catastrophe. This confirmed atmospheric information preserved in Greenland ice core which had been analysed to show major increase in the acidity of the atmosphere at the same date suggest that a major event occurred around 1159 BC. That something happened during this period is undeniable but actually linking the event directly to the Hekla 3 eruption is difficult. Once again there are a range of alternative explanations for collapse: disease, earthquakes, comets, harvest failure, warfare etc. The whole theory of collapse is itself problematic as it coincides with a lack of written and material evidence. Arguments from silence are never the most robust ways of making a case. While the eruption is still cited by some historians, there is no consensus on its effects.

Hern’s Historical Helpline: History and Volcanoes

Krakatoa AD 535 The journalist David Keys argued in his book Catastrophe (2000) that the Ancient World was brought to an end by a series of environmental cataclysms caused by a massive eruption in Krakatoa in 535 which tore Sumatra and Java apart. The ash was of such intensity that it appears to have impeded sunlight, something testified by contemporary literary sources from across the world. Tree-ring data again shows an abnormal lack of growth in 536 and again in 542 which points to sudden short-term cooling. Some archaeologists have likened it to a ‘nuclear winter‘. Keys suggests that the various cataclysmic changes that are recorded during the 6th century have their root cause in this climactic shock: famine, droughts, floods, storms. The spread of the Early Medieval Pandemic (which eliminated 35—45% of the population of Eurasia) during the mid-6th century was facilitated too. Keys argues that the subsequent movement of nomadic peoples across the world, most spectacularly (but not exclusively) the Arab conquests of the 7th century, were a direct consequence of the weakening of global social structures. While such an all -compassing explanation is seductive, there is no conclusive physical proof of an eruption, and other explanations such as a comet crashing into earth have been suggested as alternatives. Keys‘ ties his threads together ingeniously, but far too neatly for it to be true.

Krakatoa 1883 While most of the examples cited so far have been in the ancient world, it is worth highlighting the most powerful eruption in recent centuries, that of Krakatoa in 1883. The eruption made the largest sound in modern recorded history and killed 36,000 people. The impact was known about all over the world very quickly thanks to developments in 57

communication technology. While some political changes in the Indonesian archipelago have been attributed to its effects there is no-one arguing that the First World War was caused by the eruption, so perhaps scholars for earlier periods should take note. In conclusion…. These few examples suggest that any singular claim of environmental determinism must be treated with some scepticism, given the problems of understanding the precise effects of an eruption, let alone accounting for the myriad variables that effect historical change. The evidence tends to be interpreted to suit the preconceptions of the author. If one believes in environmental catastrophe as a major changer of world events then one will see the environmental evidence as the footprint of a super-volcano. If one is a sceptic then there is plenty of comfort for you too. More research is clearly needed to answer these questions. However, one can no longer safely write human history without detailed knowledge of the physical environment.

Want to know more? For more information on the Annales school speak to Mr Harrison—he will happily talk to you about their merits or read: The Mediterranean in the Age of Philip II’ by Fernand Braudel For the various volcanoes discussed in this article try: ‗Collapse’ by Jared Diamond ‗Catastrophe’ by David Keys ‘A Slice through Time: dendrochronology and precision dating’ by Mike Baillie ‘‗Krakatoa‘ by Simon Winchester

Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Fun & Games

Find Your Perfect Wife Do you think British women the most attractive? NO

YES

Do you fantasise about women in armour?

Is celibacy the most important quality in a woman?

YES YES

‘Your

wife is Catholic’. Do you burn her?

Elizabeth I Is black you favourite colour?

YES

S YE

Joan of Arc

Would you risk everything for you wife?

Catherine of Aragon NO

Victoria

S YE

Boudicca

Would You Like to Write for the Shoardian?

Helen of Troy

Marie Antoinette

If you would like to write for the Shoardian, please send an email to one of the editorial team or contact Mr Hern. Next issue after summer (next academic year) we will be looking for articles on Asian history as well as reviews of books or historical school trips. There will also be running a competition for Middle and Lower School with the best articles receiving rewards of some shape or form. Each contributor also receives a colour copy of the issue. If you are interested, please contact the team at:edmoha-y07@mgs.org, barnwi-y07@mgs.org heatsa-

y07@mgs.org or ellisjo-y07@mgs.org Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Obituary

The Legacy of Chavez services, including telephone companies, electricity utilities, and projects in the oil-rich Orinoco Belt, one of the world‘s largest petroleum reserves.

Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías was a complicated man, whose policies and opinions provoked admiration and controversy worldwide. Even after his untimely death in March this year, he and his legacy continue to be the subject of intense debate far beyond Venezuela’s borders.

Born to a poor family in 1954, Chávez had a successful career in the military, but, increasingly concerned by the income inequality and corruption in Venezuela, decided to found the Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario-200 with the aim of deposing President Pérez, who carried out the killing of three thousand protesters in 1989. However, when the coup failed in 1992, once freed from prison, he turned to conventional methods, winning the presidential elections of 1998 with 56% of the vote, in a country ravaged by oligarchic rule and devastating inequality. During Chávez‘s four presidential terms, Venezuela underwent a series of major socialistpopulist reforms with the aim of redistributing wealth, which earned him both praise and suspicion from the international community. The 1999 constitution guaranteed the rights of minority groups for the first time, but also strengthened the power of the president and the executive. In 2000, he initiated Plan Bolívar, which involved the military in anti-poverty measures such as mass vaccinations and food distribution in slums, and ordered the nationalization of key industries and 59

Within South America, Chávez was instrumental in the foundation of several institutions that helped to unify the continent, most notably the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (ALBA), in Venezuela‘s entry into the free trade area Mercosur, and in the creation of Telesur, one of Latin America‘s most comprehensive and impartial – here I speak from personal experience – news stations, and forged ties with fellow socialists such as Fidel Castro in Cuba and Evo Morales in Bolivia. His relations with the United States were often strained and sometimes hostile, not least when, during a 2002 attempted military coup against Chávez, the US chose to recognize the unelected businessman the generals chose in his place: the irony of a supposedly pro-democratic governement that rushed to support the military overthrow of a democratically elected president was not lost on the rest of the continent. Some have suggested that it could have something to with the fact that Chávez was attempting to use Venezuela‘s rich oil reserves for the good of his own people, rather than to ensure exorbitant profits for US multinationals. No doubt there were problems: corruption was a huge one, as it always had been and remains, though great progress was made during Chávez‘s rule; crime has also risen, mainly due to organized drug trafficking and police corruption. On the other hand, the figures speak for themselves: from 1999 to 2013, extreme poverty dropped by 70%, and total poverty was halved; Venezuela now holds the continent‘s lowest Gini coëfficient, at 0.39, making it the South American country with the lowest inequality level (by comparison, the US is 0.45); GDP per capita rose from $4,100 in 1999 to $10,810 in 2011; the list goes on and on. Noöne can deny that Hugo Chávez made some mistakes during his time in office, but he has provided not just Latin America but the whole world with an example of a leader who was not afraid to make sacrifices for his people, to defy US imperial ambitions in the region, and to provide 29 million Venezuelans with a firm and passionate voice on the international stage, a man whose legacy will surely never be forgotten: ¡Hasta la victoria siempre, Comandante! Spring 2013│ The Shoardian

Next Issue

Next Edition

The Asian Special 60