Winchester History Journal | Issue 3 | Short Half 2021 by wincollhistory

Issue 3 | Short Half 2021

The Winchester History Journal

The Changes in Rural England, 1500-2000 Jamie Mackinnon (I)

Faith in Administration William Goltz (Coll.)

A History of Crime Fiction, 1920-1939 Toby Bowes Lyon (K)

HISTORY TRIPS | For VI BOOK, IGCSE, and JP.

Upcoming trips: FLORENCE AND ROME | VI Book | 27 March – 1 April 2023

YORKSHIRE AND NORTHUMBERLAND | VI Book | 29 May – 2 June 2023 BERLIN | IGCSE | TBC

WWI BATTLEFIELDS | JP | TBC 2

Winchester 8 — Faith in Administration: The Enlightened Patriotism of the Habsburg Empire History William Goltz (Coll.) Journal

Short Half 2021

13 — Why Did The Netherlands Lose The Indonesian National Revolution?

Issue 3 James Hunter (K)

From the Editors: Welcome to the third issue of the Winchester History Journal.

22 — A History of Crime Fiction, 1920-1939 Toby Bowes Lyon (K)

It has been a long time, but we 34 — Hitler’s Greatest return with this fantastic physical Ivo Sawbridge (K) edition!

From Winchester’s own collections, to crime fiction, the 42 — The Changes Eastern Front, to Kintbury Indonesia, we present a selection Jamie Mackinnon (I) of absorbing articles for you to enjoy. James Hunter, Douglas Page and Sebastian Walsh Front Cover Image:

Blunder

in Rural England, 1500-2000 — Case Study:

46 — ‘Will anyone be satisfied with this bargain?’: How Far was the Anglo-Irish Treaty responsible for the Irish Civil War? George Smedley (A) 5 — From Winchester: Douglas Page (Coll.)

An Indonesian 51 — News from the History Society: Edward Thomson (Coll.) civilian and a Dutch soldier meet: from the 4 — Interestingly; This Month in History; Older or Younger? 2013 film The East. 4 — NEW: Colons in History Titles: A Game The film is relevant to 53 — Crossword James Hunter’s article on page 13. 54 & 55 — Books in Moberly Library

Colons in History Titles: A Game Often history books have titles of the form: '[Catchphrase]: [Descriptive Title]'. Without the one part, the other is often meaningless. Try to match the two halves of these titles: A Woman of No Importance: Spying on the South: Furious Hours: The Splendid and the Vile: Dark Ages: Children of Ash and Elm:

An Odyssey Across the American Divide An Age of Light A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz Murder, Fraud, and the Last Trial of Harper Lee A History of the Vikings The Untold Story of the American Spy Who Helped Win World War II

Answers on Page 54.

Interestingly… Interestingly, the four highest mountains on Earth were first scaled in 1953, ‘54, '55, and '56. Interestingly, Jerry Parr, widely credited with saving Ronald Reagan's life, joined the Secret Service after watching 'Code of the Secret Service', a film that starred... Ronald Reagan. Interestingly, Joe Biden was born closer to the end of the American Civil War than to today. Interestingly, many Greeks and Romans wiped their bums on broken pieces of pottery, called 'ostraka,' or on stones, called 'pessoi'. Interestingly, the 1922 Committee was founded in 1923.

Older or Younger Are the following scientists older or younger than Charles Darwin?

Answers to previous 'Older or Younger':

Albert Einstein Isaac Newton Louis Pasteur Marie Curie Ada Lovelace Galileo Galilei Aristotle Robert Hooke

Christopher Columbus Leif Erikson — Older Ferdinand Magellan — Younger Yuri Gagarin — Younger Sir Francis Drake — Younger Sir Walter Raleigh — Younger Sir Ranulph Fiennes — Younger Marco Polo — Older James Cook — Younger

This Month in History 25 years ago — the existence of Dolly, the cloned sheep, was made public. 50 years ago — the cumulative sales of the Volkswagen Beetle exceeded those of the Ford Model T. 75 years ago — the Paris Peace Treaties were signed, formally ending the Second World War. 100 years ago — James Joyce’s Ulysses was first published.

FROM WINCHESTER In this From Winchester, Douglas Page (Coll.) explores one of the quirkier objects in the Winchester College Collections: a wax model of William of Wykeham’s tomb. From medieval monks to a 19th-century pamphlet, there is much to discuss.

This painted wax model by Richard Cockle Lucas from 1847 is one of two made to illustrate the sculptor’s proposals for the restoration of William of Wykeham’s tomb and chantry chapel. The model can be found in the former Headmaster’s House at Winchester College. The other one, now at New College, Oxford, depicts the Chantry. The wax model was originally accompanied by a pamphlet, pictured.

Wykeham, Bishop of Winchester and Founder of Winchester College and New College, Oxford, built many things. In the South Nave Arcade of Winchester Cathedral, on the site of an altar dedicated to the Virgin Mary, in 1403, one year before his death, Wykeham built an open-work chantry chapel. Inside the chapel is Wykeham’s ornate tomb. Notably, at his feet are three praying Benedictine monks. Wykeham provided revenue for three monks from the cathedral priory to celebrate three masses in his chapel daily. Perhaps these are portraits of the very monks who originally said his masses. Wykeham’s epitaph runs around his tomb along the slip of red enamelled brass. There is a translation of it at the end of this article. The tomb and chantry had been altered many times before Lucas’s attempted intervention. Lucas reports in his pamphlet, and it is for this reason that the pamphlet is so useful, that: ‘the angels placed at his head […] have been entirely destroyed, and since evidently restored, from the inferiority of their work, and [… the] plaster composition’; ‘the shields painted on the tomb are entirely wrong, both in design and treatment’; and ‘some figure, emblem or design, must have filled the niches round the tomb; as at the base of all of them, except the two at the east are marks of chiselling.’

William Cave & Son, painters, were paid in 1797 for the elaborate repainting and gilding of his tomb and chantry in the Cathedral. Lucas says that it gives the tomb a ‘tawdry appearance’ and that the artist was led into mistakes, ‘by copying too closely the costume of a Romanist bishop of his own day, instead of examining the ancient examples we have still remaining’. In the accompanying pamphlet, Lucas claims to have discovered fragments of the statues that would have originally filled the niches. He talks about where he has chosen each statue to go. In the model of the Chantry, the saints are shown restored. It is unknown whether the fragments still exist and if so where they are. In 1893, the Quincentenary Committee, for the celebration of 500 years since the foundation of Winchester College, was made responsible for refilling the niches, a role which they undertook in haste. However, the statues chosen, as depicted below, do bear a close resemblance to what Lucas recommended, with the Virgin Mary attended to by two angels. Lucas’s proposals, in all their historical correctness, were never carried out, although his vision remains. He wrote about it in his autobiography: “A visit to Winton [Winchester] suggested to me that the sculptures which had once adorned William of Wykeham’s chantry would be great work if it could be replaced. I went to the College and Warden Barter encouraged me and said that it was the duty of the College to restore the sculptures of their founder. I went to work and spent a year making two models, my thoughts being that if I was beaten in getting the work to do in the Cathedral that the Library of Wykeham’s great colleges would be a home for my models. I left one in the College of St. Mary at Winton [Winchester College]. The other I took to New College, Oxford. Warden Williams opposed and defeated my project and refused to allow my model to remain in the Library — saying that if it was once there it could not be turned out. Thus, I was frustrated at the senior college and had no success at the junior one at St. Mary’s. I made an effort to interest Warden Barter — he was a good man, yet without appreciation of art.” The reason for his project’s defeat is primarily due to its controversy. The restoration was viewed as an attempt to revive an artefact of the Catholic Church.

Here, overthrown by death, lies William, surnamed Wykeham. He was Bishop of this Church, which he repaired. He was unbounded in hospitality, as the rich and poor alike can prove. He was also an able politician, and a counsellor of the State. By the colleges which he founded his piety is made known; The first of which is at Oxford and the second at Winchester. You, who behold this tomb, cease not to pray That, for such great merits, he may enjoy everlasting life. Translation of the Epitaph of William of Wykeham Wykeham around thy venerable tomb With fond affections still thy children come, And tho’no more the loud voiced hymn they sing, Still silent prayers, and heartfelt wishes bring That thy departed spirit, secure and blest, May with the destined heirs of glory rest. And for thy pious bounty here bestowed, Treasure in Heaven may have and joy in God.

By William Crowe

The author writes regularly at godtres.wixsite.com/cornucopia on historical topics relating to Winchester College. Through this website, much more on Lucas’s models can be found.

Faith in Administration: The Enlightened Patriotism of the Habsburg Empire William Goltz (Coll.) takes issue with the traditional view that Austro-Hungarian Empire was ‘out of time and out of place’. Goltz, by examining the ‘civic patriotism’ across the Empire from the reign of Empress Maria Teresa to Emperor Franz Joseph, argues that the Empire was in fact more united and modern than other historians have claimed. Above: German princes pay homage to Emperor Franz Joseph (1908) 8

The historian AJP Taylor described the character of the Habsburg Empire as having been ‘unique’, ‘out of time and out of place’. In his view, its fall was the inevitable product of a fundamentally old-fashioned Empire whose institutions, having ‘long lost moral sanction’, had no chance of withstanding the nationally-defined politics of the 20th Century. When considering the end of Austria-Hungary in the aftermath of the First World War as it saw itself territorially gutted in pursuit of Wilsonian ideals of ‘nation self-determination’, this perspective seems highly appealing; too diverse and too old-fashioned, the Empire could never have lasted. This belief, however, in the fundamentally backwards nature of the Habsburg Empire obscures the thoroughly modern existence of a trust, both across the Empire and among the Habsburgs themselves, in the power of civic institutions as a means of improving the lives of Imperial Citizens and ensuring their support for their rulers, a trust which, at key times in the history of the Empire appeared to have been justified. Even against the rising currents of nationalism in the 19th and 20th Centuries a sense of Habsburg patriotism which, despite having no roots in an ethnic or linguistic shared identity, seemed to be able to unite the population of the Empire in one shared, beneficent vaterland. In this essay, I aim to chart the origins and decline of civic patriotism in the Habsburg Empire from the enlightened despotism of Maria Theresa and Joseph II to the end of the reign of Franz Joseph and the ultimate fall of the Empire, in doing so hopefully dispelling some of the myths of its backwardness and disunity.

The reigns of Maria Theresa and especially her son Joseph II were marked by a spirit of domestic reform which, while not necessarily dictated by a spirit of altruism or benevolence, nonetheless served and were intended to serve as a means of strengthening support for the monarchy most specifically among the peasantry of the Empire and often to the consternation of the nobility and local gentry. In his markedly revisionist book The Habsburg Empire: A New History, Pieter Judson cites the census of 1770-71 as a key early example of the Habsburg state attempting to demonstrate its goodwill towards the peasantry as the military was deployed throughout the Empire to survey and ask questions of all of its population. To the peasantry this offered a chance to air their grievances about the hated Robot, the system of legalised forced labour under which they had to give up a significant amount of their work to their local lord, presenting the monarchy as a powerful force sympathetic to their own interests through which their grievances could hopefully be addressed.

Above: Kaiser Josef II steering the plough (postcard circa 1860) The introduction of compulsory education in 1774 seemed to represent a similar instance of empowerment for the peasantry, at least from the perspective of Maria Theresa, who aimed to support a genuine meritocracy within her Empire, contributing a significant amount of her budget to her vastly expanded education system.

Above: Empress Maria Theresa of Austria (ruled 1740-1780)

Following his mother’s death in 1780, Joseph II, as sole ruler of the Habsburg lands, undertook his own program of reform under which, as Judson notes, ‘the number of imperial decrees increased exponentially’- where his mother had embraced a program of slower, more deliberate policy changes, taking care to ensure that only her own power was strengthened, Joseph possessed a far more passionate desire for change, rooted firmly in the ideals of the Enlightenment.

He had no regard for the traditional privileges enjoyed by the nobility and local elites and was clear that they should not, as he wrote in a private letter, ‘treat the great majority’… ‘merely as a means to their own financial needs and pleasures.’ His aggressive reforms were intended to bring a legal equality to all his peoples, from his attempts at liberating the peasantry by legally abolishing serfdom in 1785 to his 1781 Patent of Toleration and his 1782 Edict of Tolerance which extended full religious freedoms to Protestants and Jews respectively. The text of this last Edict shows clearly the roots of the civic patriotism that is the focus of this essay: ‘one of our principal concerns is that all our subjects, without distinction of nation and religion… should take their share in the public prosperity that we desire to increase by our solicitude.’ By the time of his death in 1790, much of what Joseph had attempted to achieve had been thwarted and retarded by the local nobility on whom it rested to implement his reforms on a local level. The Robot would continue and the peasants would remain frustrated. His successor, Leopold II, would reign for only two years, before the throne would pass to the reactionary Francis II whose reign was marked by the conservatism of his Chancellor, Prince von Metternich. Despite, however, the apparent end of Enlightened absolutism with the death of Joseph II, the civic patriotism that is the focus of this essay did not die with him. Instead, as I hope to prove, it would be with the revolutions of 1848 that its clearest success and potential to unite the Empire would be shown. The Krakow Rising of 1846, as a prelude to subsequent events in 1848, serves in itself as a potent example of the success of civic patriotism in the Habsburg Empire. As Polish nationalists led a revolution from Krakow, hoping to restore the existence of a Polish state, their revolution was thwarted by the unwillingness of the peasants of Galicia to join in what they saw as an attempt by the Polish nobility to regain the feudal powers which they had possessed under the PolishLithuanian Commonwealth before its partition in the late 18th Century. Their relationship with the revolutionaries was not one of a shared national identity, but rather one of suspicion, as they feared losing the protection which they felt they had acquired under Habsburg rule. In The Habsburg Empire: A New History, Judson is keen to point out that this lack of any popular, mass support for nationalism that is evident from the example of the Krakow Rising is similarly a defining feature of the revolutions of 1848 in which ‘few nationalists made peasant demands a serious part of their programs’, even with the nationalist revolutions that occurred in Italy and in Hungary. His key observation, however, on the existence of civic patriotism in 1848 is in noting that revolutionaries tended to speak, not of independence, but using ‘language that emphasised their desire for a return to an imperial legality they claimed had been abandoned in the recent past’.

Following this line, the revolutions that occurred across the Empire during the supposed ‘Springtime of Nations’ can be seen not as an awakening of dormant national identities but rather as a sustained reaction against the conservatism of Ferdinand II’s government with a view towards returning to the Enlightened absolutism of Joseph II and Maria Theresa.

Above: ‘Galician Slaughter’ by Jan Lewicki (1846) The Imperial Diet which resulted from the revolutions of 1848 was one in which nationalism was hardly a defining force- its goal was to unite the Empire under a new constitution, not to divide it. A largely middle class institution (only 12% of its members were noble), it represented the incorporation of the growing middle class of the Habsburg Empire into the structure of power. The Kremsier Constitution which it produced accordingly served to underscore the power of the people as a part of the institution of Imperial authority, not as members of individual, autonomous nations: It did not call in its constitution for the Emperor to lose his authority over his people, only that he should accept that his authority came from those people over whom he governed rather than from the grace of God. The limited nationalist presence within the Diet showed through their actions their own weakness and lack of popular support as, for example, Polish nationalists notably attempted to block the publication of official translations of proceedings, fearing the empowerment of non-German speaking peasant representatives whom they knew to be keen supporters of the Emperor. Overall, then, as much as the events of 1848 had shown in Hungary and Italy the destructive force of nationalism, it showed across the Habsburg Empire as a whole a continued belief in the power of the institutions of the Empire as

a positive force, a belief firmly rooted in the Enlightened rule of Maria Theresa and Joseph II. If by 1848 it is possible to see clear evidence for the existence of a civic patriotism across the Austrian Empire, a force capable of ensuring the loyalty of the peasantry to the monarchy and uniting citizens from across the Empire behind a shared constitution, the reign of Franz Joseph, which began as a direct consequence of the events of that year, must present an obvious turning point- the Empire’s demise and division with the First World War cannot easily be reconciled with the existence of a strong sense of civic patriotism. With the aim of reconciling these two things, I hope at this point in my essay to explain Above: Kaiser Franz Joseph I taking part in how Franz Joseph’s approach to his own cult of personality and the existing nationalisms across his the Corpus Christi Day parade at Empire served simply to undermine the civic Stephansplatz in Vienna (1898) patriotism which his Enlightened ancestors had cultivated, rendering his Empire incapable of weathering change as it had done in 1848. fervently reinforced, was entirely removed from any sense of national or ethnic identity. As he had In his famous history of nationalism, Imagined constructed statues of his grandmother, Maria Communities, Benedict Anderson contrasts the Theresa, German Author Johann Wolfgang von Habsburg Empire under Franz Joseph from similar dynasties across Europe at the same time for what he Goethe, and Bohemian Field Marshall Count Radetzky, never was there any attempt to assert an described as its failure to establish its own ‘official nationalism’. With this term, Anderson refers to what ‘Austrianness’ within them all. Franz Joseph’s cult of personality was rooted in religiosity and a sense he considers to have been a common dynastic of the glory of the Habsburg dynasty. Its flaws, I response across Europe during the 19th Century to feel, are best expressed by quoting from Joseph nascent nationalisms, the creation of a superior, Roth’s 1932 novel Radetzky March, as the dynastically-rooted national identity, enforced by violence if necessary. To Anderson, the Tsarist policy pessimistic Polish Count Chojnicki predicts the impending death of the Empire. Of the Habsburgs of Russification was the perfect example of this, as he declares that ‘no other family in Europe is as ethnic and linguistic minorities across the Russian dependent on the grace of God and the people’s Empire were forcibly Russified as a means of belief in that grace’. Once he is dead, he explains, nullifying any demands for autonomy. In sharp there no is no hope for the future. If this Franz contrast to this style of ‘official nationalism’, Anderson writes that Franz Joseph and his ministers Joseph style of patriotism is contrasted with the ‘clung to vanished conceptions’, attempting to spread civic patriotism apparent from the events 1848, Imperial legitimacy in a thoroughly outdated manner which relied on a faith in the power of Imperial which was based heavily in a deeply religious cult of institutions rather than in the ‘vanished conceptions’ of religion and Imperial might, its personality for Franz Joseph. From the very flaws are clear- it was not built to last. beginning of his reign, evidence for this is not difficult to find- whereas his Enlightened predecessor Considering the vastness of his Empire and the Joseph II had fought to weaken the power of the great number of ethnic and linguistic groups within Church over his lands, Franz Joseph embraced what it, it might seem to have been impossible for Franz he saw as the uniting power of religion, instituting Joseph to have spread anything other than his and reinstituting a number of official ceremonies and thoroughly non-national cult of personality. feast days as public holidays of great spectacle as he However, as Judson explains in The Habsburg publicly washed, for example, the feet of ten beggars Empire, this would be to overestimate the scale of ever year at a new, official, Corpus Christi Day the issue of national diversity across the Empire as parade. compared to other countries in Europe at the same time, such as France or Britain, in which linguistic variation was successfully tempered by a forcible The monuments which he built as Emperor, most effort of centralisation and suppression.‘Serious famously around the new Vienna Ringstraße, further comparison with other societies’, he writes reinforce this picture of Franz Joseph as an Emperor ‘suggests that Austria-Hungary’s distinctive whose cult of personality and dynasty, though cultural makeup was more a question of relative

rather than absolute difference’. Instead, he considers that nationalist conflict was mainly ‘a product of institutions’, institutions which by demanding ‘fairness or parity in official linguistic practice’ made the issue of national identity ‘impossible to escape’ in public life. While this might appear to be a statement which is deeply difficult to justify, it is by returning to the idea of civic patriotism that it can be best explained. Throughout Franz Joseph’s reign, the existence of a Staatsvolk identity for German-speakers across the Empire stood in sharp contrast to contemporary events within Germany by promoting a German identity which was entirely cultural and in no way ethnic. To these Staatsvolk, their status as Germans both endowed them with a superior culture, the culture of Goethe on the Ringstraße, but also with a duty towards the service of the Empire and its institutions. Their politics were Enlightened, Josephinist, but, as Judson notes, their belief in the superiority of German culture led them to mistrust the multi-lingual nature, multi-national nature of the Empire as it existed under Franz Joseph, as they could not ‘understand why those who used other languages did not want to join the Staatsvolk by learning, speaking and becoming German.’ They remained a powerful political force, even if they proved unable to impose their will- it must not be forgotten that even at the 1911 Cisleithanian Election, the Christian Social Union and the Club of German Social Democrats, German parties without nationalist desires, emerged as clearly as the largest parties within the Imperial Council. As the 19th Century continued, then, driven by the spirit of civic patriotism which was sustained across AustriaHungary, the Staatsvolk feared for the future of an Empire whose institutions forced the recognition of 14 official languages. Returning to Roth’s Radetzky March, we see the archetypal Staatsvolk man, the

Above: Vienna Ringstraße and Parliament Building (circa 1900)

District Commissioner Herr von Trotta, view the Empire in non-nationalist terms in which ‘as far as he was concerned, there were plenty of peoples, but no nations.’ As the Empire’s end comes ever closer, then, the Emperor’s attempts at unity become ever more frustrating, as Herr von Trotta cannot understand the ‘spate of barely comprehensible decrees and orders from the government concerning the kid-gloved treatment of the ‘national minorities’, one of Herr von Trotta’s least favoured expressions.’ In the Staatsvolk, the spirit of civic patriotism lived on through a German identity whose clubs in Vienna, Judson points out, welcomed not ‘Germans’

Above: The funeral procession of Kaiser Franz Joseph I (1916) but ‘all Austrians with German sympathies.’ Their faith in the institutions of Empire, however, grew increasingly frustrated as Franz Joseph continued to rely on the Anderson’s ‘vanished conceptions’, ideals of religion and dynasty rendered short-lived in the 19th and 20th Centuries. 1848 had proven a to be a peak of belief in the power of the Empire that would never be reached again. Even if, however, the patriotism that surrounded Franz Joseph can by 1914 be considered to have been as ‘out of place and out of time’ as Taylor has described the Empire to be, I hope in this essay to have at least dispelled his claim that its institutions had ‘long lost moral sanction.’ The spirit of the Enlightenment had proved across the Habsburg Empire to have been a powerful force for unity and popular support even if its power was abandoned with the reign of Franz Joseph in favour of a style of patriotism doomed to failure. It feels appropriate to conclude this essay on the ultimate failure of civic patriotism with the epitaph of Joseph II: ‘here lies a ruler, who despite his best intentions, could not realise any of his plans.’

Why did the Netherlands lose the Indonesian National Revolution (1945-1949)? James Hunter (K) explores the brutal and bitterly fought Indonesian National Revolution, one of the first of many decolonisation wars in Asia. The conclusion of the war in December 1949 saw a new Indonesian nation of 70 million people emerge from over 150 years of Dutch colonial rule. Above: ‘The Indies must be free! Work and fight for it!’ Dutch propaganda poster (1945) 13

At the same time, the Japanese dismantled the Dutch colonial administration. Nevertheless, despite the overtures of inclusion to the Indonesians, the reality of Japanese occupation on the ground was extremely different. Over 4 million Indonesians were worked to death or perished from famine whilst around 30,000 Europeans settlers also died in Japanese internment camps.

Above: The landing of an amphibious vehicle with Dutch soldiers, Pasir Putih, North Coast of East Java (July 1947)

With the Japanese withdrawal from Indonesia and the unconditional surrender on 2nd September 1945, a power vacuum was created in Indonesia. British troops entered the islands vacated by the retreating Japanese. Nationalist figures such as Sukarno and Hatta, however, stepped in and declared Indonesia to be an independent Republic on the 17th August 1945.

Background information: Since 1800, the Indonesian archipelago had been under the rule of the Dutch East India company and later the Kingdom of the Netherlands. The Dutch East Indies colony was the jewel in the crown of the Dutch Empire, being the largest and most economically profitable colony of the Dutch Empire. The Dutch East Indies provided resources and crops such as sugar, oil, rubber, tea, cotton, and spices to the Netherlands. The colony was viewed by the Dutch crown as a ‘cash cow’. Despite periodic uprisings and rebellions across the islands, the Netherlands gradually consolidated its hold over the Dutch East Indies throughout the 19th century. By 1940, over 300,000 Dutch people lived on the islands. However, the Dutch control and influence over the archipelago was severely damaged by the Second World War. Indonesia was occupied between 1942 and 1945 by expansionist Imperial Japan whilst the Netherlands was itself occupied by Nazi Germany from 1940 to 1944. The lighting quick Dutch East Indies campaign (1942) and subsequent occupation of the archipelago resulted in the destruction of Dutch military capabilities in Indonesia. During the Japanese occupation, Imperial Japan trained and supported nationalist groups and figures such as Sukarno (Later the President of Indonesia from 1945-1967) and Hatta in an attempt to obtain popular support for their rule and to help create defence forces in the fight against possible future invasions.

Above: Sukarno, the first President of Indonesia, declares independence (1945) However, this declaration was not recognised by also the newly liberated Netherlands, who wanted to continue colonial control of the most valuable Dutch colony. British troops struggled to keep order during a period known as the ‘Bersiap,’ (August 1945-December 1946) where disparate Indonesian nationalist ‘Pemuda’ (hardline youth fighters) massacred non-Indonesians including ethnic-Chinese, Dutch settlers, Japanese prisoners, and Eurasians (Mixed Dutch and Indonesian ancestry). Divergent groups such as Muslim nationalists, Communists, and Republicans roamed the countryside. The British occupation troops fought the successful Battle of Surabaya against the nationalists throughout November 1945 to regain control over the urban city of Surabaya in East Java. Over 16,000 Indonesians and 295 British and British Indian troops were killed.

The Dutch finally arrived in significant numbers in late 1946, when 55,000 Dutch troops arrived in Indonesia. Lord Mountbatten who had been acting as caretaker on the volatile islands was more than happy to leave the new Dutch administration with the gruelling task of crushing the Republican uprising.

Over 100,000 combatants and civilians perished over the course of the war. Nationalist leaders such as Sukarno and Hatta, having been trained by the Japanese, used both the terrain and effective political machinations to secure Indonesian independence. Although the Dutch military was vastly superior to the forces of the Republic, as demonstrated Throughout the war, the Dutch controlled the major- by the military success of Operation Product and ity of the urban areas yet failed to capture the coun- Kraai of 1947 and 1948, the Dutch failed to secure the countryside and gain international support for tryside, which remained firmly in the hands of the their war. Throughout the conflict several diplomatnationalists. The Dutch entered and broke several ic, political, and military factors severely hindered agreements with the nationalists. Despite the miliDutch attempts to reconquer the archipelago. The tary success of Operation Product and Operation four factors including: The impact of the Second Kraai, attempts by over 100,000 Dutch troops in World War, the role of Sukarno, Indonesian strate1947 and 1948 to fully occupy Java, the Nethergic strengths, and outside diplomatic intervention in the conflict, compounded with a worldwide trend in lands never managed to fully crush the Republic or decolonisation at the time were all central to Dutch gain widespread diplomatic recognition for Dutch defeat in the Indonesian National Revolution. control over Indonesia. The Dutch were roundly condemned throughout the war by the world community and the U.N. for breaking successive negotiated agreements. In 1949, the Dutch decided to end the war and began negotiations for full Indonesian independence. Queen Juliana of the Netherlands signed the ‘Soevereiniteitsoverdracht’, which gave Indonesia independence (with the exception of West New Guinea) as a Republic under Sukarno, one of the leading nationalist figures of the war.

Factor one: The impact of the Second World War on the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies. Impacts on the Netherlands: The political establishment of the Netherlands was severely damaged by the upheaval of the Second World War. The Netherlands after the Second World War was enormously impacted by the effects of the Nazi Occupation and invasion.

Above: The Van Mook line in Java. Areas in red were under Republican control.

Why did the Netherlands lose the Indonesian National Revolution (19451949)? The Indonesian National Revolution, 1945-1949, was a Dutch attempt to reassert control over the Dutch East Indies in the aftermath of the Second World War. In a bitter and brutally fought war between the colonial power and the emergent Indonesian state, the war saw atrocities such as massacres, summary executions, and torture by both sides.

Above: British Indian troops move cautiously through rebel territory near the town of Grissee in Java (1946)

In 1945, the Netherlands had just been liberated from Nazi occupation by the Allied forces. During the Second World War, widespread bombing of cities such as Rotterdam and events such as the Dutch famine of 1944-1945 caused 30,000 fatalities, demonstrated the damage done to the Netherlands during the Nazi occupation. In 1945, the Dutch monarchy returned from a five-year exile in London. The Netherlands was still a divided country. Parties such as the Communist Party of the Netherlands obtained over 11% of the vote in 1946, highlighting the political instability at the time. Impacts on Dutch Indonesia:

expelled. Moreover, the Japanese gave military training and armament to Indonesian nationalist groups and turned them into an effective fighting force. ‘Pemuda’ (hard line youth fighters) and rebel groups were turned by the Japanese from disparate criminal bands into an effective fighting force. The Indonesian nationalists would use their new weapons and skills to great effect in the Indonesian National Revolution. Ultimately, the upheaval of the Second World War promoted a new form of Indonesian nationalism and provided Sukarno with the training, both military and political, to fight the returning Dutch colonists successfully. The profound impacts of the Second World War bolstered Indonesian efforts in the war from the start.

Above: A Dutch colonial family eats dinner (1936) In the Dutch East Indies, the situation was equally fractious. The impact of the Second World War changed the structure and potential for Indonesian nationalism as Japanese assistance bolstered the skills, determination, and extent of Indonesian nationalism. During the war the Japanese had supported and encouraged Indonesian nationalist groups and figures such as Sukarno. Their reasons for doing this were twofold: To create more support in Indonesia for the Japanese (who wanted to be hailed as the pan-Asian liberators) and to create an ally in a future fight against the resurgent Allied Powers. Sukarno was one emerging figure who used the Japanese occupation to bolster his credentials and training. Although, deemed to be ‘one of the foremost collaborationist leaders,’ by the U.S.A during the Second World War, the truth was that Sukarno never had any real love for the Japanese. Instead, he used the Japanese as a platform to promote Indonesian nationalism and to rally the population for the fight ahead against the Dutch. Indonesian nationalists recognised that the roles in administration and politics that the Japanese were offering were more than the Indonesian population had had under Dutch colonial rule. Therefore, a new generation of Indonesians were trained to run the country as administrators. This in turn fostered a sense of nationhood for the Indonesians nationalists who now saw it as a possibility for Indonesians to run Indonesia with the Dutch having been

Above: Indonesian youths receiving military training from the Japanese Impacts on Dutch military capabilities: In addition, the impact of the Second World War on the Dutch military severely hindered Dutch attempts to win the Indonesian National Revolution from the start. In the years before the Second World War the Dutch colonial administration and military had been extremely effective in suppressing dissent, exemplified by the crushing of the 1926 and 1927 Communist uprisings in West Java and Sumatra. In 1929, the Dutch military arrested Sukarno which had dented emergent Indonesian nationalism significantly. However, the Japanese invasion and occupation was a complete upheaval to the colonial military policing system. The Japanese invasion of the Dutch East Indies completely destroyed Dutch military capabilities in the area. During the 1942 naval Battle of the Java Sea, three Dutch battleships (The HNLMS De Ruyter, Java and Kortnaer) were sunk along with six smaller ships. The majority of Dutch East Indies Naval squadron was destroyed in the invasion.

Above: HNLMS De Ruyter, the Dutch flagship in the Indies, was sunk during the Battle of the Java Sea on the 28th of February 1942 On land, the Governor-General, Van Starkenborgh Stachouwer, was captured by the Japanese. The Dutch forces in the Indies, the KNIL (Koninkluk Nederlandsch Indisch Leger) were cut off from external Dutch assistance due to the German occupation of the Netherlands during the war. Many KNIL troops were interned as POWs of which 25% did not survive their internment. The KNIL was gutted by the Second World War and was not able regain control of Indonesia after the Japanese withdrawal, demonstrating the Dutch military weakness from the start of the Indonesian National Revolution. Furthermore, as a result of the Second World War, the Netherlands itself was not able to send much of an army to re-assert control. The lack of Dutch military presence in 1945, which might have been able to nip the newly formed Republic in the bud if it had been in place, curtailed Dutch attempts to restore order over Indonesia. The lawless ‘Bersiap’ period of 1945 where significant massacres of Europeans took place demonstrated how the Dutch military, having had its capabilities destroyed in the Second World War, failed to restore control and order over Indonesia. The Dutch found themselves ironically having to rely on both (albeit a few) former Nazi collaborators and resistance members (Princess Irene Brigade), alongside the widespread unpopular conscription of 95,000 men to be able to send an army to garrison Indonesia. The army only arrived in significant numbers by mid-1946, with the British troops acting as caretakers under Lord Mountbatten. However, the British troops had more pressing concerns to deal with than waging the war on behalf of the Netherlands.

These included the repatriation of 300,000 Japanese troops and the freeing of European POWs. Lord Mountbatten did not have and did not want to commit significant resources to quell the uprisings and the newly formed Republic, withdrawing in mid-1946. The lack of Dutch military presence in Indonesia in 1945 meant that there was not a significant attempt to return Indonesia to Dutch control. The Dutch army arrived in early 1946 to see an already established Indonesian Republic which had control over much of the former colony. Overall, the underlying impact of Second World War destroyed the once effective Dutch military establishment in the area. The impact of the Second World War significantly hindered the Dutch in their efforts to win back the Dutch East Indies in the early phase of the war from the start.

Above: ’Strengthen Our Ranks’, Royal Netherlands Indies Army (KNIL) poster (1945)

Factor two: The role of Sukarno. The central role of Sukarno, a lawyer turned nationalist politician, was key in the Indonesian struggle for Independence. Sukarno was extremely politically, militarily, and diplomatically influential throughout the Indonesian National Revolution. Sukarno used the withdrawal of the Japanese to his advantage, declaring Indonesia a Republic on August 17th 1945 in front of 500 people, almost a month before the Japanese surrender. On the 19th of September, Sukarno addressed a crowd of one million people in Jakarta, indicating his power to rally the people to the new Indonesian Republic and his skill as a political

operator. Moreover, Sukarno consolidated his control over Indonesia extremely quickly before the Dutch had time to arrive. Sukarno laid the foundations and created the institutions for a new Republic such as an army (BKR – Badan Keamanan Rakyat) armed with Japanese weapons (and out of the pro-Japanese militia PETA) on 29th August 1945, making it much more difficult for the Dutch to regain control over their former colony. He sought to both legitimise his new Republic internationally by proclaiming Indonesian Independence officially on 17th August. Sukarno showed more restraint in his political machinations than other Indonesian nationalists at the time such as Sutomo, a hard-line ‘Pemuda’ who encouraged the massacre of non-Indonesians.

Above: Sukarno, President of Indonesia (1945-1967) Sukarno showed his political tact by gaining the support of the local Rajas, such as the influential Sultan of Yogyakarta (Hamengkubuwono IX) who declared his support for the new republic in late 1945 and later sheltered Sukarno’s forces in 1947 after Operation Product. Throughout the war, Sukarno proved to be a skilful negotiator, negotiating several agreements with the Dutch and later Independence in the Netherlands at the Round Table Conference of 1949. Agreements which Sukarno agreed to such as Linggadjati and Revnille legitimised Indonesian republicanism and minimised the fighting, with Sukarno proving himself both open to peace and yet prepared to fight throughout. Sukarno quelled a hard-line protest of over 200,000 Pemuda youths in Jakarta in 1946, urging calm instead. Sukarno created a united front by rally the population to support his new Republic, thereby undermining the rival Communist Party (PKI) and the Islamist Darul Islam Party. Sukarno’s defeat of the Communist Party impressed the U.S.A

Above: Sutomo, a hard-line ‘Pemuda’ youth leader, oversaw and encouraged the execution of nonIndonesian peoples in the lawless ‘Bersiap’ period of August 1945-December 1946. He was one of the hardliners Sukarno had to deal with. (with the U.S.A viewing Sukarno as a capable operator who could contain Communism) which started to criticise the Netherlands for their handling of the war. By side-lining hardliners and rivals, Sukarno made the Indonesian cause for independence more credible, whilst ensuring a united front to counter the Netherlands. Overall, Sukarno’s political tact was important in Indonesia’s victory and the Dutch loss of the war as he created the Republic of Indonesia, rallied the people to its cause, and negotiated independence.

Factor three: Indonesian strategy. Throughout the war the Indonesian strategy and tactics of controlling the countryside were central to the eventual defeat of the Netherlands. The Dutch failed to capture the countryside and forested areas (especially on Java) with their presence felt more in urban areas such Surabaya and Batavia. In 1945 over 145 million hectares of land was estimated to be covered in jungle including much of the islands of Java, the Celebes, Borneo, Sumatra, and New Guinea. The Indonesian nationalist forces, PKI Communist Party and Darul Islam all used the countryside to good effect. The embedded fighters prevented first the British and later the Dutch in securing the Indonesian countryside. In the ‘Bersiap’ (Translating to: ‘Get ready’ in Indonesian) period between August 1945 and December 1946 disparate Indonesian bands of pemuda youths roamed the countryside and committed atrocities against groups such as Europeans and ethnic Chinese.

Although the massacres were not planned and executed by the central forces Republic, they proved that neither the British or the Dutch could hope to impose law and order in Indonesia. Dutch settlers were fearful of Republican forces and many were evacuated from the volatile Central Java region between 1945 and 1946, highlighting the settlers lack of confidence in Dutch armed forces to protect them in the face of Indonesian guerrilla attacks. On the military front, the Dutch won significant victories over the Republic in Operation Product and Kraai of 1947 and 1948, defeating the forces of the Republic militarily. However, they could not control the villages and the countryside. Despite heavy handed Dutch measures, which included summary executions of combatants and civilians alike, the Dutch failed to conquer the countryside and rural villages. Even after the overwhelming military success of Operation Kraai in 1948, with all six major cities on Java and Sumatra in Dutch control and Sukarno in custody, the war still continued in the countryside led by General Sudirman and Suharto (later President of Indonesia from 1967-1998). The image of an overwhelming military victory in the aftermath of Kraai for the Netherlands was shattered as Suharto attacked Dutch positions in cities such as Yogyakarta on 1st March 1949 and commenced another attack on Dutch troops on Surakarta in an offensive known as 1st of March General Offensive or Serangan Unun. Even though the offensive failed to reverse most Dutch gains from Operation Kraai, the offensive caused the Dutch withdrawal from cities such as Yogyakarta. This showed both the strength of the Indonesian strategy and the extent to which they could survive and regroup, deeply entrenched in the countryside, and launch assaults to recapture cities taken by the Dutch. Operation Kraai showed that despite the capture of Java and Sumatra’s six major cities by the Dutch, the gruelling war would continue to be waged in the impenetrable countryside. The Dutch realisation that it would be an extremely costly, both human and financially, operation to quell the embedded Indonesian forces in the countryside was a factor driving them to the negotiation table. The Netherlands realised that victory in Indonesia would be at best uncertain and at worst impossible. Overall, Indonesian strategy was key in the Dutch loss of Indonesia. Up and across: An Indonesian ‘Pemuda’ youth fighter is pulled from a ditch by a Dutch soldier

Factor four: Outside intervention. Another factor key to the Dutch loss of Indonesia was the influence of outside diplomatic intervention during the conflict. Throughout the war, the Netherlands never managed to gain widespread diplomatic support for the war, with many countries criticising the Netherlands or supporting the Indonesian Republic in the newly formed (1946) United Nations. The worldwide trend of decolonisation compounded with the impact of the Second World War meant that there was little stomach for fighting internationally (As well as within the Netherlands to an extent). The British had recently given their most valuable colony, India, independence in 1947. This demonstrated the overall trend of decolonisation prevailing in the aftermath of the Second World War. By 1946, nations across Asia were witnessing decolonisation movements (Indochina, Malaysia) and newly independent countries (Korea, Philippines, Burma). Across the Indonesian National Revolution, Dutch attempts to conquer rebel held territory in Operation Product and Kraai were, although militarily successful, always met with international condemnation and disdain. The Dutch were clearly seen to be the aggressors by breaking negotiated agreements (Renville and Linggadjati) with Indonesia. They were widely condemned for this. The United Nations Security Council Resolution 27 of 1st August 1947 called for an end to fighting and for diplomatic options to be pursued. The Dutch clearly ignored this resolution, launching Operation Kraai in 1948 as an attempt to take the whole of Java. During and in the aftermath of these operations, nations such as the Soviet Union, Australia, and newly formed India were particularily critical of the Dutch in the war. Britain withdrew its troops as soon as the Dutch arrived in Indonesia in significant numbers, reinforcing the fact that there was no stomach even in the world’s largest colonial power to continue the fight.

Above: Dutch troops with three captured Indonesian soldiers, Solo, Central Java (21 December 1948) However, arguably the most influential criticism came from the U.S.A who, having seen Sukarno effectively quash the PKI Communist Party insurgency in Indonesia, decided to call for an end to the war and a Dutch withdrawal. The U.S.A had always been a famous antiimperialist power since the Monroe doctrine of 1823. Therefore, having seen Indonesia effectively deal with Communism (the new threat post-Second World War), the U.S.A had no reason to back Dutch rule. The final straw for the Dutch was in the aftermath of Operation Kraai in 1948. After the Dutch had broken the Linggadjati agreement, the U.S. Secretary of State George Marshall threatened to halt Marshall aid (A vital economic lifeline for the Netherlands to rebuild after the damage of the Second World War) to the Netherlands. United Nations Security Council 63 of January 1949 demanded the reinstatement of the Republican government in the territory captured in Operation Kraai. The United States prepared to cut of Marshall funding to the Netherlands, which had so far totalled to around $1 Billion dollars, double what the Netherlands had spent in the four years of the Indonesian National Revolution. The U.S. Republican Party was particularily scathing in its criticism of the Netherlands, stating that U.S. aid should not be used to prop up: “a senile and ineffectual imperialism.” The Netherlands had to give in to these threats and end the war, as without Marshall aid the Netherlands would be severely curtailed in rebuilding post-war. In fact, one of the main reasons for Dutch involvement in Indonesia post-war, alongside sovereignty of the Dutch Empire, was for economic reasons. Indonesia had always been regarded as a ‘cash-cow’ by the Netherlands, with resources such as sugar, oil, rubber, tea, cotton, and spices all provided to the Dutch.

The Netherlands certainly wanted to maintain control over Indonesia, a hugely wealthy colony, to fund its recovery from the Second World War, in which cities such as Rotterdam and Arnhem had been heavily bombed. Nevertheless, the Netherlands recognised that the U.S.A was serious in their threats to cut of Marshall aid. There were two paths open to the Netherlands. They either could continue the costly war in Indonesia, hoping that they would defeat the multitude of rebels yet certainly losing Marshall aid. Or they could forfeit Indonesia and still receive certain Marshall aid. The Netherlands chose the less risky option, seeking negotiations for full Independence with Indonesia and receiving $916 million dollars in grants and $166 million dollars in loan aid. Overall, outside diplomatic intervention and widespread condemnation from the international community (especially the U.S.A) was central in the Dutch decision to grant Indonesia independence. Outside intervention was key in the Dutch loss of Indonesia.

Conclusion:

Above: The burnt-out car of Brigadier Austin Mallaby, Surabaya (31 October 1945)

Overall, the Dutch loss in the Indonesian National Revolution can be traced down to four central factors: The impact of the Second World War on the Netherlands and Indonesia, the role of Sukarno, Indonesian strategic strengths, and outside diplomatic intervention, all compounded with a worldwide trend in decolonisation at the time. The Indonesian National Revolution shares many similarities with later decolonisation conflicts such as the French and Americans in Vietnam and the British in the Malaya emergency.

Themes such as the influence of the Second World War, public and international opinion as well as the strategic difficulty of fighting against embedded guerrillas in the thick jungle are familiar in each conflict. In the case of the Indonesian National Revolution, out of the four central factors that underpinned Dutch defeat, outside diplomatic intervention (specifically the threat of the halting of Marshall aid) was the most important factor as the economic benefits of controlling Indonesia were one of the Netherlands’s major interests in the conflict from the start. Perhaps second in importance in the Dutch defeat was the impact of the Second World War which shattered the once effective colonial administration and military forces in the area and leaving a power vacuum across the archipelago (after Japanese withdrawal). The upheaval caused by the Second World War was a central cause both for Dutch defeat in the war alongside the Indonesian political and military demands.

Although the role of Sukarno and Indonesian strategy were undoubtedly important, one must also consider that during the war, despite significant Indonesian opposition, the weapons/training/effectiveness of the Dutch Army were still far superior to the Indonesian Republican army. It is certainly true that the Indonesians proved to be a formidable fighting force, as demonstrated by the success of the 1st of March General Offensive of 1949 against the Dutch. However, if it were not for outside diplomatic intervention (especially from the U.S.A) the war would have been likely eventually won by the Dutch owing to the superior nature of their military. This was demonstrated in Operation Product and Kraai where the Dutch successfully conquered most of Java held by the nationalists and were only forced back to their original lines by outside condemnation. The threat to cut off Marshall aid by the U.S.A to the Netherlands was the final straw. The Netherlands finally recognised that their 150 years of colonial rule would have to end. Ultimately, the Netherlands lost Indonesia due to four factors: “The impact of the Second World War (both politically and militarily), the role of Sukarno, Indonesian strategy, alongside outside diplomatic intervention,” with outside diplomatic intervention being the most chief factor for Dutch loss in of the Dutch East Indies, which became the new Republic of Indonesia on December 27th 1949.

Left: The signing of the Renville agreement (1947) between the Dutch and the Indonesian Republic Below: Map of South-East Asia as of August 1947. The orange colour denotes Dutch colonial control (Over Borneo, Celebes, West Guinea, and parts of Java and Sumatra). The khaki colour denotes areas of Republican control.

A History of Crime Fiction, 19201939 Toby Bowes Lyon (K) examines the birth of the ‘Golden Age’ of crime fiction, contending that this global movement was the product of the tension between old and new and between optimism and pessimism, in a ‘brave new world’. Above: The cover of a 1943 edition of Dorothy L. Sayers’s debut novel, which introduced her charismatic and much-loved sleuth, Lord Peter Wimsey. ‘Golden Age’ crime fiction was mastered in Britain but practised, and played around with, globally. Indeed, this remains the case to the present day, even if the ‘Golden Age’ itself has long ended. 22

Reference timeline 1920: The Mysterious Affair at Styles (Agatha Christie), Call Mr. Fortune (H. C. Bailey), The Age of Innocence (Edith Wharton), League of Nations founded, Prohibition goes into effect. 1921: Chanel No. 5 launched, foundation of the CCP. 1922: Ulysses, (James Joyce), The Waste Land (T. S. Eliot), USSR founded, Egyptian independence, Tutankhamun’s tomb opened, first use of insulin to treat diabetes. 1923: The Murders on the Links (Agatha Christie), Whose Body? (Dorothy L. Sayers), The Incredulity of Father Brown (G. K. Chesterton), Dr. Thorndyke’s Casebook (R. Austin Freeman), The Charing Cross Mystery (J. S. Fletcher), The Inimitable Jeeves (P. G. Wodehouse), the Beer Hall Putsch. 1924: Poirot Investigates (Agatha Christie), Inspector French’s Greatest Case (Freeman Wills Crofts), A Passage to India (E. M. Forster), the death of Lenin, first Olympic Winter Games, first aerial circumnavigation of the world. 1925: The Layton Court Mystery (Anthony Berkeley), The Great Gatsby (F. Scott Fitzgerald), Mrs. Dalloway (Virginia Woolf), Butler Act passed in Tennessee. 1926: The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (Agatha Christie), Clouds of Witness (Dorothy L. Sayers), The Wychford Poisoning Case (Anthony Berkeley), The Benson Murder Case and Twenty Rules for Writing Detective Stories (S. S. Van Dine), Winnie the Pooh (A. A. Milne), first public demonstration of Logie Baird’s television system, general strike in Britain. 1927: The Big Four (Agatha Christie), The Secret of Father Brown (G. K. Chesterton), Roger Sheringham and the Vane Mystery (Anthony Berkeley), The Magic Casket (R. Austin Freeman), first solo transatlantic flight, the Great Mississippi Flood. 1928: The Mystery of the Blue Train (Agatha Christie), Lord Peter Views the Body and The Unpleasantness at the Bellona Club (Dorothy L. Sayers), The Silk Stocking Murders (Anthony Berkeley), Grey Mask (Patricia Wentworth), penicillin discovered.

1929: The Crime at Black Dudley (Margery Allingham), The Poisoned Chocolates Case (Anthony Berkeley), The Famous Cases of Dr. Thorndyke (R. Austin Freeman), Speedy Death (Gladys Mitchell), The Viaduct Murder (Ronald Knox), The Man in the Queue (Josephine Tey), Red Harvest (Dashiell Hammett), The Roman Hat Mystery (Ellery Queen), All Quiet on the Western Front (Erich Maria Remarque), the Wall Street Crash. 1930: Black Coffee’s first performance (Agatha Christie), Strong Poison (Dorothy L. Sayers), Mystery Mile (Margery Allingham), The Second Shot (Anthony Berkeley), The Documents in the Case (Dorothy L. Sayers and Robert Eustace), beginning of the Dust Bowl. 1931: Five Red Herrings (Dorothy L. Sayers), Look to the Lady and Police at the Funeral (Margery Allingham), Top Storey Murder (Anthony Berkeley), Malice Aforethought (Francis Iles), Floating Admiral (collaborative), Murder of a Lady (Anthony Wynne), Pietr-le-Letton (Georges Simenon), Empire State Building completed, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria. 1932: Peril at End House (Agatha Christie), Have His Carcase, Murder Must Advertise and Hangman’s Holiday (Dorothy L. Sayers), Murder in the Basement (Anthony Berkeley), Before the Fact (Francis Iles), Brave New World (Aldous Huxley), Franklin D. Roosevelt elected President, Amelia Earhart’s transatlantic flight. 1933: Lord Edgware Dies (Agatha Christie), Sweet Danger (Margery Allingham), Dead Mrs. Stratton (Anthony Berkeley), Ask a Policeman (collaborative), Hitler’s appointment as Chancellor of Germany, first solo aerial circumnavigation of the world. 1934: Murder on the Orient Express (Agatha Christie), Three Acts Tragedy (Agatha Christie), The Nine Tailors (Dorothy L. Sayers), Death of a Ghost (Margery Allingham), Panic Party (Anthony Berkeley), The Bravo of London (Ernest Bramah), The Chianti Flask (Maria Belloc Lowndes), The Postman Always Rings Twice (James M. Cain), Burmese Days (George Orwell), screen debut of Donald Duck.

1935: Death in the Clouds (Agatha Christie), Gaudy Night (Dorothy L. Sayers), The Scandal of Father Brown (G. K. Chesterton), The Hollow Man (John Dickson Carr), Enter a Murderer (Ngaio Marsh), A Question of Proof (Nicholas Blake), Hoover Dam completed, the retirement of Babe Ruth, the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. 1936: The A.B.C. Murders, Cards on the Table and Murder in Mesopotamia (Agatha Christie), Flowers for the Judge (Margery Allingham), Six Against the Yard (collaboration), A Shilling for Candles (Josephine Tey), Gone with the Wind (Margaret Mitchell), the remilitarisation of the Rhineland, the beginning of the Spanish Civil War. 1937: Dumb Witness and Death on the Nile (Agatha Christie), Busman’s Honeymoon (Dorothy L. Sayers), The Case of the Late Pig and Dancers in Mourning (Margery Allingham), Death at the President’s Lodgings (Michael Innes), The Hobbit (J. R. R. Tolkien), the disappearance of Amelia Earhart, Memorial Day massacre, Nanjing Massacre. 1938: Appointment with Death and Hercule Poirot’s Christmas (Agatha Christie), The Fashion in Shrouds (Margery Allingham), Brighton Rock (Graham Greene), Scoop (Evelyn Waugh), Fair Labor Standards Act, ‘Anschluss’. 1939: In the Teeth of the Evidence (Dorothy L. Sayers), And Then There Were None (Agatha Christie), The Winter Murder Case (S. S. Van Dine), The Smiler with the Knife (Nicholas Blake), The Big Sleep (Raymond Chandler), The Grapes of Wrath (John Steinbeck), outbreak of the Second World War.

A History of Crime Fiction, 19201939 Considering the enduring popularity and proven versatility of crime fiction as a genre, a discussion of its history in the interwar years is of pivotal importance, as it was during these years that its transition from a short-story to a novel form was accomplished and crystallised. The reference timeline gives an outline of the period, including not only key texts in crime fiction, but also other literary and historical landmarks, intended to give a flavour of the times as a whole. It starts in 1920, the year of publication of the novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, that launched the rebirth of the crime fiction genre in the form that is now known and loved, and facilitated the start of an extraordinarily rich period of creative output.

In Agatha Christie crime fiction found its most successful practitioner, the best-selling novelist of all time, whose books have sold more than 2 billion copies and have been translated into over 100 languages. Her work had, and continues to have, not just national but international appeal, finding its way into libraries in all four corners of the world, and provoking academic study in countless countries, which is hardly surprising considering the magnitude of her sales. She was the catalyst for the start of what would become known as the ‘Golden Age’ of crime fiction. Although there are understandable objections to this term, including that it sounds misleadingly romantic and suggests there was a lack of variety in output, it does nevertheless accurately describe what was undoubtedly the zenith of the genre, the time when it found its feet and flourished, both in terms of the quality and quantity of what was produced, like never before, or, depending on one’s opinion on the developments in crime fiction closer to the present day, since.

Agatha Christie, the bestselling novelist of all time. She began writing thanks to a bet from her sister Marge that she could not write a good detective novel, creating as the main character in her first novel, The Mysterious Affair at Styles, the iconic Belgian detective Hercule Poirot. The first description of Poirot in the novel, with Captain Hastings narrating, was as follows: ‘He was hardly more than five feet four inches but carried himself with great dignity. His head was exactly the shape of an egg, and he always perched it a little on one side. His moustache was very stiff and military. The neatness of his attire was almost incredible;

I believe a speck of dust would have caused him more pain than a bullet wound.’ Interestingly, Poirot remains the only literary character to have received an obituary in The New York Times.

For example, he successfully crushed a large segment of the criminal gang known as the Chauffeurs, so called because, after forcing entry into their target house, they would hold the resident’s feet in the fire until they were told where the most valuable items were kept. He did this by infiltratThe traditional narrative history of the development of ing the gang and then arranging a trap, resulting in crime fiction starts with Edgar Allen Poe (The Mura dramatic mass arrest, with the leader of the ders in the Rue Morgue often being cited as the first gang, surprisingly said to be an elderly woman, ‘true’ detective story) and Wilkie Collins’s The Moon- receiving the death penalty. Napoleon was so imstone, and gradually evolves into something more dis- pressed by Vidocq’s achievements that he gave tinct and focused on detection, with the key figure be- his unit powers across the whole of France, reing Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, although others, notably naming it the Sûreté Nationale in 1813. It is thereE.W. Hornung (a gifted writer, now best known as Co- fore not too hard to see why Poe, who is himself nan Doyle’s brother-in-law, yet the creator of A.J. Raf- often called the ‘father of the modern short stofles) and later E.C. Bentley (whose 1913 novel, ry’ (and more amusingly the ‘Tomahawk Man’ Trent’s Last Case, is commonly seen as a significant owing to his brutal literary reviews and bitter stepping stone in the path to Christie, as well as feuds, including with Henry Wadsworth Longfelproviding an example of a relatable, compromised de- low), was inspired by Vidocq’s life and career. tective) sometimes get a mention, alongside William Godwin’s Caleb Williams and even The Three Apples This history of crime fiction has quite rightly been from the Arabian Nights. called an oversimplification by some, as it sugThe importance of early proponents of the form being inspired by the work of real-life policemen is also significant, such as Poe and Eugène François Vidocq. The latter was a charismatic criminal, turned criminologist and policeman, who started on a dark path when his father organised his arrest at just thirteen-years-old after he had stolen from his parents. He would later go on to commit an impressive variety of crimes, ranging from assault to forgery. In 1792, he fought in the French Revolutionary Army, and only narrowly escaped execution thanks to an influential friend, after assaulting a superior officer and deserting. Despite this, he remarkably turned his life around, starting in 1811 when he became an informant for the Paris Police. He is now known as the ‘father of criminology’, the ‘first private detective’ and the ‘father of the Paris Police’, including for his role in championing the use of forensic science and undercover officers. Throughout his long and sometimes turbulent police career, his experiences meant he was always the first to give a criminal a second chance, and the plainclothes unit he formed towards the end of 1811, the Brigade de la Sûreté, was mostly made up of ex-criminals. Some conservative senior police officers unsurprisingly resented Vidocq’s growing influence in the police, but none could doubt that he achieved results.

gests an evolution of a distinct genre when such an evolution had not begun, thereby ignoring how early ‘crime fiction’ fitted into other genres, such as the sensation novel, and the complex ways in which it took shape over time, never independent of surrounding literary milestones. It would clearly be a mistake to call the transition from the short -story form of Conan Doyle to the novel of Christie an advancement. Despite this, the anchoring of the start of crime fiction, and specifically detective fiction, in its classic, enduring and ultimately ‘Golden Age’ form was without a doubt achieved by Christie in The Mysterious Affair at Styles. As such, the birth of ‘modern’ crime fiction can largely be thought of as an accident, as Agatha Christie, who worked as a Voluntary Aid Detachment nurse during the First World War (when she had contact with Belgian refugees, in her hometown of Torquay, and learnt a great deal about poison by training as an apothecary’s assistant), wrote the novel largely as a response to a bet from her sister Madge, who saw herself as a budding writer, that she could not write a decent detective novel. The result was the birth of a genre in the form recognisable today, and the first few lines of the novel (reprinted below) can thus be thought of, to fully emphasise the importance of the work, as the start of a global movement.

Agatha Christie, The Mysterious Affair at Styles (Chapter I, narrated by Captain Hastings) The intense interest aroused in the public by what was known at the time as “The Styles Case” has now somewhat subsided. Nevertheless, in view of the world -wide notoriety which attended it, I have been asked, both by my friend Poirot and the family themselves, to write an account of the whole story. This, we trust, will effectually silence the sensational rumours which still persist. I will therefore briefly set down the circumstances which led to my being connected with the affair. I had been invalided home from the Front; and, after spending some months in a rather depressing Convalescent Home, was given a month’s sick leave. Having no near relations or friends, I was trying to make up my mind what to do, when I ran across John Cavendish. I had seen very little of him for some years. Indeed, I had never known him particularly well. He was a good fifteen years my senior, for one thing, though he hardly looked his forty-five years. As a boy, though, I had often stayed at Styles, his mother’s place in Essex. We had a good yarn about old times, and it ended in his inviting me down to Styles to spend my leave there. “The mater will be delighted to see you again—after all those years,” he added. “Your mother keeps well?” I asked. “Oh, yes. I suppose you know that she has married again?”

David Suchet as Hercule Poirot in the 1990 adaptation of The Mysterious Affair at Styles. Agatha Christie’s Poirot, as the series was called, ran from 1989 to 2013, with 70 episodes in total. The characters of Captain Hastings, Chief Inspector Japp and Miss Lemon were brought to the fore, often added to short stories and even novels they had not appeared in.

The performances of Hugh Fraser, Philip Jackson and Pauline Moran have become iconic. Zoë Wanamaker also successfully brought Mrs. Oliver to life in the later episodes, while the screenwriting talent ranged from Clive Exton to Anthony Horowitz. Notably, the later episodes were far darker than their more whimsical predecessors. The ultimate credit for the success of the series must go to David Suchet, whose subtleties and immense talent in acting captured the idiosyncrasies, perfectionism and complexity of the character of Poirot more successfully than any other actor, either before or since. The last line of this extract sets up the crux of the plot, and, indeed, what Christie achieved in Styles is a concise but highly immersive, clearly structured and tightly plotted plot. It showed that crime and detection could indeed be successfully made into a full-length novel, if a shorter one, and it was clear that the plot devices deployed, especially the many possible villains and dramatic plot twists, could be successfully repeated, built upon, and mastered. For a debut, Styles is quite a statement. Christie introduced her most renowned detective, Poirot, the Belgian refugee whose head ‘was exactly the shape of an egg’, successfully developed the voice of her Watson-esque narrator, Captain Hastings, and pulled off a sensational plot twist, on a par with The Murder of Roger Ackroyd and Murder on the Orient Express. With Styles, Christie began a literary tradition that would eventually result in the emergence of a strictly codified style, that some detractors have called artificial and formulaic. Indeed, one often has to defend crime fiction, particularly that of the ‘Golden Age’, from those who describe it as unworthy of literary criticism, lowbrow or a horrendous product of its time (the unprintable original title of And Then There Were None is a case in point, of course), describing its characters to be two-dimensional and unrealistic, the writing style to be pathetically bland and the authors to be untalented. Such detractors would put the incredible prolificity of ‘Golden Age’ authors, many of whom were turning out a novel or even a novel and a short story collection per year, down to quality being sacrificed to quantity.

The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction: ‘Until quite recently, the words ‘Cambridge Companion’ and ‘Crime Fiction’ would have seemed mutually exclusive’.1 Opposition to crime fiction was most famously expressed in Edmund Wilson’s article Who Cares Who Killed Roger Ackroyd? Thankfully, crime fiction is increasingly being seen as worthy of serious literary attention and scholarship, as seen by the rapid rise in the number of studies and articles published by the Oxford and Cambridge University Presses. With this, some new and very interesting interpretations of the genre have emerged, some inevitably postmodernist, but many nuanced and informed. For example, Colin Watson linked the style of ‘Golden Age’ crime fiction, especially its emphasis on deduction rather than physical action, to high female readership due to lending libraries, and the dominance of women in the writing of the novels,1 of course led by the four acknowledged ‘Queens of Crime’, namely Christie, Dorothy L. Sayers (best known for her creation of Lord Peter Wimsey), Margery Allingham (the creator of Albert Campion, who was so skilfully portrayed by Peter Davison in Campion), and Ngaio Marsh (a New Zealand writer known for creating the British detective Roderick Alleyn). Meanwhile, others have connected the rise of ‘Golden Age’ fiction with the conception of the crossword puzzle (first appearing in New York in 1913), yet more scholars have drawn a line between the decline of the importance of religion and the growth of crime fiction. Significantly, W.H. Auden, a great lover of the genre who likened it to an addiction, pointed out the detective’s almost prophet-like role, in addition to the theme of innocence versus guilt,1 which to him was the crux of all crime fiction. More difficult to accept are Freudian interpretations of the rise of the genre. The suggestion that crime fiction was merely an escapism is at best a halfhearted effort. However, suggestions that it acted as a ‘literature of convalescence’2 after the horrors of the First World War or an extension of modernism are tedly convincing,

although highly controversial, with some rebounding off the latter point by suggesting that crime fiction was in fact an escape from modernism, or, in fact, the first stirrings of postmodernism. The scholarship on the subject in recent years has been unprecedentedly rich and varied. The most fruitful and interesting areas to focus on have included the role of psychology and madness in ‘Golden Age’ literature,3 the importance of food to the narratives of many novels 4 and the role of both Christianity and feminism in defining the genre. Dorothy L. Sayers’ herself in The Mind of the Maker 5 suggested that the creation of art was linked to the Trinity, with the artist’s version of the Trinity being the ‘Idea’, the ‘Word’ and the ‘Power’, thereby creating a ‘threefoldness’ in the mind of not just the author but also the reader. Some scholars have extended this scene, leading to some innovative and unexpected conclusions, including the emphasis of the Christian qualities of Colin Dexter’s Inspector Morse (obviously created much later than the ‘Golden Age’, and made famous by John Thaw’s representation of him) and the suggestion that Sherlock Holmes was a resolver of crises of theodicy.6

Dorothy L. Sayers with Eric the Skull. Eric was a key feature of the initiation ceremony of the Detection Club. This clearly tongue-in-cheek ritual involved the new member placing their hands on

Martin Priestman (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Crime Fiction (Cambridge University Press, 2003). Alison Light, Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (Routledge, 1991). 3 Samantha Walton,. Guilty but Insane: Mind and Law in Golden Age Detective Fiction (Oxford University Press, 2015). 4 Silvia Baucekova, Dining Room Detectives: Analysing Food in the Novels of Agatha Christie, (Cambridge Scholars Publishing 2015). 5 Dorothy L. Sayers, The Mind of the Maker, (Westport, CT, Greenwood Press, 1970). 6 Walter Raubicheck and Anya Morlan (ed.), Christianity and the Detective Story (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2013). 2

Eric, before swearing that they would make no use whatsoever of ‘divine revelation, feminine intuition, mumbo jumbo, jiggery-pokery, coincidence, or act of God’ God’ (according to Anthony Gilbert in Three-aPenny),7 and that they would both ‘conceal no vital clues from the reader’ and ‘honour the King’s English’. Sayers was President of the Detection Club from 1949 until her death in 1957, when she was succeeded by Agatha Christie. Perhaps easier to believe is the connection drawn between feminism and the ‘Golden Age’, particularly the work of Dorothy L. Sayers. Among the first women to receive an Oxford degree, Sayers considered her translation of the Divine Comedy for Penguin Books to be her foremost accomplishment. She tackled the inequality of her age head-on, most famously in essays such as Why Work? and Unpopular Opinions: Twenty-One Essays. Her feminism is suggested in comments such as ‘…the average woman of intelligence is fairly ready to believe in the value of a personal relationship, but the idea of a particular mana attached to femaleness, deriving as it does from primitive fertility-cults and naturemagic, is likely to strike her as either nonsensical or repellent’.8 Her feminism came across in her writing, most notably in her realisation of the character of Harriet Vane (introduced in the Lord Peter Wimsey mystery Strong Poison), who some have seen as mirroring herself, a theory which, although it has potential, needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. Despite this, Sayers always despaired at attempts to link her to feminism, writing: ‘What is unreasonable and irritating is to assume that all one’s tastes and preferences have to be conditioned by the class to which one belongs. That has been the very common error into which men have frequently fallen about women – and it is the trap into which feminist women are, perhaps, a little inclined to fall about themselves’.9 Similarly, she wrote that ‘It is ridiculous to take on a man’s job just in order to be able to say that “a woman has done it – yah!” The only decent reason for tackling a job is that it is your job, and you want to do it’.10

Harriet Walter as Harriet Vane and Edward Petherbridge as Lord Peter Wimsey in the 1987 adaptation of Gaudy Night. Set in the fictional Shrewsbury College, Oxford (a women’s college), it does not involve a typical murder, but rather an investigation into poison-pen letters and vandalism. A unique fusion of romance and detective story, some have considered it the crowning glory of Sayers’s career, though others, notably George Orwell, have strongly disagreed. Regardless of one’s view on its relative merits or defects, it is undoubtedly a novel which raises some big questions, especially about female equality, social norms and the forces driving relationships. Whether or not it should be classed as a feminist novel, however, remains up for debate.

It must be emphasised that the talents of Dorothy L. Sayers were many, extending not just to detective fiction but also to poetry, plays, essays and the study of languages. In particular, she was known for her theological work, in which she defended the creed of the Church and urged the need to properly understand its dogmas.

Francesca Wade, ''No Divine Revelation, Feminine Intuition or Mumbo Jumbo': Dorothy L Sayers and the Detection Club’, The Guardian, 4 February 2020, section 'Books' <https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/feb/04/dorothy-l-sayers-and-thedetection-club>. 8 Dorothy L. Sayers, introduction to Dante, The Divine Comedy (Purgatory), tr. Dorothy L. Sayers (Penguin Books, Limited, 1955). For a general introduction, see Catherine Kenney, The Remarkable Case of Dorothy L. Sayers (The Kent State University Press, 2013), James Brabazon, Dorothy L. Sayers: A Biography (Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1981) and Barbara Reynolds, Dorothy L. Sayers: Her Life and Soul (St. Martin’s Press, 1997). For her collected writings, see God, Hitler and Lord Peter Wimsey (Tippermuir Books, 2019), and for her work on theology, time and education, Matter of Eternity (Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1973). 9 Dorothy L. Sayers, Are Women Human? (Address to a Women’s Society, 1938).

Despairing at the decline in religious observance, she wrote that ‘We are waging a war of religion. Not a civil war between adherents of the same religion, but a lifeand-death struggle between Christian and pagan… Christendom and heathendom now stand face to face as they have not done in Europe since the days of Charlemagne’.11 Her cycle of radio plays on the life of Jesus, The Man Born to be King, is particularly well known. For her, Christian dogma was full of drama, and must on no account be dismissed as dull, writing, ‘If this [the Christian story] is dull, then what, in Heaven’s name, is worthy to be called exciting?’ 11 She described heresy as ‘largely the expression of opinion of the untutored average man, trying to grapple with the problems of the universe at the point where they begin to interfere with his daily life and thought’.11 Her wider works certainly warrant exploration, for in them one may find such gems of insight as, ‘War is an ugly disaster; it is not a final catastrophe…There are no final catastrophes. Like every other historical event, war is not an end, but a beginning’,12 ‘If life can be made worthwhile, death will not matter at all; for life can be good, but it is not and cannot be an absolute’ 12 and, amusingly, ‘We have become antagonistic to the very idea of order- although, rather inconsistently, we are accustomed to put a good deal of faith in “planning”’.13

St. Anne’s Church, Soho, in all its festive glory. Dorothy L. Sayers was a churchwarden there from 1952 until her death in 1957, and her ashes are buried beneath the floor of the tower, as recorded by a memorial to her inside the church, which includes her quote: ‘The only Christian work is good work well done’. The original church, built in 1677-85 to accommodate London’s growing population, may have been designed by Wren, though a collaboration between him and William Talman is more likely. At any rate, Samuel Pepys Cockerell had to be commissioned to design a new tower at the start of the 19th century, at the conclusion of 41 committee meetings, after the existing one became unstable. Sadly, this was the only part of the church to survive the Blitz. The church was rebuilt in 1991 as part of a new community complex, and is today entered by way of Dean Street, where it is easy to miss, having only a small glass door above which the church’s name can be seen, in neon lettering, no less. The garden at the back of the church is known for its London Plane trees, as well as a towering Common Lime pleached to provide seclusion, and remains open to the public, maintained on a day-to-day basis by Westminster City Council. One may also find memorials to the essayist William Hazlitt and Theodore, King of Corsica, an audacious explorer whose pocket was not deep enough to match his ambition, and who died immediately after his release from the King’s Bench Prison, managing to secure this release by giving the Kingdom of Corsica to his creditors. Hazlitt’s tomb includes a moving extract from his ‘On the Fear of Death’, next to a modern hut which claims to be a ‘testament for the next generation’. With the addition of the Welsh Enlightenment thinker David Williams, Dorothy L. Sayers is hence in good company. Owing to the extensive damage to the church in the Blitz, however, the fact remains that she was a churchwarden without a church, with the congregation having to gather either in the house next door, or nearby

Dorothy L. Sayers, Unpopular Opinions: Twenty-One Essays (Harcourt Brace and Company, 1947). 11 Dorothy L. Sayers, Creed or Chaos (Harcourt Brace and Company, 1949). 12 13

Dorothy L. Sayers, Begin Here: A War-Time Essay (Victor Gollancz, 1940). Dorothy L. Sayers, Further Papers on Dante (Harper and Brothers, 1957).

St. Thomas’s. Sayers’s main contribution to church life, therefore, was through the so-called ‘St. Anne Society’, fellow members of which included Agatha Christie, T. S. Eliot and C. S. Lewis. Sayers and Lewis would become firm friends, despite having an occasional heated argument regarding whether women should be allowed to be ordained, which was opposed by Lewis, but strongly supported by Sayers.

plots of ‘Golden Age’ stories to be unimaginative and artificial. . Ronald Knox is best known as the priest who wrote crime fiction; he was ordained as an Anglican clergyman in 1912, before converting to Catholicism in 1917. As for the Detection Club, it is still strong today, under the presidency of Martin Edwards, himself a successful crime novelist, and the author of The Golden Age of Murder, an examination of this Moreover, Sayers’s essay The Lost Tools of Learning, which examines the education system of the Late Mid- very topic, who is also known for editing dle Ages as a way to inform and improve contemporary collections of crime- fiction short stories, the majority of which are from the ‘Golden Age’. education, remains a classic, a vital read for teachers The work of the British Library Crime Classics and pupils alike. She advocated teaching the grammar of a subject as building blocks for learning, describing series in getting masterpieces of the form back the grammar of History as consisting of ‘dates, events, into print, including Edwards’s selection of short stories by authors who were clearly talented but anecdotes, and personalities’.14 She recommended to about whom little is known, is certainly to be historians the benefits of having ‘a set of dates to which praised. one can peg all later historical knowledge… accompanied by pictures of costume, architecture and other “every-day things”, so that the mere mention of a date calls up a strong visual presentment of the whole Ronald Knox’s ‘Ten Commandments’ period’.14 In conclusion, she wrote that: ‘the sole true end of education is simply this: to teach men how to The criminal must be mentioned in the early part learn for themselves; and whatever instruction fails to of the story but must not be anyone whose do this is effort spent in vain’.14 The addition of ‘and thoughts the reader has been allowed to know. women’ into this sentence would seem apt, given Sayers’s writings on women, and her own personal achieve- All supernatural or preternatural agencies are ruled out as a matter of course. ment in breaking through male exclusivity in the acaNot more than one secret room or passage is demic world. allowable. Having examined some of the recent readings of crime fiction as a genre, and the wider work of Sayers, the formation of the Detection Club in 1930 must undoubtedly receive a mention. It brought together the leading lights of the day, including Christie and Sayers, under the presidency of G.K. Chesterton, whose Father Brown stories are such a useful starting point for advocates of reading crime fiction from a Christian perspective, the detective assuming an almost Christ-like significance. The club’s initiation ritual and exclusivity were wellknown, whilst its literary output included some wonderful products of collaboration, notably The Floating Admiral, Ask a Policeman and Six Against the Yard. The oath of admission to the society included Ronald Knox’s infamous ‘Ten Commandments’, which are an invaluable piece of evidence for those claiming the

14 15

No hitherto undiscovered poisons may be used, nor any appliance which will need a long scientific explanation at the end. No Chinaman must figure in the story. No accident must ever help the detective, nor must he ever have an unaccountable intuition which proves to be right. The detective himself must not commit the crime. The detective is bound to declare any clues which he may discover. The "sidekick" of the detective, the Watson, must not conceal from the reader any thoughts which pass through his mind: his intelligence must be slightly, but very slightly, below that of the average reader. Twin brothers, and doubles generally, must not appear unless we have been duly prepared for them.

Dorothy L. Sayers, The Lost Tools of Learning (Methuen, 1948). Alison Light, Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (Routledge, 1991).

Critics of crime fiction seize this, especially combined with Knox’s explanation of the fifth rule, which is clearly a product of its time: ‘I see no reason in the nature of things why a Chinaman should spoil a detective story. But as a matter of fact, if you are turning over the pages of an unknown romance in a bookstore, and come across some mention of the narrow, slit-like eyes of Chin Loo, avoid that story; it is bad.’ Such an overtly racist and today highly unacceptable statement by Knox does little to help the cause of defenders of the genre, but this can hardly be undone. What the people who attack the ‘Ten Commandments’ in particular fail to point out is that the rules were intentionally meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, and were partly meant to be humorous, although by no means entirely. Regardless of how seriously the ‘commandments’ were meant to be taken, it is irrefutable that they were frequently broken, and, indeed, some authors consciously went about trying to push the genre to its limits, ignoring convention and taking the ‘Golden Age’ in new and unexpected directions. Anthony Berkeley Cox in particular became known as an experimentalist, with much of his work seeking to rethink the fundamentals of crime and detective fiction, resulting in some remarkable products, including The Poisoned Chocolates Case (written under the pen name Anthony Berkeley), which intentionally sought to break all conventions regarding the writing of crime fiction, and Malice Aforethought (written under the pen name Francis Iles), which, together with Before the Fact, was a masterpiece of the psychological thriller form, and the ultimate realisation of the inverted detective story (or ‘howcatchem’), first conceived by R. Austin Freeman in the ‘Dr. Thorndyke’ mysteries (which, quite frankly, deserve to be far better known, alongside the A.J. Raffles stories, but have been eclipsed by Sherlock Holmes). The factors which account for the success of ‘Golden Age’ crime fiction are ultimately many. The importance of place to some is crucial, such as Sayers’ evocation of Oxford in Gaudy Night and of Galloway in Five Red Herrings, Margery Allingham’s depiction of London in Tiger in the Smoke, and Christie’s characterisation of a sleepy English village where murder is far below the surface, exemplified by St. Mary Mead, Miss Marple’s home. Meanwhile, Poirot’s residence in London links to a certain glamourisation of urban life that is a trope in many ‘Golden Age’ novels, although Allingham’s London tends to be very different. This emphasis on evoking a sense of place would go on to find its ultimate expression in Scandi Noirs.

Dorothy L. Sayers lived at 24 Great James Street in London for most of the 1920s, having received her degree from Oxford in medieval literature in 1915 (she would become known for her translations of the Divine Comedy and Tristan, amongst other works) as one of the first women to do so. She would later receive an honorary D. Litt from Durham, accepted as an alternative to the doctorate in theology offered to her personally by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which she felt she did not deserve to receive. Her first few years at 24 Great James Street were tempestuous and heartbreaking, involving two relationships in which she was taken advantage of by men, with serious consequences. She was living there when she wrote her first novel, Whose Body?, featuring Lord Peter Wimsey, which was published in 1923 (she had, however, had books of her poetry published prior to this, the first in 1916). At that time, she was working as a copywriter for S. H. Benson’s advertising agency, working on now iconic advertisements such as the Guinness ‘zoo’ series with the slogan ‘My goodness my Guinness’ and the ‘Mustard Club’ for Colman’s. She would draw on this experience in writing Murder Must Advertise. In 1926 she married Oswald Fleming, a talented Scottish journalist whose working life was sadly cut short by illness. She would retain the house at 24 Great James Street until her death, though she also bought a house in Witham in Essex for her mother, which she moved into after the latter’s death. A statue in Witham, showing her walking her cat, commemorates her years living there.

Though not part of the Bloomsbury Circle, this was still In short, the novels have a timeless quality. Topart of her milieu, as was her association with the Ink- day, readers may want to connect back to the Britain of old, one now fading fast from public lings, based at Oxford. consciousness as fewer and fewer people who In addition to the importance of place, the desires of were older than infants in the 1930s are left. This readers must not be forgotten, particularly the basic hudesire to reconnect with the ‘good old days’, perman desire of something slightly formulaic with a clear haps as a form of escapism, links to the striking ending, giving a sense of resolution, not to mention the point that politics and socio-economic conditions enjoyment derived by a reader of having the opportuniplay a part in very few ‘Golden Age’ mysteries. ty to play detective, and attempt to use the clues which They are therefore insulated from the social presthe author should have left (if following Knox’s ‘Ten sures and changes going on outside, and, of Commandments’), to try to identify the culprit. Human course, the impact of the Great Depression, givnature also means that people want to be anticipating ing them a certain optimism and airiness, and something in the way of a plot twist to become satisfied thereby allowing them to embrace the pleasures when something even more unexpected happens. Huof the 1930s’ ‘high life’ and the innovation of the man nature also desires the timeless appeal of a bogeydecade, without the suffering. The same is true man, someone to demonise, a role that the murderer for the 1920s, in a decade, although often called obligingly fits. In more light-hearted stories (although the ‘Roaring Twenties’, of recovery from war. one must take great pains not to generalise by dismissing ‘Golden Age’ fiction as light-hearted, whimsical or In the detectives of the period can thus be found the hope of a ‘brave new world’, and in the uncereven pointless), people find an escape from stress, a tainty of the situation that the protagonists find balance between something intellectually and psychologically engaging and emotional strain, with the more themselves can be found the uncertainty of a decade where social change was ever on the horizon disturbing elements glossed over, the victim often an (as well as technological and medical advanceunpleasant character. Many ‘Golden Age’ authors, ments, including in aviation, some of them listed however, increasingly denied readers this whimsical in the reference timeline) in some ways the last quality, with Berkeley once again being a good example, but this is not to make the point entirely redundant. breath of the old regime. The detective enters a world where order and certainty have been torn apart by murder, and it is their task to put the Finally, before working towards a conclusion, it is pieces back together, removing the contaminating worth stressing four points, that would make a good element, namely the murderer. The promise of a starting point for further research on the subject: the better future, and the uncertainty as to whether importance of Shakespeare to the work of Christie (titles such as Taken at the Flood and Sad Cypress are this could truly happen, are reflected in the development of characters such as Hercule Poirot (as a obvious starting places), the incredible ingenuity reside point, David Suchet’s current tour of regional quired to successfully realise a ‘Golden Age’ plot that strikes the right balance between accessibility and com- theatres in the form of an interview with Geoffrey plexity, the increasing centrality of thorny moral ques- Wansell, Poirot and More: A Retrospective, is to be thoroughly recommended) who is first develtions in ‘Golden Age’ mysteries as the period goes on oped as a refugee. At the same time, the plots of (Murder on the Orient Express would be a starting many ‘Golden Age’ novels involve the collision point here), particularly the question of justice versus of two very different worlds, with the older charmercy and the reaction in America to the perceived acters in the 1930s being born in the heyday of gentility of British crime fiction during the period of ‘hardboiled’ fiction's rise, which is a topic worthy of an Victoria and Empire, whereas the youngest characters being born in very different social condiarticle in itself. tions, a time when women’s rights were being Alison Light’s description of ‘Golden Age’ crime ficrealised (women over 30 gained the vote in 1918, tion as ‘literature of convalescence’ 15 indubitably has and women over 21 gained it a decade later) and merit but must be complemented by other reasons. The it was hoped that international relations could be appeal of the genre is universal, and not just limited to changed for the better, as shown by the foundathe socio-political dynamics of the interwar years. tion of the League of Nations. 15

Alison Light, Forever England: Femininity, Literature and Conservatism Between the Wars (Routledge, 1991).

Despite this, optimism was met by pessimism, as memories of the First World War lingered and, in the 1930s, the threat of war was ever present. These antitheses, namely old and new, and optimism and pessimism, ultimately find their expression in the crime fiction of the period. Crime fiction is hence principally a mechanism for the resolution of these

antitheses, thereby being both the product of change and an articulation of fearful hope. Any examination of ‘Golden Age’ crime fiction must therefore put social angst, and the antitheses created, front and centre.

Peter Davison, best known for All Creatures Great and Small and as the fifth Doctor Who, and Brian Glover, the wrestler-turned-actor, took on the roles of Albert Campion and his manservant Magersfontein Lugg respectively in the 1989-90 series Campion, which adapted eight of the twenty-one Campion novels written by Margery Allingham. At the very start of the television series, Campion describes himself as ‘Albert Campion. Born: May 20th 1900. Name known to be a pseudonym. Education: privileged. Embarked on adventurous career: 1929. Justice neatly executed. Nothing sordid. Deserving cases preferred. Police no object. Business address: 17 Bottle Street, Piccadilly, London, W1. Specialist in fairy stories’. The Battle of Magersfontein, interestingly, occurred during the Boer War. A former burglar, Lugg is nevertheless a loyal and mostly reliable companion to Campion. Both characters are imbued with a threedimensionality which aggressively pro-Allingham readers would describe as lacking in Christie. Such readers would also describe Allingham’s prose as more sophisticated than that of Christie, and her evocation of place far stronger. For example, Allingham has been famously compared to Dickens in the way she brought London’s underworld to life. In any case, it is true that the debate on the ‘Golden Age’ must not be too Christie-centric, nor must it be entirely focused on the ‘Queens of Crime’ as a collective. To truly appreciate the ‘Golden Age’, one must explore both the work of giants of the genre like Christie and the contribution, often no less important, of figures like Berkeley, Bramah and Fletcher. Those that stretched, or at times blatantly broke, the fundamental conventions of crime fiction, such as Berkeley, are of particular value. In short, ‘Golden Age’ literature goes far beyond the works of Christie, and it is only by looking at the big picture that the historian can begin to understand what this literary movement has to tell us about interwar British, and indeed international, society.

Hitler’s Greatest Blunder Ivo Sawbridge (K) examines the different factors that ultimately doomed Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union. The conflict on the Eastern front caused up to 34 million Soviet casualties and was ultimately pivotal in the outcome of the Second World War. The ‘Eastern Front’ of the Second World War is widely known for its no quarter given and brutal style of warfare. Above: The Soviet flag is raised over the Reichstag during the Battle of Berlin (1945)

Next Page: A Brief Timeline of the Key Events on the Eastern Front 34

Dates

Conflict

Victor

Extra Details

22 June 1941

Initiation of Operation Barbarossa First Battle of Kiev

Axis Powers

Siege of Leningrad

Soviet Union

700,544 Red Army casualties An estimated that 1.5 million people were killed.

2 October 1941 – 7 January 1942

Battle of Moscow

Soviet Union

Soviets managed to push the Germans more than 62 miles back

30 October 1941 – 4 July 1942

Siege of Sevastopol

Axis Powers

Sevastopol was the only Soviet hold-out in Crimea

28 June – 24 November 1942

Case Blue

Soviet Union

Comprised of many battles for control of the Baku oilfields

23 August 1942 – 2 February 1943

Battle of Stalingrad

Soviet Union

800,000 Axis casualties, 1,100,000 Red Army casualties, 40,000 civilian casualties

5 July – 23 August 1943 3 November – 22 December 1943

Battle of Kursk

Soviet Union

Second Battle of Kiev

Soviet Union

Largest tank battle of all time The Soviets managed to recapture the third largest city in the Soviet Union

8 April – 12 May 1944

Crimean Offensive

Soviet Union

The Romanian Navy managed to evacuate 113,000 Axis soldiers from Sevastopol

15 September – 24 November 1944

Belgrade Offensive

Allied Powers

One of the first battles in which the Soviets were not fighting alone

19 September 1944

Moscow Armistice

16 March – 15 April 1945

Vienna Offensive

Allied Powers

16 April – 2 May 1945 30 April 1945

Battle of Berlin

Soviet Union

Adolf Hitler’s and Eva Braun’s suicides

Soviet Union

9 May 1945

German Surrender in Eastern Europe

Soviet Union

23 August – 26 September 1941 8 September 1941 – 27 January 1944

Finland surrenders to the Soviet Union Liberation of a city held by the Nazis for over seven years 22,000 civilian casualties Many other Nazi generals in Berlin escaped to South America on the ‘ratlines’

Introduction In June 1941 Adolf Hitler initiated the largest military operation of all time by invading the Soviet Union along a 2,900-km front. He famously claimed, ‘We have only to kick in the front door and the whole rotten edifice will come tumbling down.’ Despite this, the Eastern Front was open for 3 years, 10 months, 2 weeks and 2 days, from 22 June 1941 (the initiation of Operation Barbarossa) to 9 May 1945 (the German surrender following the Battle of Berlin). In June 1940, France had fallen which temporarily closed the Western Front. As a result the Battle of Britain began and this required no infantry. This meant that, a year after the fall of France, the German army was fully prepared for the opening of a new front, having only been involved in minor battles in the Channel Islands and in Yugoslavia previously. Hitler’s main reason for invading the Soviet Union was his hatred of the Slavs, communism and its large Jewish population. The invasion also allowed him to pursue Lebensraum (literally ‘living space’), a Nazi concept concerned with gaining more land for Germany to cultivate resources and to expand the Greater Germanic Reich both economically and territorially. There are many reasons why the war on the Eastern Front was lost by the Axis powers, not least Hitler’s poor military strategy, the climate and topography of the Soviet Union, and American intervention through the Lend-Lease policy. However, perhaps the most important factors resulting in Hitler’s failure on the Eastern Front were his failure to capture Moscow in the winter of 1941, the sheer size of the Red Army and its soldiers’ burning passion to defend their homeland from the atrocities the Nazis were committing.

Factor 1 – Hitler’s Poor Military Strategy Many historians blame Hitler’s poor military strategy for losing the Axis powers the war in the East. He was convinced that he was a military genius, despite having fought in only one conflict: the First World War. His belief in his own military greatness led him to take personal control of the German armed forces during the Battle of Moscow . Hitler’s poor military strategy was never more evident than in the bloodiest battle of the Second World War: the Battle of Stalingrad. Instead of using most of his troops to capture the Baku oil

fields beyond the Caucasus Mountains – the real motor behind the Soviet war effort – Hitler ordered the majority of the Axis armies in southern Russia to capture Stalingrad. The city had no strategic advantage in terms of its location, but Hitler wanted to conquer it for its name. Hitler’s unwillingness to devote the Axis armies’ resources to one primary aim resulted in a resounding defeat in both the oilfields and in Stalingrad. To further the heavy death toll of these defeats, Hitler ignored the advice of his generals. They advised him to remove the remaining troops from Stalingrad to minimise casualties, but Hitler decided instead to order the execution of any Axis soldier who retreated from Stalingrad. Hitler’s failure to heed the warning of his generals and to withdraw troops contributed to some 800,000 Axis deaths in Stalingrad.

Above: Soviet soldiers advance in Stalingrad Another example of Hitler’s poor military strategy was during the Crimean Offensive from 8 April to 12 May 1944. In late 1943, the Soviets managed to push Axis soldiers onto Crimea, trapping them and preventing them from receiving supplies from the main body of the German army. The only supplies that the Axis soldiers could get were from the Romanian Navy through the Black Sea. Hitler insisted that the Axis soldiers attempt to keep Crimea despite its geographically challenging position. Due to the large number of Soviet soldiers , the German and Romanian soldiers trapped in Crimea quickly lost territory: it is estimated that 96,700 Axis soldiers were killed during the Crimean offensive. This forced Hitler to evacuate the remaining troops and so he let the Romanian Navy evacuate the remaining 113,000 Axis soldiers from Sevastopol. Hitler’s insistence on attempting to hold Crimea resulted in the loss of nearly 100,000 soldiers. This was detrimental for Hitler’s efforts on the Eastern Front, as Germany needed as many troops as possible to ward off the imminent Soviet attack on Berlin.

Most of Hitler’s problems with military strategy stemmed from the fact that he was detached from military reality. He was not on the scene of any battles on the Eastern Front, yet he refused to let any generals, who were there, make decisions, preferring to manage everything by himself, hundreds of miles away from the fighting. As well as this, many of Hitler’s decisions, like the decision to try and hold Crimea, resulted in huge Axis death tolls. It is very clear that he was too optimistic about the strength of the war-worn Axis armies, and it almost appears as if he had little concern for the lives of his soldiers. He also gravely underestimated the strength and passion of the Red Army. The population of the Soviet Union was so large that there was a seemingly unending number of (conscripted) troops that Stalin could call upon to fight. These troops, although untrained, were willing to fight for their homeland, having seen the acts of savagery that Hitler was carrying out on Soviet land. This was significant as it meant that the Red Army could easily overwhelm the smaller, poorly supplied Wehrmacht (German military forces).

Above: The Siege of Sevastopol (1941-42)

Factor 2—The Harsh Russian Winter ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’ George Santayana’s famous quotation is well-illustrated by Hitler’s ignorance of Napoleon Bonaparte’s error of invading Russia in winter. The harsh Russian weather and climate was a primary factor in Hitler’s losses on the Eastern Front. Akin to Hitler, Napoleon began his invasion of Russia in the early part of summer in 1812, and on his march to Moscow, the severity of the Russian winter depleted his resources and resulted in the deaths of many troops. Hitler had a similar problem in the early winter of 1941. He underestimated the strength of the

Soviet Union, and did not anticipate that his soldiers would still be fighting there when winter came. As a result of this, he did not order enough winter uniforms, so German soldiers in North Africa and Greece, where temperatures regularly reach 45°C, were wearing the same uniforms as soldiers fighting above the Arctic Circle, in temperatures as low as −40°C. These freezing temperatures resulted in the deaths of many German soldiers.

Above: German Panzer tank in harsh winter conditions As well as this, the icy weather froze lots of German military equipment, such as tanks, rendering them useless. This meant that the Germans were stuck for days on end waiting for their equipment to thaw and for new supplies to arrive. Supplies were very difficult to obtain due to the vast scale of the Eastern Front and the Soviet Union’s geography. They would have to be transported for hundreds of miles from Germany in order to reach the soldiers, and were often obstructed by snow over 15 inches deep, huge mountains and wide rivers. Climate and topography played a large part in Hitler’s defeat on the Eastern Front. They caused many casualties and generally decreased the swiftness of Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union, allowing Stalin to better prepare it for war.

Factor 3 – The German Failure to Capture Moscow The German failure to take Moscow in the winter between 1941 and 1942 was a very significant event on the Eastern Front. It was one of the first times that the Axis powers had lost a battle on the Eastern Front, and it also marked the start of the Soviet’s counter-offensive against the Germans. Both the German and Soviet armies had been weakened by the harsh Russian winter and the constant conflict.

The historian Michael Peck described the Battle of Moscow as a ‘boxing match between two battered and bloodied fighters barely on their feet’. At this point, the German Army was much stronger than the Red Army. Hitler had managed to muster around two million soldiers, as well as over a thousand tanks and strong Luftwaffe support, for his attack on Moscow. Stalin’s army was a lot weaker, with just over a million soldiers, a thousand tanks and no aircraft. At first, the German plan to encircle Moscow worked effectively: over 500,000 of the 1,000,000 Soviet soldiers were captured within the first month of the battle. After this initial German victory, the weather worsened, raining for the majority of October. This rain meant that the German army could not advance and capture Moscow as the ground around the city was too unstable. While this was happening, Stalin received intelligence from spies in Japan that Hideki Tojo (former prime minister of Japan and an ally of Hitler’s) was not planning to aid the Germans by invading Siberia. This allowed Stalin to call upon 18 divisions of soldiers from Siberia who were accustomed to the harsh winter weather to come and fight in the West. At the end of October, the ground froze over and the Red Army decided to take the Germans by surprise and attack them while they were still dealing with the effects of the weather. The German Army was entirely unprepared for this counter-offensive, so the Soviets were able to push them back over 62 miles from Moscow. The Germans suffered around 400,000 casualties as a result of this battle.

Above: Soviet artillery battery in the Battle of Moscow The Battle of Moscow was detrimental for Hitler’s campaign on the Eastern Front. His failure to take the Soviet capital had not only lost him many lives and supplies, but had also decreased the morale of the remaining German soldiers and battered their strategic formation. Perhaps the most detrimental effect of the German losses at Moscow was the rejuvenation of the Red Army spirit.

The repetition of history between Napoleon and Hitler is once again evident here.

Factor 4 – The Size and Mobility of the Red Army It is a well-known fact that Stalin was not a military genius, and this certainly did not help when the Soviets attempted to counter the German invasion. The fact that both Stalin and Hitler were ‘supreme commanders’ of their respective armies meant that battles were not often won by clever tactics, but instead by brute force. One of the major reasons for Hitler’s losses on the Eastern Front was the size of the Red Army. The Red Army deployed 34 million troops on the Eastern Front, more than 10% of the 300 million soldiers who fought in the Second World War. The troops were ill-prepared to fight as they did not get much military training and never had enough equipment. It is estimated that the Axis powers deployed 28 million troops on the Eastern Front. Although not as big as the Soviet army, the Axis soldiers were much better prepared for conflict as they all had received training and been provided with a reasonable amount of military equipment. The swiftness of the Axis invasion was helped greatly by the slow speed of Stalin’s deployment. This is particularly evident in the major battles of the war. The three longest conflicts, Leningrad, Moscow and Stalingrad, were all won by the Soviets as they had sufficient time to get enough troops to the cities to fend off the Germans, whereas the majority of the smaller battles, Smolensk and Bialystok, for example, were won by the Germans.

Factor 5 – The Soviets’ Hatred of the Germans and their Passion to Defend their Homeland Another key reason why Hitler lost on the Eastern Front was the Soviet soldiers’ hatred of the Germans and their willingness to defend their homeland. This was fuelled by the atrocities that the Germans had committed in Russia, such as setting up concentration camps, committing genocide, and raping and killing innocent civilians. Soviet soldiers were particularly enraged by their treatment as prisoners of war.

It is estimated that the Germans killed 2.8-million POWs between June 1941 and January 1942, through execution, deliberate starvation and exposure to disease.

the Soviet Union and were used to imprison both Soviet prisoners of war and Jews. Morale is often built in an army through its soldiers understanding that they are doing the right thing; but on the Eastern Front, German soldiers were forced to commit atrocities that they knew were wrong, to avoid their own imprisonment or execution. Over the course of the Second World War, 1.5-million German soldiers were imprisoned for not carrying out theirs orders. Low morale among Axis soldiers on the Eastern Front played a large role in losses, as soldiers were less willing to fight and were more likely to desert. It is estimated that over 100,000 German soldiers deserted during the Second World War.

Above: Soviet POWs held near Wolfsberg, Austria Although soldiers within the Red Army were not particularly skilled, their sheer number and passion to defend their country from Hitler’s horrific regime, as well as their fear of being captured and killed, played a large part in the Axis defeat on the Eastern Front.

Factor 6 – Low Morale amongst German Soldiers Morale is particularly important during wartime as it unifies a country’s people and fuels their passion to fight. German morale, especially amongst soldiers, was particularly low during the depths of the Second World War. One reason for this low morale was because it was very difficult to get supplies from Germany, Hungary, Romania and Italy to Axis soldiers fighting in the Soviet Union meaning there was often not enough food. Another reason was that the conditions the Axis soldiers were forced to fight in were hellish and much more akin to the Soviet style of warfare than their own. The Soviets had few supplies, but their morale was much higher as they were unified by their hatred of Hitler’s regime and the atrocities it had committed to their homeland. The fact that German soldiers were not defending their own land but instead attacking the Soviets’ made them a less unified force. Low morale among German soldiers on the Eastern Front was also caused by the brutalities they were forced to commit. Their orders were to burn or starve villages and towns, execute locals who resisted the German invasion and create concentration camps. Concentration camps such as Kaiserwald and Koldichevo were built in

Above: Kaiserwald Concentration Camp, Latvia

Factor 7 – The Number of Fronts that Germany Fought on Although 62 million soldiers fought on the Eastern Front, it was only one of many fronts on which the Second World War was fought. The number of fronts involved contributed to Germany’s defeat on the Eastern Front as it meant that the Axis powers could not focus their troops and supplies on one specific aim. Both of Germany’s main allies, Italy and Japan, aspired to have empires like the great, if slightly deteriorating, British and French ones. This was made evident in the 1930s by the Japanese invasion of Manchuria and the Italian invasion of Abyssinia. Benito Mussolini and Hideki Tojo saw their entries into the Second World War as the perfect chance to deplete German resources in pursuit of their imperial hopes. Mussolini created two new fronts on which to fight: the Mediterranean Front and the African Front. Italy’s army was too weak to defeat the British-backed Greece and Egypt alone, resulting in Mussolini having to ask Hitler for

military aid. Tojo created the Pacific Front, due to his thirst for a Pacific empire. This was disastrous for the Axis powers, as it led to the USA’s entry into the war as well as many costly battles in Southeast Asia. The problem of having to fight on multiple fronts grew even worse for Hitler after the Allied invasions of Sicily and then D-Day. Troops and supplies had to be diverted from the unstable Eastern Front to fight in these new conflicts. Hitler’s optimism and his allies’ imperial expansionism meant that Germany did not have enough troops and supplies to fight Mussolini’s and Tojo’s wars, fend off the Allied invasions of mainland Europe, and to battle on the Eastern Front. This meant that the Axis powers were insufficiently resourced on all fronts, resulting in great losses.

Factor 8 – Germany’s Lack of Resources and Supplies It is often viewed as staggering that Germany was able to rebound from their losses in the First World War such that 21 years later they were able to fight in another world war. However, they were not ready: Germany had had to pay very harsh reparations after their defeat in the First World War, resulting in Hitler not having enough time to stockpile enough resources to fight in such a long and costly war. This was significant on the Eastern Front as it meant that Germany could not support the Axis war effort fully, despite the huge swathes of land that it had conquered in Eastern Europe, Northern Europe and France. As Germany was not a self-sufficient country, Hitler had to look elsewhere for the supplies he needed both domestically and for the war. Few neutral countries were sympathetic to his cause. He managed to extract some supplies and money from the Spanish dictator, Francisco Franco, and from American companies like Ford and General Motors, but not enough to make a real difference on the Eastern Front, especially as many of the supplies never reached Germany due to the economic blockade put up by Britain and France. The result of Germany’s lack of supplies was that German citizens and soldiers did not have enough food and other essentials and that there was a shortage of metal for producing weapons and tanks for the war. The German army was renowned for the quality of its soldiers and its equipment; however, due to the lack of supplies, the .

German army’s strength was deteriorating. This was disastrous for Hitler’s campaign on the Eastern Front as it meant that the Axis powers had little military advantage over the Soviet Union and that the massive Red Army could easily overwhelm the smaller, less well-supplied Axis armies.

Factor 9 – The USA’s Intervention through Lend-Lease As the quality of German equipment on the Eastern Front deteriorated, the Soviet equipment improved. At the start of the war, the USA was keen to aid the Allies, but reluctant to join the war. In a very ‘unAmerican’ fashion, they decided to take two years to think about what to do before acting. In 1941 they decided to set up a system called ‘Lend-Lease’, through which they could give the Allies billions of dollars’ worth of weapons in return for the right to use all the Allied air and naval bases and the promise of repayment after the war. During the war, the USA lent the Soviet Union $11.3 billion in weapons and other supplies. This was extremely significant for the Soviet war effort as it allowed them to obtain enough weapons for their soldiers. During the whole war, the Red Army comprised of nearly 34.5-million individuals; however, the Soviet Union only managed to produce 30.3-million rifles themselves. With the help of ‘Lend-Lease’, the USA managed to ensure that there were enough weapons for all the soldiers. As well as weaponry, the USA sent 4.5-million tons of food to the Soviet Union. This was crucial for the Soviet war effort as during the Second World War there were some particularly harsh winters, which made it difficult for the Soviet Union to grow enough crops. As a result of Lend-Lease, there was enough food for both the civilians of the country, and more importantly, the soldiers defending the country from Axis invasion.

Previous page: British members of the Auxiliary Territorial Service move armfuls of American rifles.

Conclusion The Eastern Front is a part of the Second World War all-too-often skipped over in our Westerncentralised culture. Its conflicts were some of the most brutal in the Second World War. The main reason that the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union failed was because of the massive sacrifices of the Soviet Union. Recent studies have predicted that perhaps even 34-million people (comprised of 24-million citizens and 10-million Red Army soldiers) were killed on the Eastern Front over a period of 1,417 days.

Above: Siege of Leningrad (1942) This means that an average of almost 24,000 Soviets were killed per day on the Front. This immense Soviet sacrifice played a key role in winning the Soviet Union the war on the Eastern Front. Of the estimated 20-million military personnel deaths in the Second World War, it is estimated that 10.6million of them were Soviet soldiers. The Russian historian Vadim Erlikhman estimates that the combined death toll of soldiers and civilians in the Soviet Union between 1941 and 1945 was around 13.7% of its pre-war population. The sheer size of the Red Army caused many problems for the Germans on the Eastern Front. Hitler had bitten off more than he could chew by invading the Soviet Union and the Axis armies could have never matched the immeasurable size and passion of the Red Army. The second-most-important factor for deciding the fate of the Eastern Front was the Battle of Moscow in the winter of 1941. This was the closest that the Axis powers came to winning on the Eastern Front. Russia had managed to deal with Napoleon’s capture of Moscow in 1812, but it was clear that the Soviet Union was in too vulnerable a position to bounce back if Moscow were to be taken

during the Second World War. The factors that made the Battle of Moscow such a significant event in determining the victor on the Eastern Front were the unlikelihood that the Red Army would manage to defend their capital successfully and the fortunate weather which helped propel them into a favourable position during the battle. Aside from his many poor military decisions, Hitler’s biggest blunder in the Battle of Moscow was not imploring Tojo to invade the Soviet Union from the east so that Stalin would be fighting a war on two fronts. The fact that Japan was not going to enter the war allowed Stalin to place all his soldiers in the Soviet Far East on the Eastern Front. Without the enrichment of the Red Army by Siberian troops who were formerly awaiting a Japanese invasion, it is unlikely that Western Soviet troops would have been able to push the Germans back as successfully as they did. The Battle of Moscow was not only significant in propelling the Soviets to victory because it helped push the German Army far away from Moscow, but also because their victory rejuvenated the spirits of the Red Army soldiers. They had managed to push the Germans back with an army a quarter of the size of the Wehrmacht. The third of Hitler’s three main aims for Germany was to create Lebensraum by invading Eastern Europe, so it is ironic that this invasion of the East transpired to be such a great blunder. One could quite easily argue that Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union resulted in the Axis defeat in the Second World War. Before launching Operation Barbarossa in 1941, Hitler should have heeded the lessons provided to him by Napoleon in 1812 and not broken the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939.

Above: The signing of the Nazi-Soviet Pact (1939)

The Changes in Rural England, 1500-2000 — Case Study: Kintbury Jamie Mackinnon (I) uses his home village of Kintbury as a case study to examine the social, religious and economic changes experienced between the years of 1500 and 2000 across England.

Above: The Old Vicarage and the Kennet and Avon Canal, Kintbury

In this article, I will discuss the changes in rural England from 1500 to 2000. These 500 years saw the transformation of the countryside from a feudal system to the modern countryside of large-scale intensive farming and dormitory villages. In particular, I will be discussing my home village of Kintbury which is situated close to the Wiltshire border in West Berkshire. The countryside up until the 15th century was still relatively feudal with most villages still existing in the feudal system. Kintbury was no exception to this rule with power being exerted by the lord of the manor at Barton Court. Some villages, usually those close to cities, were beginning to defeudalize. Kintbury began the gradual process of defeudalisation at around this time. Kintbury grew on the back of the wool trade. Wool was bought from the hills around Inkpen, a village 2 miles away on the downs and was taken to Kintbury for processing and shipping down the river. The wool was fulled which means washed in Kintbury and then sound down the river by barge to Newbury some 6 miles distant. There one of the two great clothiers of the region, John Winchcombe or Thomas Dolman, would turn the fulled wool into cloth and then it would be sent away to one of many destinations around the globe. The wool trade gradually declined throughout the course of the 17th century leaving many without a livelihood. This was the case for many villages around the country.

Above: The fulling of wool The reformation hit Kintbury hard. Kintbury changed to being a protestant village very quickly perhaps as a result of the wool trade. When Queen Mary took the throne, 3 protestants were burnt to death in a hollow in the Enbourne Road, some 4

miles from Kintbury. Many of the Kintburians would have watched the trial which took place in Newbury. However, the village quickly reverted back to Catholicism under the vicar John Hayward. The ambiguity of religion at the time led to people around the country reverting to earlier pagan beliefs. Kintbury was no exception with many people believing in the legend of the great bell of Kintbury: a new bell for the church was being hauled across the river and sank. Many attempts to retrieve the bell failed. In desperation a local wizard was called to help. He said that the bell could be removed by pulling it out with twelve white heifers led by 12 women wearing white at midnight. The arrangements were put in place and the bell began to come out of the river. But a watching villager said “Here comes the Kintbury great bell, in spite of all the devils in hell” and the bell promptly fell back in the river. There is still a place on the river known as Bell Hole.

Above: The pagan green man tradition continues to this day The Civil War divided the countryside, and Kintbury was no exception. It was strongly Parliamentarian due to the views of key local landowners. However, one of the great landowners of the area the Earl of Craven was still able to raise a troop of horse in support of the king. The Earl of Essex marched his

troops through Kintbury on his way to fight at the Battle of Newbury. Throughout the 18th century, rural Britain began to be more connected as turnpike roads and canals were built. In Kintbury, the Kennet and Avon canal was finished in 1797. Thanks to this Kintburians had direct access to London and coal from Somerset. The Roads Act allowed for the improvement of roads throughout the countryside. In Kintbury, the Bath road was improved in 1750 allowing for easy access to the West Country. Many locals were employed maintaining the turnpike road. Methodism also spread into Kintbury with Wesley preaching in Newbury and Hungerford a small town only 3 miles away so it seems likely that some of the Kintburians heard him speak. The seed drill and horse hoe were distributed throughout the countryside and Kintbury was no exception to this.

reduced the real term wages of agricultural workers. On the 22nd of November, 1830, angry labourers set out from the Blue Ball pub and began a week of rioting. Eventually troops intervened and 70 rioters were sent to Reading Gaol. Three of the rioters were condemned to death but a local landowner Charles Dundas organised a petition that saved two of the men. Only one was hanged and he was buried in the churchyard at Kintbury. It was uncommon at the time for criminals to be buried on consecrated ground, thereby showing the support he had. Common land was enclosed throughout the countryside in the 19th century, depriving many people of their ability to earn a living.

In Kintbury, enclosure forced many people to work in the water meadows collecting reeds to make baskets. Medicine arrived in Kintbury surprisingly early and by the end of the century the Kintburians had access to a village GP and nurse. The 19th century also saw the arrival of the great house: Kintbury’s Barton Court kept 20 of the villagers in full-time employment.

Above: Wesley preaching in nearby Hungerford Below: The Old Methodist Church, Kintbury Above: Barton Court, Kintbury

The 19th century was a time of great change throughout the countryside. In Kintbury there was rioting against the Speenhamland scheme which

The railway arrived in Kintbury in 1847 and as with the rest of the country changed the village immensely. People were now able to leave Kintbury. At its height the railway employed 10 people thanks to a freight railway siding where each week 100 tonnes of coal were unloaded to be distributed throughout the village. It also allowed the cress which was grown in the river to be sent up to London before it began to rot. Education was another major change that impacted the countryside. Before the arrival of education children worked to support their families and were taught some basic literacy at Sunday school. In 1831 the first school was opened by the vicar’s daughter and in 1870 it was moved to a purpose-built location.

The Edwardian period in the countryside can be viewed as a golden age. The gentry remained powerful and in Kintbury people bowed when they passed any member of the Gentry. However, life was still tough, with people staying poor and no electricity or plumbing. War decimated the countryside. In Kintbury, 56 men were lost over the course of the two world wars, which was a significant percentage of its working population. After the First World War throughout the countryside people left the land and local industries and began working in the cities. Many followed these jobs and moved to towns and cities. These changes altered the characteristics of Kintbury permanently. The gentry saw significant decline throughout the course of the ‘20s and ‘30s. In Kintbury almost all of the gentry sold up and left, their places being taken by self-made men. Mains water and electricity finally arrived in the ‘30s though mains drainage was not put in place until the ‘60s in some places. The Second World War galvanised the countryside into action. Officers were billeted in all the large houses in the village and many joined the Home Guard and Red Cross. The end of the war saw the arrival of rapid change throughout the village.

The number of shops in Kintbury declined gradually throughout the course of the 20th century. In 1900, there were 20. In 2021, there are a mere 3. Yet Kintbury is lucky to have any of these, with most villages now having one shop at most. Throughout the countryside, mechanisation of farming took place throughout the latter half of the 20th century. This allowed for far greater yields of crops and freed workers up to work in the cities. In Kintbury, mechanisation is less apparent due to the lack of arable land, with most land being grazed by cattle and sheep. The arrival of the car changed the dynamics of many rural villages as it allowed people to commute to jobs further afield. Many villages now only exist as dormitory settlements for people who work and shop in the nearby towns and cities. It has also allowed the rise of the secondhome owner. Kintbury has been affected by the car less that other villages: while a large proportion of the village commutes, a sizeable minority still works in the village or nearby. Kintbury has a low number of second-home owners.

The village doubled in size as new houses were built. The Church, however, declined significantly: once, 150 people attended communion; nowadays it is more like 20. Of the three churches in the village, one was demolished and one was taken out of usage: only one survives today. St Mary’s School saw its older pupils sent off to nearby Hungerford.

Above: St Mary’s Church, Kintbury

Top: The ancient tradition of carol singing in the village square (2021) Above: The Kennet and Avon Canal in Kintbury

‘Will anyone be satisfied with this bargain?’: How far was the Anglo-Irish Treaty responsible for the Irish Civil War? Following a struggle that had lasted almost 900 years, Ireland secured its ‘freedom’ from the British via the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1922. The Irish Free State was soon, however, dragged into a bloody and violent civil war – why? George Smedley (A) explains. Above: A soldier of the Irish National Army, engaged in street fighting Dublin (June 1922) 46

Directly, the Irish Civil War of June 1922 to May 1923 was caused by the lack of political agreement regarding the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, which had ended the Irish War of Independence of 1919 to 1921 against the British. The Anglo-Irish Treaty did not deliver true freedom to the island of Ireland, and politicians in the Free State were split on whether or not to accept it. However, the lack of political, social, and economic stability, and thus civic unrest, within the island of Ireland, had increased during the decade up to 1922. No longer needed to fight against the British, Republican political and military movements began to turn against each other, thus increasing the likelihood of civil war. It would also be wrong to view the Irish Civil War in isolation from the events that had, and were still, occurring in mainland Europe following the end of the First World War. However, the reasons for the civil unrest and social changes that swept across Europe in the wake of the First World War must be viewed within the unique context of the Irish struggle for independence. Which had helped to create an environment susceptible to civil war. Despite the bloodshed of countless generations of Irish nationalists, the freedom found by Ireland within the Anglo-Irish Treaty of 1921 was not complete, thus making it somewhat inevitable that political disputes around the Treaty would emerge. The Free State only consisted of 26 of the 32 counties of the island of Ireland, and was still a dominion of the British Empire – Ireland had not been unified and continued to be constrained by a British government in Westminster. But within the independence, albeit limited, that the Free State found, factions naturally evolved. British Army garrisons left the Free State (save for the three Treaty Ports of Berehaven, Queenstown, and Lough Swilly) in late 1921, thus leaving the defence of the Free State in the hands of the newly formed National Army. The National Army combined elements of the Irish Republican Army and the Royal Irish Constabulary – many were veterans of the First World War who had served in the British Army. However, the Irish Republican Army itself was divided on whether or not to accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty, with four members of the General Headquarters opposing it, alongside most of the soldiers, even though it had been negotiated by Michael Collins, the de facto leader of the Irish Republican Army. The breakdown of an organisation which had been so singularly focused on securing Irish freedom shows the difficulties involved in transitioning from a period of war to a period of peace. Individual units began to break away from the central authority of the Dáil, with Rory O’Connor declaring on the 22nd of March that the Republican Army would not recognise the authority of the Dáil – the Republican Army’s

Above: A contemporary newspaper diagram, showing the key figures within the negotiation of the Anglo-Irish Treaty Executive further stated on the 28th of March that Richard Mulcahy and Eoin O’Duffy, the Minister of Defence and the Chief-of-Staff, no longer had an control over the Republican Army. The lack of unity within a military organisation, such as the Irish Republican Army, naturally increases the chances of armed insurrections between various factions that may form. While the debate around the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish Treaty was primarily political, the significant political influence of military leaders, such as Michael Collins, Richard Mulchay, and Eoin O’Duffy, ensured that the threat of military action was always present, thus supporting the view that the Irish Civil War was mostly a response to the lack of political agreement about the Anglo-Irish Treaty. As shown by the breakdown of the Irish Republican Army, political fracturing threatened the strength of the authority of the Free State, thus increasing the chances of social disorder, and thus civil war. The Constitution of the Irish Free State, passed by the Dáil on the 25th of October 1922 showed the need for new forms of authority after the War of Independence; any ‘new constitution supposes that new sanctions and a new authority are necessary’. Thus, the political divide following the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and the Irish Republican Army’s occupation of the Four Courts on the 13th April 1922 weakened the position of the Dáil. While Eamon De Valera had been key to ensuring political unity during the Irish War of Independence, his anti-treaty stance made it almost impossible for him to ensure that the divide did not worsen. The quote taken from Michael Collins, the main Irish signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, that forms part of the title of this essay, shows that even he was aware that the Anglo-Irish Treaty was divisive. The election that occurred on June 16th and the pact between the pro- and anti-treaty elements of Sinn Fein, for example, could have acted as a point to try and heal the party, while

Above: Michael Collins (centre, sitting) and Arthur Griffith (far left) shortly after signing the AngloIrish Treaty

than allowing the civil war to break out just over a week later. The Republican effort during the Irish War of Independence had been greatly aided by the perceived united front that they presented. Thus, with the creation of the Free State and the need to decide its future, political fracturing was somewhat unpreventable, in turn increasing the likelihood of civil war in the Free State. While political parties had issues deciding whether or not they would accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty, popular opinion was aimed at accepting it; ‘both the press and pulpit advocated’ for its acceptance, and the Labour Party, aided by the Farmers’ Party, managed to secure almost 30% of the popular vote in the June election (pro-treaty Sinn Fein won 38.5%, while anti-treaty Sinn Fein only won 21.8%). It could thus be argued that the Irish people did not wish for further political divide, and simply wanted their political leaders to accept the Anglo-Irish Treaty. Even without the suffering caused by the First World War, the struggle for independence had been a very bloody one. The terror imposed by the so called ‘Black and Tans’ of the Royal Irish Constabulary during the Irish War of Independence drew more popular support towards the Irish independence movement, both domestically in the island of Ireland, and on an international level amongst Irish populations in nations such as the United States. Thus, the results of the 1922 election show that popular support was behind the acceptance of the Anglo-Irish treaty, in turn suggesting that the civilian population were aware of the risks of further political and social divides, and a possible resumption of violence, and simply wanted the Anglo-Irish treaty to be accepted, supporting the view that the Irish Civil War was inevitable due the very nature of the Irish struggle for independence. The political concept of a free Ireland was not new; during the First World War, politicians had ‘called for Irishmen to join the British Army and fight for Catholic Belgium and the freedom of small nations’, and argued that ‘due to their loyalty in the trenches’

Irishmen should be given greater political freedom after the end of the war. The Home Rule Act of 1914, which had been postponed due to the outbreak of war in Europe, had promised the establishment of a devolved Parliament for the island of Ireland in Dublin and the removal of the Dublin Castle administration. Thus, it could be argued that this lack of promised freedom following the end of the First World War further increased the divide between Unionists and Republicans. The Irish War of Independence was the direct result of this agitation, but it could be argued that this sense of anti-establishment feelings due to a lack of reality to political promises, further increased the political and social divides within the Free State, in turn creating an environment that aided the start of the Irish Civil War.

Above: British 'Black and Tans' on a Dublin street Even if all 32 counties of the island of Ireland had become part of the Free State, it is likely civil war could have still broken out. The 1918 election saw Unionist MPs win seats across the north-east of Ireland, thus showing that there was still strong support for remaining a part of the United Kingdom within what is now known as Northern Ireland. Unionists in Ulster reacted very strongly to the proposed Home Rule Act in 1912; the Ulster Covenant, created by Sir James Craig (later elected Prime Minister of Northern Ireland in June 1921), was signed by more than 50 thousand Unionists, who pledged to defy the proposed Home Rule Act by any and all means possible. Thus, it could be assumed that if forced to become part of the Free State as part of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, Ulster and Sir James Craig would have reacted violently. The island of Ireland had been plagued by ‘seven centuries of dogged, intermittent war…for long stretches of years together’ due to religious and cultural differences, so it is easy to imagine an Irish Civil War along religious, rather than political lines, suggesting that the situation in the island of Ireland would have aided the start of a civil war, regardless of

particular details. This also means that while the specific nature of the Anglo-Irish Treaty may not have been solely responsible for the Irish Civil War, any peace settlement between the two nations would have been able to cause civil war. Eamon De Valera could see that the ‘world was changing from monarchy to republic’, and thus it could be assumed that Republican leaders always desired for Ireland to become a modern Republic, free from British Rule. However, it seems as if, for a certain time at least, Republicans were unclear of the direction that an independent Ireland would take. A number of those involved with the Easter Rising and the holdout in the General Post Office, such as Patrick Pearse and Desmond FitzGerald, claimed that, in the event that Germany won the war, the sixth son of Kaiser Wilhelm II, Prince Joachim of Prussia, would have been invited to take the Irish throne. This was later substantiated by exminister Ernest Blythe, who wrote to The Irish Times in 1966, a week after a posthumous account by Desmond Fitzgerald of the events within the General Post Office during the Easter Rising had been published; Blythe confirmed that it had been discussed within Republican circles in 1915. This somewhat bizarre example, from a perhaps vocal minority, shows the sporadic nature of any independence movement, and adds to the sense that the Republicans wanted to escape British rule, even if by doing so they replaced it with German rule. This same sense of desperation thus supports the idea that, by 1922, the island of Ireland was so polarised and divided, civil war was an inevitable consequence of the struggle for Irish independence; the prevalence of so many ideas for the future direction of Ireland aided the growth of factionalism, which in turn deepened political and social divides within the Free State, thus creating an environment that was susceptible to the breakout of civil war. The Irish Free State, despite not having been directly born out of Woodrow Wilson’s desire for self-determination amongst European nationalities, was in many ways similar to the new and free nations in Europe, such as Czechoslovakia and the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia. Academics in the Free State were acutely aware of this; Francis McCullagh, despite viewing selfdetermination across Europe as ‘a success’, was aware that from a commercial and economic standpoint, ‘the change [had] been for the worse’. Writing while the Irish Civil War was still ongoing, McCullagh shows the sense of curiosity that people in the Free State must have had – the future image of Ireland would be shaped by those like him. However, the frankness with which he confronts the issue with self-determination and the creation of new nations somewhat creates a sense of apprehension about true freedom, and the lack of

support or guidance that a truly free nation can receive without infringing on its own freedom, thus perhaps explaining why a majority in Ireland were content with being a dominion of the British Empire and retaining loyalty to the King. Fighting had broken out in Finland, the Baltic States, and Hungary following their independence after the end of the First World War; thus, the Irish Civil War could be viewed as a continuation of the ‘general wave of state formation in inter-war Europe’. At a social level, the independence of nations previously controlled by imperial powers would have inspired the Republicans – their dream of an independent Ireland would have seemed more realistic and achievable. While this more realistic and achievable vision a free Ireland could have aided the Republican politicians, who wanted to reject the Anglo-Irish Treaty, and hence started the Irish Civil War, the social chaos in Europe definitely caused instability within the Free State across the general population. However, George Bernard Shaw wrote in May 1916 that ‘you cannot knock into the head of the machine-made Irish patriot that either the grievances or the virtues of Ireland are to be found in other countries as well’; republican and nationalistic movements often focus on a singular nation, and the history of its struggle for freedom. Some academics have ‘argued that the civil war was rooted in underlying social differences’; thus, the threat of revolution that hung across Europe after the First World War would have impacted the already present social differences and unrest, which in turn had been worsened by the First World War itself. When discussing possible links between the civil wars and revolutionary activity in postFirst World War Europe with the Irish Civil War, it would be difficult to ignore the possible influence of the Communist International. Primarily there was limited domestic Communist success in Ireland before the outbreak of the Irish Civil War. Roddy Connolly, son of the martyred James Connolly, and Eadhmonn MacAlpine presented to the Second World Congress of the Comintern during the summer of 1920 the concept of a federated worker’s republic of Britain and Ireland, thus meaning that revolutionary ‘success in Ireland would be contingent on the British proletariat’. The Communist Party of Ireland was involved in some limited agitation in early 1922; localised worker’s Soviets began

wide range of views about the future of Ireland meant that any peace settlement between the United Kingdom and the Irish Free State would be troubled, but the lack of political unity behind the Anglo-Irish Treaty made it very difficult for the Irish Civil War to be avoided.

Above: A National Army Rolls Royce armoured car, known as the 'Custom's House', which was involved in the fighting in Dublin (June 1922) to be declared, such as the Limerick Soviet. Combined with the impending Civil War, it seemed as if Connolly’s ideals of a worker’s revolution in Ireland could be realised. While Connolly condemned the pact made between pro- and antitreaty Sinn Fein ahead of the election on June 16th, the government of the USSR maintained neutrality on Ireland as a whole. Unable to draw members of the Irish Republican Army to its ranks, the Connolly and a few others took part in the Dublin Brigade’s defence of the city. Dublin was, however, captured by the army of the Free State after eight days of fighting, and thus the leadership of the Communist Party of Ireland was broken apart. Thus, while the physical efforts of Communist agitators both inside and outside did little to impact the Irish Civil War, the Communist threat that had swept across Europe in the months and years after the end of the First World War definitely impacted the breakout of the Irish Civil War. While there had already been a decline in social stability within the Free State due to the Irish War of Independence, the Anglo-Irish Treaty was, overall, responsible for the outbreak of the Irish Civil War; the political and military divisions that the Treaty caused made civil war an inevitable outcome. Both Sinn Fein and the Irish Republican Party failed to transition into a peaceful environment following the end of the Irish War of Independence, thus increasing the chances of violent confrontations between factions. However, already present divides within the island of Ireland, combined with the impact First World War, and the civil wars and revolutions that followed it across Europe further worsened them, thus creating an environment in the island of Ireland that was more susceptible to the decline of central authority and the outbreak of civil war. Primarily, the

Above: James Connolly

Bibliography: Bernard Shaw, George, ‘Irish Nonsense About Ireland’, Current History, Volume 4, Issue 2 (1916), Pages 217 to 221. Figgis, Darrell, ‘The Causes of Irish Unrest’, The North American Review, Volume 217, Issue 811 (1923), Pages 732 to 745. Foster, Gavin, ‘Class Dismissed? The Debate over a Social Basis to the Treaty Split and Irish Civil War’, Saothar, Volume 33 (2008), Pages 73 to 86. Kissane, Bill, ‘From the Outside In: The International Dimension to the Irish Civil War’, History Ireland, Volume 15, Issue 2 (2007). McCullagh, Francis, ‘The Baltic States from an Irish Point of View: IV. Lithuania’, Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review, Volume 12, Issue 45 (1923), 7 to 25. Monaghan, Shannon, ‘Whose Country, Whose Soldiers, Whose Responsibility? First World War Ex-Servicemen and the Development of the Irish Free State, 1923-1939’, Contemporary European History, 23.1 (2014), 75 to 94. O. Connor, Emmet, ‘Communists, Russia, and the IRA, 1920-1923’, The Historical Journal, Volume 46, Issue 1 (2003), Pages 115 to 131. Wilson, P. W., ‘The Irish Free State’, The North American Review, Volume 215, Issue 796 (1922), Pages 322 to 330.

News from the History Society: Ben Macintyre Talk On Tuesday, the 28th of September, 2021, the History Society hosted its first talk of the academic year. Ben Macintyre spoke on Oleg Gordievsky and Agent Sonya: two spies who changed the course of history. Edward Thomson (Coll.) reviews his talk. Above: Mr Hallinan, Ben Macintyre and William Goltz (Coll.) in New Hall

Agent Sonya was born Ursula Kuczynski, who as a communist in Germany frequently came up against the law. After relocating to China with her husband, she met Richard Sorge, who recruited her into the Soviet Intelligence Directorate. Her first posting was in Japanese-occupied Manchuria, followed by a posting in Switzerland where she recruited agents. Mr Macintyre explained how she came closer than anyone else to killing Hitler, coming within a few minutes of blowing him up in his favourite restaurant before her attempt on his life was called off. During the latter part of World War II, she was sent to Oxfordshire where she helped to steal secrets about nuclear weapons. She lived with her family (her second husband Len Beurton was also a spy) and looked to the world like an innocuous Englishwoman. Her work moved the Soviet nuclear program forward by many years, and made the Soviet Union more powerful.

rescinded). However, his escape and defection estranged him from his then wife and daughter (there was a plan to pull them out as well, but it was abandoned). As they were interrogated by the KGB, they were not happily reunited with him. Mr Macintyre had spoken previously with Oleg Gordievsky, and said that he is a lonely man, due to his protection: when people complained recently about living under lockdown, he said that he did not understand their complaints as he had been doing so for decades.

Oleg Gordievsky was born into the KGB – his father was an agent. He initially worked for the Soviet Ministry for Foreign Affairs and in 1961 was sent to Berlin, where the building of the Berlin Wall made him begin to question the system. In 1963, he joined the KGB and was posted to Copenhagen. He was appalled by the Soviet response to the Prague Spring. He made a phone call to his wife about the events, knowing that the phone was bugged by MI6, so that they might recruit him, which they did on a badminton court in Copenhagen. He was able to send MI6 the names of the agents under his supervision, whilst remaining above suspicion, damaging the KGB greatly.

The History Society organises many other events alongside lectures and the Winchester History Journal. In Short Half 2021, these included a celebration of St Andrew’s Day, a pupil-led debate on Winston Churchill, and a regular series of talks given by pupils.

He was then posted to England by the KGB, after learning English, which helped him to work more closely with MI6. Whilst there, he was able to infiltrate the British Secret Service very easily, as MI6 removed obstacles to get him close to contacts in high positions who then gave him nondamaging intelligence to pass back to Moscow. He was promoted to head of the KGB in London, but then was summoned back to Russia. MI6 had prepared a plan, Operation Pimlico, to extract him if necessary. This involved him standing in front of a bread shop with a Safeway bag and waiting for someone eating a Mars bar to pass him, before losing his KGB tails and being smuggled across the Finnish border in an ambassador’s car. The indepth knowledge of the operation that Mr Macintyre was able to provide was absorbing.

Mr Macintyre’s talk was fascinating and engaging, and his personal anecdotes about Oleg Gordievsky added an element of the psychology needed to be a spy. His books on Oleg Gordievsky – The Spy and the Traitor – and on Ursula Kuczynski – Agent Sonya – are available in Moberly Library.

To be informed of future events or to get involved otherwise, please contact either Mr Hallinan (JFH) or Dr Townson (NAT). To read past editions of the Winchester History Journal online, visit: issuu.com/ wincollhistory.

When this plan was carried out, Oleg Gordievsky was able to avoid detection and safely return to Britain, where he still lives under protection, as he was sentenced to death by the Soviet Union (his ability to expose Russian spies was so embarrassing that his sentence has never been

Crossword

Across 5. Moctezuma's Empire (5) 7. First US State (8) 10. Spanish Painter in the 17th Century (9) 11. 'The Communist Manifesto' (4) 14. 'Melvin _____' - Librarian (5) 15. One of Two Chantries (7) 16. 'Operation ___________' - against the Soviets after WWII (11) 17. Medieval Wooden Plates (8) 19. Recipient of the Balfour Declaration (10) 20. Treaty, Chateau & Gardens (10)

Down 1. June 4th Chinese Oppression (9) 2. World's Oldest Instrument (5) 3. PM, Strip or Rind (4) 4. Edward I's Successor (6) 6. Rome Burned during his Reign (4) 8. Scholarship Exams (8) 9. 14th October, 1066 (8) 11. Vice President, Democrat, d. 2021 (7) 12. 'Eureka!' (10) 13. Assassin of JFK's Assassin (4,4) 18. 'John ____' - 'A Beautiful Mind' (4)

Answers on back cover. Answers to last edition’s crossword: Across: 3. The Royal Oak; 4. Cuneiform; 5. Richard (III); 7. Anne (of Cleves); 10. Collins; 13. Senet; 15. Earhart; 17. Ides of March; 18. Peterloo (Massacre); 19. (Treaty of) Sèvres; 20. (Abraham) Lincoln. Down: 1. KKK; 2. Jefferson; 6. Ridding; 8. Elizabeth (I); 9. Bolivar; 11. Testudo; 12. (Empress) Matilda; 14. Napoleon (Bonaparte); 16. GDR.

Colons in History Titles: A Game — Solutions A Woman of No Importance: Spying on the South: Furious Hours: The Splendid and the Vile: Dark Ages: Children of Ash and Elm:

The Untold Story of the American Spy Who Helped Win World War II An Odyssey Across the American Divide Murder, Fraud, and the Last Trial of Harper Lee A Saga of Churchill, Family, and Defiance During the Blitz An Age of Light A History of the Vikings

Books in Moberly Library:

Answers to this edition’s crossword: Across: 5. Aztec; 7. Delaware; 10. (Diego) Velázquez; 11. (Karl) Marx; 14. Dewey; 15. Fromond(’s Chantry); 16. Unthinkable; 17. Trenchers; 19. (Walter) Rothschild; 20. Versailles. Down: 1. Tiananmen (Square); 2. Flute; 3. Peel; 4. Edward (II); 6. Nero; 8. Election; 9. (Battle of) Hastings; 11. (Walter) Mondale; 12. Archimedes; 13. Jack Ruby; 18. Nash.

Building the Eiffel Tower, 1887–1889

‘War of the Roses’