The Suez Crisis of 1956 – How did it affect the Jewish and other Mutamassirun Populations of Egypt?

The Suez Crisis of 1956 was a watershed moment in the history of the post-colonial world. The effects of the ill-fated military plan devised in secret between the forces of the United Kingdom, France and Israel, to invade and retake the Suez Canal following an invasion by Egyptian forces, would be felt much further than merely on Egyptian soil. Indeed, it is often cited as the event which ended European - and more accurately British - hegemony in international relations. From the Suez Crisis onwards, the United States would almost invariably take the lead in conducting large-scale military operations across the world.

However, the effect that the Crisis had within Egypt itself is less well documented. Here, Conor Keegan gives a brief explanation of the measures taken by Nasser immediately post-1956 to remove the mutamassirun community, with a specific focus on the effects of these policies on the Jewish population of Egypt.

General Nasser (center of picture with hand in the air), Alexandria, Egypt, 1954.

The Mutamassirun

The Suez Crisis, aside from producing an understandable rise in support for President Gamal Abdel Nasser and his regime, had devastating effects for persons living within Egypt who had become ‘egyptianized’ i.e. those who were not Egyptian citizens; or those whose ancestry was not wholly Egyptian, but had attained Egyptian citizenship through various legal statutes.

These people were collectively known as the mutamassirun, and, in the immediate post-colonial period in Egypt (from 1922 onwards) they owned a large share of capital and operated a large number of businesses in Egypt. They were also acknowledged to have made significant contributions to Egyptian cultural, religious and linguistic diversity in the past. Although measures to expel members of the mutamassirun were already underway before the Suez Crisis came to a head, the Crisis is widely seen as giving Nasser the necessary impetus and legitimacy to proceed to make it extremely difficult for ‘egyptianized’ persons to remain in Egypt.

It was a natural step for Nasser to seek to blame the Suez Crisis on the mutamassirun population. After all, Nasser had risen to power on an avowedly pan-Arab, anti-colonial message. As Britain had directly ruled Egypt from the late nineteenth century until 1922, and France had previously invaded under Napoleon in 1798, the mutamassirun were easy targets for blame post-Crisis Egypt, as many were of British or French nationality or extraction. There was also a sizeable population of Jews living in Egypt around the turn of the twentieth century. As the pre-Crisis period coincided with an increasingly confident and assertive Zionist movement, leading up to the creation of Israel in 1948, which led to great discomfort across Arab states, the Crisis only provided Nasser with a further reason to expel large numbers of the Egyptian Jewish population in its aftermath.

Impact on the Jewish Population

For the Jews specifically (including those Jews who also happened to be British or French citizens), Nasser’s policy of removal post-1956 was carried out in two ways: expulsion and ‘voluntary’ emigration. With regard to expulsion, the Egyptian government was able to make the number of Jews removed from Egypt seem much lower than the actual number by statistical sleight of hand: the estimate that at least 500 Egyptian and stateless Jews were expelled from Egypt by November 1956 does not include the expulsion of those Jews that were French or British citizens, nor does it include any member of a family who was not deemed by the Egyptian authorities to have been the ‘head of a family’, but who nonetheless had to leave Egypt along with the head of their family.

Furthermore, the Egyptian authorities used more informal (and ‘voluntary’) methods to expel Jews, which proved to be effective. These measures included widespread intimidation, economic coercion and ‘voluntary’ declarations made by those Jews who were Egyptian citizens renouncing their citizenship. When these methods are included, it is estimated that by the end of June 1957 between 23,000 and 25,000 of Egypt’s 45,000 Jews had left the country.

Making Citizenship Harder to Obtain

In additional to expulsions, the Egyptian government also actively set about depriving the mutamassirun in general of citizenship in the aftermath of the Crisis. In November 1956, Egyptian citizenship law was amended so that only persons who were resident on the territory of Egypt on January 1, 1900, and who had maintained their residence in Egypt from that date to the coming into force of the amendment on November 22, 1956, were entitled to Egyptian citizenship. Therefore, by virtue of this provision, it was a relatively uncomplicated task for the Egyptian government to retroactively deprive the mutamassirun in general of Egyptian citizenship. This policy was only made easier for the Egyptian government to enforce due to the fact that most mutamassirun did not possess official papers of any kind which proved their continuous residence in Egypt between the relevant dates.

The amended law was even clearer when it came to providing for Jewish citizens of Egypt: the amendment clearly provides that citizenship should not be given to ‘Zionists’. Therefore, while the attempt to make uncertain the position of the general mutamassirun population after 1956 was arguably camouflaged by somewhat confusing references to continuous residence in Egypt between two specific dates, the provisions of the legislation left no room for doubt that the Jewish population was prioritized by Nasser’s government when it came to identifying groups from whom they would seek to withdraw rights and privileges.

Therefore, it can be seen that President Nasser and his government used various legal, procedural, formal and informal measures to effectively expel and exclude the mutamassirun from Egyptian society, territory and nationality. While measures excluding this much-maligned group were not unusual in the broad expanse of Egyptian history, the measures enacted after the Suez Crisis of 1956 were more intense and more in the vein of ostracization (as opposed to discrimination) than any previous measures. Therefore, even though the Suez Crisis had far-reaching and important effects across the world, the Crisis also had drastic consequences for ‘egyptianized’ foreigners in Egypt, and most acutely affected the Jewish population.

What do you think of this article? Let us know your thoughts below…

Sources

Gorman, Anthony, Historians, State and Politics in Twentieth Century Egypt: Contesting the Nation 2003 Routledge Curzon

Harper, Paul, The Suez Crisis 1986 Wayland

Kazamias, Alexander, ‘The Purge of the Greeks from Nasserite Egypt’ 2009 Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora 35(2) 13-34

Laskier, Michael M, ‘Egyptian Jewry under the Nasser Regime 1956-70’ 1995 Middle Eastern Studies 31(3) 573-619

Communist China’s Great Leap Forward – To 10,000 years of Happiness?

The Great Leap Forward took place some 60 years ago in Chairman Mao’s communist China and led to the greatest famine in human history. Here, Stepan Hobza discusses why the Great Leap Forward took place and how Chairman Mao can be viewed today.

Chinese leader Chairman Mao Zedong.

Had any Western tourist gone to China 60 years ago, they would certainly have been surprised. They could have wondered if a horrible mistake had taken place and they had actually arrived in England taking part in a Monty Python sketch.

At the beginning of 1958 hundreds of thousands of citizens of the People’s Republic of China flooded the streets with drums and trumpets in their hands. Yet they were not celebrating. Everyone’s eyes were fixed on the sky. Now and then, a shot was fired into a treetop… The sole purpose of this strange behaviour would seem surprising to us: the Chinese simply went out to kill sparrows. The poor birds had fallen into disgrace with the Communist Party of China since they “harmed the crops”, and were probably lucky enough not to be labelled as imperialistic agents. The sequel is emblematic of Mao’s Absurdistan. After annihilating two billion sparrows, an excessive reproduction of insects followed. These vermin now really set about harming the crops and in order to kill them off, China had to import millions of sparrows from the Soviet Union.

This escapade was by no means a one-off eccentricity, rather one of the many components of a wider motion called The Great Leap Forward. This glorious operation was supposed to mean, “three years of hard work”, after which “ten thousand years of happiness” would follow. In fact, what followed was the greatest famine in human history. While in the West “Chinese cuisine” was becoming popular, the actual people of China were happy to obtain a bowl of rice. In one of thousands of starving villages “a teenage orphan kill[ed] and [ate] her four-year-old brother“ and “the last remaining resident, a woman in her 60s, [went] insane. Others [were] tortured, beaten or buried alive for declaring realistic harvests.“

The official account of the Chinese government acknowledges 15 million victims. In the 1990s, when the topic was more thoroughly explored for the first time, historians assumed that the real number could very well be twice as big. However, while it may seem unbelievable, a new and very well researched book concerning the topic, Frank Dikötter‘s Mao’s Great Famine speaks about “at least 45 million“ dead people. By way of contrast, this number is almost twice as big as the toll of all military casualties in WWII. You may as well imagine that a whole modern-day Ukraine would perish in the course of four years - because that’s exactly what happened in China from 1958 to 1962.

The reasons for the tragedy

The question could not be more obvious: Why? As happens to be the rule concerning huge catastrophes, a combination of factors rather than a single one was to blame for the outcome. A major geopolitical shift of global scale stood at the beginning. After the death of Stalin a new set of Soviet leaders vied for power in the Kremlin. Though the biggest chances were attributed to Georgy Malenkov – in fact, not so feckless and compliant as depicted in Armando Ianucci’s recent farce film The Death of Stalin –, Nikita Khrushchev finally prevailed. Yet, unlike the Soviet apparatchiks, Mao didn’t trust him. When they met in 1957 he was absolutely sure that the First Secretary would sacrifice anyone in order to reconcile with the USA. China was alone. Characteristically, Mao didn’t recoil from this new and awe-inspiring prospect. He already felt like an ideological leader of the socialist bloc, anyway. What could he learn from those “grandsons of the Revolution” who held sway in Moscow? With a single Great Leap Forward China would jump over the Soviets and pair its spiritual supremacy with an economic one.  

In Chinese Communists’ minds the ultimate goal of the socialist world – Communism as such – was within arm’s reach. It would suffice to mobilize the masses. In order to achieve this, the Party established mammoth-like communes. Many fanaticized farmers were guided to believe that an economic paradise was descending upon the Earth. Before entering the communes, they killed off their cattle and held carnivorous orgies. Needless to say how dearly they would appreciate the meat later, when they would have not even rice or bread. After their last happy days they finally set out for a journey to giant dams, the Red Flag Canal or other – true or failed – masterpieces of water management. Their working conditions were naturally horrific. An even bigger problem, though, was that since they left, there was – what a wonder – no one to plough their fields. However, this fact didn’t stop provincial officials from reporting massive harvest increases to Beijing. Thus starving cities demanded even bigger supplies from the country which didn’t have enough to feed its peasants. The circle of death soon closed. Nothing could have described the situation better than the words in which Zhou Enlai (contrary to widespread habit to quote this as Mao’s motto) summed up the Chairman’s convictions: All under heaven is in chaos, the situation is excellent.

Mao in perspective

Few countries have ever changed as rapidly and profoundly as China has since 1960s. Although little has been revised in the official doctrine, the Trotskyist idea of permanent revolution seems ludicrous under the shades of hundreds of skyscrapers owned by trillions of dollars’ worth’ Chinese banks. Nevertheless, the white-collared communists keep addressing each other “comrade” and humming Pioneer songs. Chairman Mao is still considered a demigod-like hero and the myth surrounding his exploits is sacrosanct. Unfortunately, this lack of self-reflection is not a uniquely Chinese problem. With the People’s Republic possessing every thinkable potential to become a superpower, it is rather disturbing that the Great Famine of 1958-62, one of the biggest and most consequential crimes in human history, is still redubbed Three Years of Natural Disasters in Chinese vocabulary. Now, since Xi Jinping recently declared himself de facto dictator for life, the chances for change have grown even smaller, if not plummeted to zero.

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

http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2013/6/22/cold-war-people-episode-8-chairman-mao-zedong#.WterNmWc964

A forgotten Cold War-era airplane catastrophe that killed a team of Olympic hopefuls - and a search for answers

Forty years ago, on March 16, 1978, a tragic airplane crash claimed 73 lives, including a number of elite Polish cyclists. Shrouded in Cold War secrecy, the crash remains unexplained to this day.

Written by Matthew Stefanski. Matthew interviewed Dr. Leszek Sibilski, a member of the Polish Olympic Cycling Team at the time, to write the article.

Leszek Sibilski (center) with Marek Kolasa (left) and  Krzysztof Otocki (right). Sprint, Youth Spartakus Games in Lodz, Summer 1977. Kolasa and Otocki perished in the crash.

When tragedy strikes the sporting community, it tends to captivate the world’s attention. Athletes who are competing and striving for victory one day, can simply be gone the next, as was the case in the Manchester United Munich Air Disaster or the luging accident during the Vancouver Olympics. Perhaps it is because the competitiveness and passion of sports is thought to safeguard athletes from worldly vices that these tragedies seem so unfair. Whatever their cause, society can oft only respond with grief expressed in a need to commemorate and remember the victims long after their untimely passing. 

Unfortunately even in sports, tragedies can fade. March 16 this year marks the 40th anniversary of an airplane catastrophe which claimed the flower of Polish cycling. Shrouded in Cold War secrecy, it remains unexplained to this day; forgotten by all but those closest to the victims.

Training in Bulgaria

“Bulgaria was the cradle of spring trainings for the Polish cycling team. In Poland March was very tricky. We needed to build mileage on our bikes and to do so we needed dry roads and sunshine” explains Dr. Leszek Sibilski, professor of sociology at Montgomery College in Maryland.

In 1978 Sibilski was a member of the Polish Olympic Cycling Team. That March, as they often did, the team traveled to Bulgaria for spring training as they prepared for the coming season and worked towards qualify for the 1980 Moscow Olympic Games. The team was composed of short and medium distance cyclists, some 20 athletes in all. They were young, passionate and the best cyclists Poland had. 

The training in Bulgaria progressed as any other, with the mild Balkan weather melting away the cyclist’s winter blues.

On March 16, the team split. The medium-distance athletes continued to train in Bulgaria, while the six short-distance sprinters, who were on a different training regime, prepared to depart for Warsaw aboard a Balkan Bulgarian Airlines flight.

The crash and its aftermath

The Tu-134 aircraft with 73 passengers and crew aboard departed Sofia but never reached its cruising altitude. Less than ten minutes after takeoff, due to still undetermined reasons, the airplane crashed near the village of Gabare, 80 miles from Sofia. There were no survivors. 

The crash site was quickly cordoned off by the Bulgarian military and a cloak of secrecy and unanswered questions descended over the area.

As word of what happened spread, the Polish cyclists who had remained in Bulgaria quickly traveled to the site only to be turned away by military personnel. Few answers were forthcoming, and little more would be learned over time. 

The incident was briefly covered by the Polish press, which then was still subject to Communist censorship, but overall the cyclists were quickly forgotten. The funerals were private, and no public commemorations were organized. “The topic was avoided, it was painful, inconvenient, and became easy to forget,” explains Sibilski. 

Following a superficial investigation the official cause of the crash was described as electrical circuit malfunction, but theories quickly began to circulate. Was the aircraft shot down by the Bulgarian armed forces, some wondered, or did the crash have anything to do with the secret military base located near Gabare? The year, however, was 1978 and both Poland and Bulgaria were behind the Iron Curtain. With an atmosphere not conducive to prodding questions, the theories went unanswered. 

So, just like that, with the victims buried and crash site cleared, the incident creeped out of public consciousness. 

“At a certain age, you begin to reflect and analyze your life. You look back on your mistakes and your successes. I consider this catastrophe the most defining moment of my life” asserts Professor Sibilski, “This incident haunts me. I am very lucky that I was not aboard that plane, and I want to pay it back.”

Professor Sibilski points out that education saved his life. Had he attended the spring training in Bulgaria, he would most certainly have been aboard that fateful plane together with the other sprinters. As was the case, his university schedule did not allow for him to take part in this particular training, so he remained instead in Poland to attend classes. 

“I lost five of my very close friends, my teammates, and no one is doing anything to find out what happened.” No one - that is - except Sibilski. 

Photo 2 caption: Leszek Sibilski (first), Marek Kolasa (second), Spartakus Youth Games in Lodz, 1977, Sprint final,

Trying to resolve the mystery

A recent self-described empty nester, Sibilski has long suppressed if not the memory than certainly the emotions of this painful chapter in his life. But recently, as he approaches 60, reflections on his life have led him to confront those memories, and to commemorate his lost teammates. 

Two years ago, following an impromptu mini-reunion of former Polish cyclists during the 2015 UCI Road World Championships in Richmond, VA, Sibilski initiated an action that would result in the first official public commemoration of the five lost cyclists. In November 2016 a plaque was unveiled at the entrance to the velodrome in Pruszków, near Warsaw, Poland. 

It reads “The living owe it to those who can no longer speak to tell their story. In memory of: Marek Kolasa, Krzysztof Otocki, Witold Stachowiak, Tadeusz Wlodarczyk and Jacek Zdaniuk, the cyclists of the Polish National Team who died on March 16, 1978 in unsolved circumstances in a plane crash near Gabare, Bulgaria.”

Sibilski thought that this action would be the end of it. But, as he now explains, when he watched the unveiling ceremony and the moving reactions from the victim’s family members, something within him continued to stir. 

“Questions. Unanswered questions. So much is still unknown,” demurred Professor Sibilski when I spoke with him ahead of the fortieth anniversary.

Professor Sibilski is working with interest researchers in Poland and Bulgaria to study the declassified Communist archives for clues that could finally remove the cloak of silence that had descended over that fateful crash. “We are so close. The answers are surely in the archives. It’s time to shake people up; to give them an opportunity to find answers, perhaps I can be that spark to make something happen.”

Let us know your thoughts below.

Matthew Stefanski serves as the press advisor at the Embassy of the Republic of Poland in Washington, DC. The views presented here are strictly his own.

The photographs in this article are from Dr. Leszek Sibilski’s private collection and are used in this article with permission.

Was Sweden really neutral in World War Two?

Whether Sweden was truly neutral in World War Two has been the subject of much debate over the years. Following past articles on the role of Spain (here) and Switzerland (here) in World War Two, Kaiya Rai presents the arguments for both sides – how Sweden assisted both Nazi Germany and the Allied Powers.

A Swedish soldier during World War Two.

Sweden, during the Second World War, declared an official policy of ‘non-belligerency,’ meaning that the nation itself was unattached to either the Allied Powers or the Axis Powers. Since the Napoleonic Wars, Sweden had attempted to maintain this policy of neutrality. In those wars, over a third of Sweden’s land was lost, including new Russian control of Finland, and these losses, alongside a coup d’état against Gustav IV, former King of Sweden, meant a new foreign policy of non-belligerency was formed, namely the Policy of 1812. Whether the Swedes, and even the government themselves, steadfastly adhered to this policy is questionable, however, especially in the years 1939 to 1945.

One key feature of Sweden’s lack of neutrality in the Second World War is closely linked with its long history with Finland. Finland was a ‘co-belligerent’ with Germany, meaning that it engaged in the war as support for Germany, due to its nations’ alliance. Evidence points to Finland under Swedish rule from the late thirteenth century, starting with Swedish crusades to Western Finland, securing Swedish rule over the nation and creating a Swedish province. Their rule collapsed on September 17, 1809 as a result of the Finnish War, where, under the conditions of the Treaty of Fredrikshavn, Finland became a semi-independent Grand Duchy under Russian rule with the Tsar as Grand Duke. But, even with the lack of rule over Finland, Sweden still supported the nation, and managed to indirectly help its cause a number of times during the course of the Second World War, undeniably leading to support for Nazi Germany and its allies in the process.

Support for Axis Powers

As opposed to its official government policy, when called to fight in Finland, as many as 8,000 Swedes volunteered, and in response to German pleas for volunteers against the Soviet Union, around 180 Swedes joined the German Waffen-SS. It was always the individuals’ choice to enlist; however, the government also helped in ways such as sending food, ammunition, weapons and medicine to Finland during conflict. While the number of Swedish volunteers was comparatively small compared to some other nations, the country’s willingness to help in the war effort surely points to its obvious lack of neutrality. Even if official government policy stated the country was in a non-belligerent position, the actions of people in a nation are what ultimately reveal the true nature of the attitudes, and these undeniably show Swedish refusal to sit on the sidelines and do nothing.

Another concern for Sweden during the war was trade. At the beginning of WW2, an agreement had been signed by Sweden, the United Kingdom and Germany, in order to sustain vital trade, but Swedish shipping began to be attacked. As a result, trade with Britain reduced by about 70%, and it increased with Germany, culminating in 37% of Swedish exports being to Germany alone. The battle of the Atlantic was what caused Swedish trade to be blocked, but a few vessels, known as ‘lejdtrafiken’ or ‘the safe conduct traffic,’ were allowed through to the United States (until their entrance into the war), and some neutral nations in Latin America.

This leads onto arguably the biggest point concerning Swedish support for the Axis Powers, and why historians are still debating Swedish neutrality during WW2: the iron ore trade. Germany used this ore in its weapon production, and trade form Sweden to Germany eventually became so large that ten million tons of iron ore per year was shipped to the Third Reich. The government did not interfere with the trade because of its official policy of neutrality. British intelligence had identified German dependency on this production of ore, and estimated that Germany’s preparations for war could end in disaster if there were to be a delay in exports. Therefore, the Allies planned to seize the iron ore deposits by using the Soviet attack on Finland in November 1939 as a cover. They planned to gain Norwegian (the ore was shipped through harbors in Norway to reach Germany) and Swedish permission to send expeditionary forces to Finland, under the pretense of helping the Finnish, and once there, they would take control of the northern cities to gain access to the ore and deny German access to it. However, the Norwegians and Swedes realized the danger of allowing an expeditionary force to be sent across their nations and so refused to allow it. Sir Ralph Glyn had even claimed that if iron ore exports were stopped, an end to the war would have been imminent, showing the Allies’ belief in the importance of Swedish trade to Germany, and so eluding to the lack of neutrality of Sweden during the Second World War.

A final point regarding support for the Axis Powers in WW2 concerns Operation Barbarossa, the German plan to invade the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941. The Germans asked the Swedes to allow German armed forces to be transported by train through Swedish land, from Norway to Finland. There was huge controversy surrounding what the government should do, and the political debates around the issue became known as the ‘Midsummer Crisis.’ This was the first point in the war where the Swedish government itself, as opposed to simply the people, was asked to reject its foreign policy of six hundred years. The four party coalition that ruled Sweden was in disagreement, with the Conservative and Agrarian parties, the Swedish Foreign Office and Gustaf V all wanting to grant Germany permission. In opposition, the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party wanted to adhere to their foreign policy. In the end, permission was granted to Germany, and thus, the Swedish government showed opposition to its country’s long-held foreign policy.

Support for the Allies and opponents of Germany

Firstly, intelligence played a huge part in Swedish support for the Allies, as military intelligence was shared between them. Due to its ‘neutral’ stance, Sweden was able to gain physical access to Germany, which was useful for both Swedish and Allied intelligence, and the Polish resistance was assisted as employees at factories acted as couriers for messages. Moreover, German telegrams passed through Swedish-leased cables, allowing the Swedes to intercept them, and due to Arne Beurling breaking the cypher code in summer 1940, the messages were understood and the Polish resistance movement conveyed these to the Allies. Another example is when the German battleship Bismarck set off to attack the Atlantic convoys, Swedish intelligence informed the British. In addition, Swedish businessmen, diplomats and emissaries actively spied for the Allies in cities such as Berlin.

Secondly, militarily, Sweden assisted the Allies. They helped to train soldiers, originally refugees from other European nations, and allowed Swedish airbases to be used in the last two years of the war. On June 13, 1944, a V2 rocket being tested by the Germans crashed in Sweden and they exchanged its wreckage with Britain for Supermarine Spitfires. In another instance, the Swedish merchant navy, totaling around 8,000 seamen, found itself outside the Baltic and from May 1940, was loaned to Britain. The Allies began preparing to liberate Denmark and Norway in 1945, and they wanted Sweden involved and so the nation began preparing for ‘Operation Save Denmark,’ where they were to invade Zealand from Scania. Sweden then planned to assist the Allies in the invasion of Norway, and whilst this was not necessary in the end, US planes used Swedish military bases during the eventual liberation.

Finally, an integral part of what creates doubt around Sweden’s policy of ‘non-belligerency,’ was its part in hosting and assisting refugees and Jews who were being persecuted by Hitler and the policy of the Final Solution. Sweden became a place of refuge for these people, and nearly all of Denmark’s 8,000 Jews were brought to Sweden after the order to deport all Danish Jews in 1943. Norwegian and Finnish Jews also fled to Sweden and many stayed there after the war, too. While this shows a lack of neutrality, with its open defiance to Germany’s cause, ironically, it was Sweden’s policy of neutrality that allowed Jews to seek refuge there, as Germany wouldn’t invade the country. Alongside this, many were working to try and persuade German leaders to treat the Jews more humanely, such as King Gustav V of Sweden. Moreover, diplomats such as Count Folke Bernadotte, who contributed to saving over 15,000 prisoners from concentration camps, Raoul Wallenberg, who saved up to 100,000 Hungarian Jews, and Werner Dankwort, who secretly helped Jewish children to escape to Sweden inside wooden crates, were able to use their statuses to communicate with the German government and pass information back to Sweden.

Conclusion

In conclusion, I think it is safe to state that Sweden was only in name, a neutral country during the course of the Second World War. It did aide both sides, however, which is perhaps what has led to the debate surrounding the reality of its neutrality. Arne Ruth argues that “Sweden was not neutral, Sweden was weak,” and Winston Churchill believed that Sweden “ignored the greater moral issues of the war and played both sides for profit,” although this could perhaps be discredited due to the evidence that points to the country’s immense help in saving so many victims of the Nazi regime. We must also consider that WW2 was indeed a ‘Total War,’ and so was there ever any real possibility of any nation within Europe being completely neutral during the period?

Do you think Sweden was neutral in World War 2? Let us know below…

The Unexpectedly Fascinating History of Singing at Work

People hum in the shower or in the car, but what about singing in your office? Just imagine the operatic exchanges you could have with your boss.

“Bob, I need that sales report by Mon-day”

“It’ll be on your desk by fi-ve” you sing back, silently wondering where in the office libretto it names you as lead vocal for sales reports.

Can’t quite picture it? Well maybe no operatic exchanges ever took place in business, but company funded music used to actually be a thing.

Nicol Valentin explains.

Frank B. Gilbreth, a leading proponent of singing at work.

Whose Idea Was This Anyway?

Singing during work comes naturally to most people. From the earliest times music has been a way to keep workers movements synchronized, reduce boredom, and increase productivity.  Railway workers sang to keep track laying coordinated, Scottish women sang while fulling cloth, and African slaves sang in the field. Even America’s Yankee doodle began as a Dutch harvest song. With the noise of industrialization, however, singing voices never made it past the door.

Scientific management became a mantra for businesses after its popularization by Fredrick Taylor in 1909. Every movement of a worker was accounted for under Taylor’s system, which was good for the employer, but not necessarily the employee. How to increase productivity was the question in everyone’s mind, including Frank Gilbreth’s. Productivity would improve if the workers were given a break. A little music might help, Frank told people, but the idea wasn’t taking off. It took the First World War to really get the idea going. Companies were looking for ways to get the maximum efficiency from their workers. Thrown into the mix was the Council of National Defense. Composed of mostly industry and labor leaders, the council was relied upon by President Woodrow Wilson to divide resources between the civilian and military worlds. With a vested interest in boosting productivity and limiting fatigue, rest periods, which could include singing, were coming into vogue.

It Doesn’t Take a Genius

All that scientific mumbo jumbo just to figure out what department stores had known since the 1800s. John Wannamaker, for example, had an organ placed in his Philadelphia department store in 1876. Wannamaker liked his employees to start and end the day with a little ditty or two. Filene Department store in Boston likewise opened its doors early. Employees spent the time singing and dancing down the aisles. Such a joyous start made for more pleasant and efficient sales people who kept a spring in their step throughout the day.

Of course, music was also used as a means of bringing in customers. Nevertheless, the part it played in lifting the morale of the worker was real. Besides Wannamaker’s and Filene’s, Chicago’s Marshall Field, New York’s Macy’s and pretty much every other large department store sponsored a band, chorus, or orchestra. Wanamaker was by far the most ambitious of the bunch. He purchased an organ to use for the stores morning sing alongs and had a total of ten different ensembles in order to accommodate different talents and tastes.

Now, maybe if you know what society was like 100 years ago you’re thinking: it’s nice for a bunch of women to get together and sing that fluffy, frilly stuff. But hard working, sweat producing, dirt incrusted men—never!

Well, think again, mon ami.

Men, Sweat, and Music

In January 1915, American Iron and Steel devoted its newsletter to music in the workplace. Why? Well according to the Bulletin, men were often unsatisfied. Not because of low wages—that would be silly—but because of boredom. Still, they needed some way to keep the men involved in wholesome activities after hours. Once again, music came to the rescue.

“Volumes. . . could be written on the moral and intellectual influence of good music,” according to Charles Hook, superintendent of the American Rolling Mill Company in Ohio. For that reason, the company had a minstrel chorus and a glee club among other things. Hook extolled the virtues of singing saying the camaraderie made the co-workers more like brothers, creating a positive effect on the workers’ health and happiness.

American Rolling Mill wasn’t the only one to incorporate music into the lives of their workers. Many mining companies had bands, orchestras and Glee clubs. Bethlehem steel had a pretty sweet band hall that they boasted was: “Probably the handsomest and most completely equipped building of its kind in the United States.”

Kum-ba-yahing with the Company

Music during work hours was a psychological tool to help increase production. The introduction of a musical diversion relieved the monotony of repetitive work and had an uplifting effect on a weary worker.  Scovill Manufacturing Company in Waterbury, Connecticut is one example. The company had been suffering from high turnover and a large number of accidents. After a two-year investigation begun in 1917 the company introduced singing periods. And yes, it did start among the women. It took time for some of the men to accept that singing wouldn’t diminish their manhood. Once they did, however, it was the grandest fifteen to twenty minutes of their day. Men would bring their instruments to practice after work for the next day’s sing along, while the singers took time to learn their parts in harmony. They liked it so much that when the management tried to replace the singing with lectures the workers listened respectfully, then asked to sing anyway.

It Ain’t Over ‘till it’s Over

“Properly selected music would stimulate any class of workers to greater action,” said the self-help author Napoleon Hill - and companies agreed. IBM, Ford Motor Company, Union Pacific, National Cash Register, Consolidated-Vultee Aircraft Corporation, Dodge Brothers; all had some type of music program for their employees. Many even expanded the programs to include musical education for family members. The golden age of company supported music didn’t last though. With Wanamaker’s death in 1922, and the Great Depression of the 1930s, people were singing less. Schools began to take on the role of musical education more, helping to make family programs redundant. Money too became an issue. With the economic problems of the Great Depression, money was often shifted from employee programs to national advertising.

Company orchestras and singing groups enjoyed periodical revivals, especially during the period of the Second World War. Using public address systems, many companies could now pipe music into their workers, giving them a little lift with relative ease.  Things may have waned, but what was old has the habit of becoming new again. Some companies are once again realizing the benefits of office music rooms and company choirs. So, while your ability to sing falsetto may not be discussed at your next job interview, a little practice can’t hurt.

Share your knowledge of singing at work – whether from history or personal, modern experiences – below…

References

Singing at work: Italian Immigrants and Music in the Epoch of WWI Fernando Fasce for Italian Americana Vol 27, No.2 (Summer 2009)  

Sing, Play, Dance! Music and Music Education in Industry by Tuohey, Therese Volk, Journal of Historical Research in Music Education, October 2021

Rest Periods for Industrial Workers, Research report #19, January 1919, National Industrial Conference Board

Commerce and Poetry Hand in Hand: Music in American Department Stores, Linda L. Tyler Journal of the American Musicological Society Vol. 45 #1 Spring, 1992

Monthly Bulletin of the American Iron and Steel Institute, Vol. III 1915, New York

Beckett, W., & Fairley, L. (1944). Music in Industry: A Bibliography. Notes, 1(4), 14-20.

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/08/29/office-workers-who-sing-together-are-healthier-265614.html

http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences-and-law/economics-business-and-labor/economics-terms-and-concepts/industrial-0

What’s in a Statue? The Stories behind Statues in Manchester, England

The city of Manchester, England has countless statues that many people walk past, completely oblivious of the rich history behind them. From Richard Cobden to Abraham Lincoln, this article will tell the brief history of a selection of statues and why Manchester has decided to honor them by placing their statues in the center of the city. Su-Sam Tham explains.

John Bright (1811 – 1889)

John Bright statue in Manchester, England.

John Bright was a British Radical and Liberal statesman. He was born in Rochdale, England to a highly successful cotton manufacturer and was educated at Quaker schools in Lancashire and Yorkshire, where his interest in politics grew and he became committed to political and religious equality and human rights. Bright was a remarkable orator and was also seen as one of the most influential politicians of his time, serving as an MP for Manchester, Birmingham and Durham. He is best known for founding the Anti-Corn Law League with Richard Cobden, which aimed to abolish the Corn Laws. These laws imposed tariffs on imported grain to protect English farmers from cheap foreign imports and were successfully repealed in 1846. He was also a keen supporter of Abraham Lincoln and the Union during the American Civil War, though many in Britain showed considerable sympathy for the Confederacy. He supported the boycott of southern cotton despite his own family’s mills relying on it, as he believed slavery was morally wrong and instead advocated for cotton cultivation by free labor in countries such as India.

To acknowledge his successful campaigning for the abolition of the Corn Laws, which had adversely affected Lancashire’s cotton trade as they relied on raw imports and exports for finished goods, Manchester commissioned two public statues in his honor; one inside Manchester town hall and the other in Albert Square facing the town hall, sculpted by Albert Bruce-Joy.

Interesting Fact: Bright is credited for coining the phrases ‘to flog a dead horse’ and ‘mother of parliaments’.

Richard Cobden (1804 – 1865)

Richard Cobden statue in Manchester, England.

Like Bright, Richard Cobden was a Radical and Liberal statesman, born in Sussex and raised in Yorkshire, where he received little formal schooling and became a cloth clerk at 15. He then started his own business selling calico prints and subsequently moved to Manchester, where his political career flourished as he was elected as the MP for Stockport. During this time, he campaigned against the Opium Wars and Crimean War, preferring to advocate for peace, resulting in him and Bright, the MP for Manchester, losing their seats in the 1857 election. However, the public forgave both for their anti-war stance as Cobden was later elected as the Rochdale MP and Bright as the Birmingham MP. As well as forming the Anti-Corn Law League, he was also known for the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, which reduced or removed most tariff between Britain and France and was thus seen as a key stepping stone to free trade, a policy that Cobden advocated throughout his life.    

Cobden’s role in the abolition of the Corn Laws and association with other free trade campaigns led to Manchester erecting public monuments in his honor. His statue was created by sculptor Marshall Wood in 1865 and stands in St Ann’s Square.

Interesting Fact: Cobden was extremely well travelled having visited France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, Egypt, Greece and Russia. An impressive feat considering he primarily travelled by coach and horse. 

William Gladstone (1809 – 1898)

William Gladstone statue in Manchester, England.

William Gladstone was born in Liverpool to Sir John Gladstone, a merchant and MP. He was educated at Eton and Oxford before being elected to parliament in 1832 as the Tory MP for Newark and he held several posts in Sir Robert Peel’s cabinet, such as Chancellor of the Exchequer. In 1867, he became the Liberal Party leader and the 3rd Liberal Prime Minister in 1868, a position he held on four separate occasions. During his 12 years in office, his government set up a national elementary education program, extended the vote to a greater number of men and introduced secret ballots at elections. His reputation as a wise and respected leader, who championed social, economic and political reform, has seen him frequently ranked as one of Britain’s greatest Prime Ministers, recently coming third in the Daily Telegraph’s 2016 ranking of the top 10 greatest Prime Ministers.

The statue was erected in Albert Square in 1901 at the Mancunian architect William Roberts’ request. Roberts admired Gladstone and in his legacy, left £4,500 to build a statue of him for Manchester where Gladstone had visited and gave speeches on several occasions and he had even unsuccessfully run for Manchester MP as a Conservative candidate. Sculpted by Mario Raggi, the statue depicts Gladstone speaking in the House of Commons during the 1893 debate on the Irish Home Rule.

Interesting Fact: Gladstone was Britain’s oldest serving Prime Minister, winning his fourth election at age 82 and resigning at age 84.

Abraham Lincoln (1809 – 1865) 

Abraham Lincoln statue in Manchester, England.

Abraham Lincoln is one of the most well-known and highly regarded Presidents of the USA, celebrated for preserving the Union during the American Civil War and for abolishing slavery in the USA. Born in a log cabin in 1809, Lincoln initially trained as a lawyer before entering the political arena by serving several terms in the Illinois state legislature and one in the House of Representative. In 1860, Lincoln won the Presidential election, becoming the 16th US President and 1st Republican President, inadvertently sparking a secession crisis in the South and ultimately the Civil War. During the war, Lincoln blockaded southern ports and some saw this as the cause of the Lancashire Cotton Famine, though the blockades were not entirely successful. Despite this, Manchester and Lancashire, areas heavily affected by the Cotton Famine, decided to support Lincoln and the Union by boycotting raw cotton picked by slaves. This meant many workers in the cotton industry lost their job, but their sacrifice was not unnoticed by Lincoln, who wrote a letter to the ‘working-men of Manchester’ to show his gratitude.       

The bronze statue of Lincoln, sculpted by George Grey Barnard, was commissioned by Charles Phelps Taft, the mayor of Cincinnati, Ohio and son of the former US President, William Taft. Originally meant to stand outside the Houses of Parliament in London, the statue was deemed unworthy for parliament as Lincoln was depicted wearing ‘normal’ clothes, rather than presidential attire and with his hand on his stomach, thus becoming known as the ‘stomach ache statue’. Instead, London received a different more statesmanlike statue and their loss became Manchester’s gain in 1919. The statue currently stands in Lincoln Square and the pedestal is inscribed with extracts of Lincoln’s letter to ‘the working-men of Manchester’, though ‘men’ has been changed to ‘people’ as Lincoln’s gendered address was seen as too sexist by Manchester council.

Interesting Fact: Lincoln obtained a patent in 1849 for a device designed to lift riverboats over sandbars or obstructions in the river and is therefore the only US President to hold a patent.

Queen Victoria (1819 – 1901)

Queen Victoria statue in Manchester, England.

In 1817, the death of Princess Charlotte, the daughter of the future King George IV and only legitimate grandchild of the reigning King George III, caused a succession crisis in Britain. This made George III’s sons realize that it was essential for one of them to provide an heir, so the following year, Prince Edward, Duke of Kent married Princess Victoria of Saxe-Coburg-Saalfeld and had their only child Alexandrina Victoria. From the beginning, Victoria was raised to be Queen and thus had a difficult upbringing. Her father had died before she was a year old, so she was raised by her mother under the ‘Kensington System’ resulting in a somewhat solitary childhood as her education and company were strictly regulated by her mother who isolated her from the rest of her family. Even King William IV, Victoria’s uncle, was denied access to her causing him to vow that he would survive until her 18th birthday to prevent her mother from becoming reagent. William was successful, as he died just 26 days after she turned 18 and so Victoria ascended to the throne as the sole ruler of Great Britain. Queen Victoria’s 63 year and 216 day reign had many significant successes as the first Wimbledon Championship was held in 1877, the first practical telephone was invented by Alexander Graham Bell, the British Empire reached its peak, and she was even crowned Empress of India.   

The sculptor Edward Onslow Ford was commissioned to create the statue of Victoria for Manchester, which she agreed to sit for, in commemoration of her diamond jubilee. Unfortunately, the statue was only completed and placed in Piccadilly Gardens in 1901 after her death. It was also originally intended for the tribute to be a marble statue, but this later changed to bronze after the Queen expressed concern about marble weathering poorly in Manchester’s smoky atmosphere. The statue is particularly significant because out of the 17 statues in Manchester city center, it is the only one to depict a woman and monarch.

Interesting Fact: Queen Victoria survived 8 assassination attempts with 2 attempts made by John Francis.

James Watt (1736 – 1819)

James Watt statue in Manchester, England.

James Watt was a Scottish mechanical engineer and inventor born in Greenock. He was home-schooled by his mother, before attending the local grammar school where he excelled in engineering and mathematics. After leaving school, he moved to London and trained as an instrument maker, quickly surpassing the other apprentices as he completed his training in just a year, despite training normally taking up to 7 years. This allowed Watt to return to Glasgow and start a small shop making and repairing scientific instruments and it was while working there that the Newcomen engine was brought to his attention. He was given a model of the engine to repair and found it to be inefficient, so he began experimenting with steam to try and improve the engine, which he managed to do by designing a separate condensing chamber for the engine. Further improvements resulted in Watt’s engine being up to 5 times more powerful and over 50% more efficient than the original Newcomen engine. Watt’s engine gave way to highly efficient factories, mills and mines that produced 3 times more mechanical work for every ton of coal brought, meaning the owners earned more money and thus the prosperous economy of the Industrial Revolution was driven by Watt’s developments. His achievements were recognized in many ways - most significantly, the watt was named in his honor.

Manchester owes its titles as the world’s first manufacturing city and ‘Cottonopolis’ to Watt, so it is no surprise that the city commissioned William Theed to produce a bronze copy of Chantrey’s marble statue of Watt, that stood in Westminster Abbey, for Manchester. The statue was erected in 1857 and now sits in Piccadilly Gardens.

Interesting Fact: To explain how powerful his steam engines were in a relatively easy and relatable way, Watt decided to compare them to the power of horses, which were at the time the dominating mode of transportation and thus horsepower, a unit of power, was invented.

I hope that after reading this article you will be inspired to visit Manchester to see the statues for yourself and in the future, you will take time to explore the history of other fascinating statues that you may never have truly noticed.

Let us know what you think of the article below…

All pictures are taken by and provided with the permission of Su-Sam Tham. They may only be reproduced wit Su-Sam’s permission.

An Unlikely Union? How a Group of Miners and Homosexuals Changed Britain

The British miners’ strike of 1984/5 is generally considered a heavy defeat for the miners, their communities, and the trade union movement as a whole. To a certain extent, that assumption has merit. But one outcome that is less well known is the role the strike played in contributing to bettering the lives of homosexuals in Britain. In a decade when vast homophobia was expected and accepted, Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners (LGSM) drove a couple of minibuses and a camper van from London to Dulais, a small mining town in South Wales, to present their donations in an attempt to aid the miners’ efforts. The events that followed provide us with an important lesson about the importance of empathy, tolerance, and togetherness in facing common enemies.

Here, Jon Hill tells us a story about solidarity.

A miners' strike rally in London, UK in 1984. Source: Miners' strike really, 1984 via Nick from Bristol, UK. Available here.

Roots of Oppression

Firstly, it is perhaps important to refer to the ways in which miners and homosexuals were oppressed in Britain at the time. The strike began in March 1984, in response to Ian Macgregor’s plans to close twenty pits, leading to a projected loss of 20,000 jobs. Margaret Thatcher had previously claimed, ‘the industry cost the taxpayer thirteen billion pounds’ and called for the worst economically performing pits to close. The areas targeted were considered overly reliant on mining. The mining community in South Wales had not been the worst hit, but employment in the coalfields had nevertheless fallen from 108,000 in 1948 to 20,347 in 1984.

Mistreatment by the police was a shared experience between gay people and miners. Amongst other places, picketing miners were subjected to police brutality at Easington in August 1984. Thatcher claimed that the police were ‘upholding the law’ and stated; ‘I find it totally and utterly false to cast a slur on the police for the superb way they have handled this dispute.’ An LGSM member described how ‘a lot of mining communities have found out what police harassment is for the first time, which gay people have known about for years’. Such views were also reciprocated by members of the mining community. Sian James described feeling that ‘we were next in line after lesbians and gays…you cannot sympathise with an oppressed group until you’ve actually been a member of one’.

An Unlikely Union

In the face of such adversity, coordinator Mark Ashton encapsulated the aim of LGSM; ‘It is illogical to say: ‘I’m gay and I’m into defending the gay community but I don’t care about anything else.’

Donovan travelled to Paddington on September 6, 1984 to collect a cheque of 500 pounds from LGSM, mostly collected from poorly paid young people who hankered for a different Britain. Donovan subsequently invited members to Dulais. Tensions were high when the mining community received news of the impending arrival, yet the experiences were generally positive for both sides.

London magazine City Limits described how LGSM members visiting Dulais were welcomed into the miners’ homes for the weekend; whole families discussed gay rights and sexuality ‘over the tea-table’. Prior to the arrival of LGSM, one member of the Dulais group admitted that they were ‘expecting a bunch of weirdos’. Another woman commented that ‘It’s had to take the strike for us to get friendlier with lesbian and gay men’. Such apprehension was mutual; a correspondent of Capital Gay claimed that the mining communities ‘encapsulate all the sexist, patriarchal and anti-gay views which threaten us’. However, experiences reported by LGSM visitors challenged such views. Ashton recalled being overwhelmed with the open-mindedness of the miners; ‘I had this semi-antagonistic attitude towards the organised labour movement, trade unions, macho bully boys, and it just opens your eyes to the attitudes that they had, and the strike up to that stage had kindled in people.’

Members of LGSM returned to Dulais on February 15, 1985 and held sponsored bike rides from London to Dulais during Easter 1985. These continuing visits maintained feelings of solidarity and laid the ground work for the appearance of Blaenant Lodge, a group of approximately 80 miners and sympathisers from South Wales who marched with LGSM at Gay Pride in London in July 1985. Writing to Blaenant Lodge following the march, Jackson enthused; ‘Your presence on Saturday stood out like granite pillars of our mutual trust, solidarity, and hope for the future.’ The words of the NUM’s note, sent to the fringe meeting of gays and lesbians at the 1984 Labour Conference, sum up the sentiments from the other side: ‘Support civil liberties...Our struggle is yours.’

The presentation of a resolution to the British Labour Party Annual Conference that year which committed the Labour Party to gay rights was made. The passing of gay rights resolutions showed that there was a place in the Labour movement for homosexuals. The growing acceptance of gay issues in the Labour movement would play a role in the passing of progressive legislation by following Labour governments on the age of consent, civil partnerships, and the repeal of Section 28 in November 2003.

By the time that the group was wound up in July 1986, LGSM had gathered approximately 22,000 pounds for the mining community at Dulais, collected through street collections, jumble sales and events such as the ‘Pits and Perverts’ gig, named after a derogatory slogan used by The Sun newspaper.

The Importance of Solidarity

Notions of community over class were reinforced by an opinion piece written by LGSM for City Limits. They claimed that; ‘Our support for the strike arises not purely from the fact that we are gay, but because we are members of the same class’. Ashton made a similar point in a separate interview where he argued for the need to ‘organise with my own kind of people. That’s not necessarily lesbians and gay men – that’s working class people’.

The Gay Liberation Foundation marched with the Trade Union Council against Edward Heath in 1971. This kind of cross over support was continued by organisations like LGSM in the 1980s. This idea is summarised by Lucy Robinson, who argues that examples set by LGSM ‘meant that gender and sexuality had fed into a cross-class comradery even if the strike had failed.’

A Brighter Future

In a recent correspondence of mine with LGSM member Jonathan Blake, Blake emphasised the importance of changing attitudes that have occurred since minority movements such as LGSM were formed. Besides referring to the NUM’s contribution to Labour’s inclusion of gay rights in their manifesto in 1985, Blake noted the significance of the movement, and specifically the film Pride, ‘in inspiring youth folk’. This feeling seemed to take effect in South Wales as early as the summer of 1985, when students from University College Cardiff held the city’s first Gay Pride march. The march provided visible evidence of a change in Welsh attitudes towards sexual minorities. The South Wales Echo declared the Welsh capital ‘a place where you can be glad to be gay.’

From the outset of the campaign, Ashton and Jackson emphasised the need for minorities to refrain from hiding, and encouraged gay people and miners to embrace their label. During the meeting with Donovan in October 1984, Jackson said ‘We call ourselves LGSM to emphasise our label - I hope this can encourage people in places like Dulais to say ‘I’m gay and I’m proud’. This self-awareness partly reflected a belief in the importance of the organisation concerning sexual history, but also fitted into wider processes of the 1980s. There was an increasing appreciation arising of migrant histories, signalled by the first Black History Month in 1987. Whilst it cannot be suggested that this was a consequence of the movement, it can be interpreted that minority movements like LGSM contributed to maintaining alternative histories.

Reason for Celebration

Whilst LGSM and the miners ultimately failed in their immediate aims to prevent collieries closing and overthrow the Thatcher government, the legacy that remains is worth salvaging. Whilst gay activists had worn badges for other campaigns, like the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, Troops Out and Rock Against Racism, this time the gesture was reciprocated. A pamphlet published by the Labour Campaign for homosexual rights in 2006 noted support for the miners ‘including hundreds of lesbians and gay men working through support groups’ and added; ‘the already deepening union backing for lesbian and gay equality has been reinforced by the experience of the miners’ strike.’ Ideas of solidarity were emphasised by Mary Joannou, who suggested that ‘it strongly conveys what solidarity can feel like to those who have been taught, by the legacy of Thatcherism, that all that matters is the individual.’ Mark Steel summed up the legacy well; ‘Defeat did not mean that we’d be better off if it never happened. Apart from anything else, it did so much to bring together disparate groups in British society, justified when a miners’ brass band was chosen to lead a Gay Pride march.’ Steel was right; with courage, dedication, and solidarity, LGSM serve as a reminder that a minority can inspire a majority.

What do you think of the arguments in this article? Let us know below…

Sources

Audio recording of meeting between some members of LGSM and Dulais miners (16/9/84).

‘All Out! Dancing in Dulais’, dir. by Jeff Cole (1986).

Daryl Leeworthy, ‘For our common cause: Sexuality and left politics in South Wales, 1967-85’, Contemporary British History, (2015), 260-280).

Diarmaid Kelliher; ‘Solidarity and Sexuality: Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners, 1984-85’, History Workshop, (2014), 240-262.

Edward Townsend, ‘Thatcher ‘no surrender’ message on miners.’ Times (London), 18 October 1984: 1.

Julian Haviland, Anthony Bevins, and Richard Evans. ‘Thatcher endorses police conduct in miners' dispute.’ Times (London), 10 Apr. 1984: 1.

Mary Joannou, ‘The Miners’ Strike and Me: A Very Personal Response to Pride’, Contemporary British History, (2016), 107-113.

Personal correspondence with Jonathan Blake (10/03/2017).

Todd, Selina, The People: The Rise and Fall of the Working Class (London: John Murray Publishers, 2014). 

The Real Love story between a Nazi SS guard and Jewish prisoner at Auschw

The Holocaust has left its mark as one of the darkest moments in history. However, even during the darkest of times, there was still love. Here, we tell you about a love story between a Nazi concentration camp prisoner and an SS Guard at Auschwitz.

Helena Citronova (left) and Franz Wunsch (right) fell in love at Auschwitz.

In September 1935, the Reichstag (the parliament during the Third Reich) voted unanimously to for the passing of the Law for the Protection of German Blood and German Honor, otherwise known as the Nuremberg Laws that not only excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship but from marrying or having sexual relations with people of “German or related blood.”

Persons accused of having sexual relations with non-Aryans faced public humiliation and those convicted were “typically sentenced to prison terms, and (subsequent to 8 March 1938) upon completing their sentences were re-arrested by the Gestapo and sent to Nazi concentration camps.”

Even with the punishments for forbidden affection severe, especially for Nazi soldiers, that was not enough to stop Auschwitz SS officer Franz Wunsch from falling in love with a Jewish Slovakian prisoner named Helena Citronova. Across the world, Auschwitz concentration camp has become a symbol of genocide, terror, war, and the Holocaust.

However, after 70 years, PBS in America as well as an Israeli television brought to life the forbidden romance story between an SS guard and a Jewish prisoner at Auschwitz that highlighted the complexity of human relationships in the most horrifying of world events.

In 1942, Franz Wunsch was serving as a 20-year old SS guard in charge of the gas chambers of Auschwitz. On his birthday, March 21, his Nazi comrades brought in a Jewish girl, Helena Citronova, to sing him birthday songs. Helena was imprisoned at Auschwitz from Slovakia and was forced to sort all of the incoming prisoners’ belongings before they were shipped to Berlin to fuel the Nazi war efforts.

Helena and her sister Rozinka had both been sentenced to die in the gas chambers earlier that very day so Helena attempted to sing the very best she could, melting the heart of the SS guard. When Wunsch realized she wouldn’t be alive the next day, he hurried and managed to postpone the execution of both sisters.

Helena would say years later in Israel, “When he came into the barracks where I was working, he threw me that note. I destroyed it right there and then, but I did see the word "love" — "I fell in love with you". I thought I'd rather be dead than be involved with an SS man. For a long time afterwards there was just hatred. I couldn't even look at him.”

Over time, though unclear of exactly when, Helena succumbed to her feelings for Franz, especially after her SS devotee rushed to prevent her sister and her sister’s children from being sent to the gas chambers.

“'So he said to me, "Tell me quickly what your sister's name is before I'm too late." So I said, "You won't be able to. She came with two little children." Helena later recalled.

'He replied, "Children, that's different. Children can't live here." So he ran to the crematorium and found my sister.'

Helena admitted she had slept with her rescuer and at times had even forgotten who he was and came to terms with the romance. Wunsch would provide Helena with food, clothing, and protection. Though their relationship would not develop any further, Helena would repay him years later for risking his life to protect a Jewish prisoner on the pain of death.

When the war ended, the SS guards fled the Allied advance, even destroying parts of the concentration camps to cover their war crimes. Helena and her sister Rozinka attempted to return home with other displaced people through an Eastern Europe that contained violent and raping Soviet soldiers. Both sisters avoided being raped when Rozinka claimed to be Helena’s mother and defended her. Following the founding of Israel in 1948, Helena moved there while Franz returned to Austria.

Thirty years following Nazi Germany’s defeat and the end of World War II, in 1972, Wunsch was put on trial in Vienna, accused of being cruel towards prisoners by beating men and women alike and operated at the gas chambers to insert the lethal gas. Testimonies include camp survivors describing Wunsch as a “natural Jew hater” and sometimes participated in the selection of inmates all over occupied Europe to live or die. With more than enough evidence for the guilty verdict, life imprisonment and death most likely would have awaited him.

In a twist of events, Helena and her sister defended Wunsch at his trial. Even with ‘an overwhelming evidence of guilt’ as the judge commented in Wunsch’s participation in the Nazi’s largest concentration camp’s mass murder, Wunsch was acquitted of all charges due to the statute of limitations over war crimes in Austria.

“Desire changed my brutal behavior,” Wunsch said. “I fell in love with Helena Citronova and that changed me. I changed into another person because of her influence.”

Citronova died in 2005. Wunsch died in 2009.

Share your thoughts on this article below…

Sources

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3193520/Read-real-life-story-Auschwitz-prisoner-Helena-Citronova-falling-love-SS-guard-Franz-Wunsch-amid-controversy-Kate-Breslin-novel-Time.html

https://www.warhistoryonline.com/war-articles/auschwitz-love-story.html

https://newswire.net/newsroom/pr/00090219-forbidden-love-saved-their-lives.html

http://ww2awartobewon.com/wwii-articles/auschwitz-forbidden-romance-story/

Why did the USSR Collapse? Chernobyl, Gorbachev and Glasnost

The death of the last “Old Bolshevik” General Secretary of the Soviet Union, Konstantin Chernenko, in March of 1985 gave way to the rise of the young, liberal, and ultimately final General Secretary of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachev. But just over one year after Gorbachev became General Secretary the Chernobyl nuclear explosion took place. Here, Brenden Woldman argues that it was this explosion that was the most important element that led to the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Chernobyl. Last Day of Pripyat by Alexey Akindinov. Source: Alex Akindinov, available here.

Mikhail Gorbachev, newly crowned leader of the USSR in 1985, was a product of the communist system and a firm believer in Soviet ideology. Nevertheless, Gorbachev understood that the USSR was at a crossroads and liberal reforms were necessary for the survival of the Soviet empire.

Gorbachev thought that the enactment of glasnost (openness and a new era of honesty between the government and the people) and perestroika (restructuring of the Soviet economic and political system) would spark a golden age of Soviet ingenuity and would reignite the USSR as a super power. However, the USSR was not ripe for the backlash that would come with glasnost’s emphasis on openness. The reason for Gorbachev to double-down on glasnost was the failed cover-up that came from the Chernobyl disaster. Within a year of Gorbachev’s ascension to power, one of the greatest man-made environmental disasters the world had ever seen placed the Soviet Union in the global spotlight and showed the hypocrisy of the Soviet Union’s new “reformer”.

 The Blast

All was quiet on the morning of April 28, 1986 when Swedish monitoring stations showed an unnaturally sparked heightening of radioactive activity near northern Kiev at the Chernobyl nuclear electricity-generating plant.[1] The Soviet Union did little to confirm reports of the accident or the danger of it. Pravda, the official newspaper of the CPSU, did not report the accident until two weeks after it had occurred and Gorbachev himself did not publically acknowledge the disaster until May 14, nearly three weeks after the initial incident.[2] The reason for this silence was the attempted cover-up of the Chernobyl disaster by Gorbachev and the CPSU, even though the radioactive cloud released was ten times more hazardous than that of the radiation discharged by the nuclear bomb at Hiroshima.[3] However, those two weeks in which the Soviet Union tried to cover-up the severity of the accident showed the fragility and unwillingness of the USSR to implement the so-called media “openness” that was to come with Gorbachev’s glasnost.

The problems with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant were well documented before the accident. Government reports dating back to the initial building of the power plant in 1979 showed the brittleness of the structure with a KGB memorandum stating that the Chernobyl plant, “could lead to mishaps and accidents”.[4] The poor quality of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant was not shocking to those who had inspected the quality of the structures around the USSR. An accident involving one of the power plants was not a surprising revelation due to their poor quality. Nevertheless, in the early morning of April 26 the Chernobyl nuclear power plant erupted, causing the CPSU to begin plans for a cover-up.

The Failed Cover-Up

After the extinguishing of the fires and the securing of the scene, in depth urgent reports about the nature of the incident were sent to the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union.[5] When questioning began on the severity of Chernobyl from Europe and the west, the CPSU began to intensify their cover-up plan by sending statements to ambassadors of the Soviet Union throughout the globe. These statements explain that a minor accident had occurred at Chernobyl and that the level of contamination may have exceeded norms, but “not to such a degree that it requires special measures to protect the population” and that the USSR did not need foreign aid as “no foreign nationals in the Soviet Union (particularly specialists or tourists) have made application to relevant Soviet organizations in connection with the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident”.[6]

However, readings from radioactive stations across Western Europe showed that the Chernobyl accident was far more severe than initially expected, as journalists, foreign and domestic, reported on the severity of the calamity after the USSR allowed press to come to the scene. As one Pravda journalist reported, the low quality standards, lack of safety equipment, lack of evacuation of public citizens, and the overall “silence of the leaders of the republic” proved the unwillingness of the CPSU to report on the severity of the Chernobyl calamity.[7] It became clear that Gorbachev and the CPSU attempted to downplay the disaster which occurred at Chernobyl. The result was not only an environmental disaster but a political one as well, as the Soviet citizenry doubted the claim that Gorbachev was to be a new and honest General Secretary.

For Gorbachev, the calamity at Chernobyl came from two fronts. The first was the physical, environmental destruction that had occurred and the cleanup that was going to take years and require a lot of money. Yet the second hurt Gorbachev the most, as the attempted cover-up hurt Gorbachev’s reputation as a reformer and the legitimacy of glasnost. It also did not help that this reinforced the view among some of the Soviet citizenry of the poor infrastructure within the USSR in comparison to the west, which sparked the fall of the “Soviet façade”.[8] The embarrassment that came from Chernobyl left Gorbachev more decisive in implementing glasnost rhetoric, but it was too late for many as Soviet citizens began questioning the validity of glasnost.[9]

Life After Chernobyl

Chernobyl was the perfect storm of all the problems that were to come with Gorbachev’s reforms. However, the Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986, five years before the Soviet collapse. In short, there were more trickle down effects to come from glasnost and perestroika. However, the Soviet government was uneasy about granting complete open expression for the first time in the USSR’s history. Yet the embarrassment that followed the Chernobyl accident led Gorbachev to become more decisive and hardheaded with his implementation of glasnost and perestroika.[10]

Open expression became a staple of glasnost. Individuals connected to media began showing the gritty, more realistic portrayal of Soviet life instead of the utopian society depicted in propaganda. Crime, child abuse, suicide, prostitution, homelessness, declining health standards, poverty, and corruption were detailed extensively.[11] TV exposé’s like the news program Fifth Wheel filmed and broadcast the luxurious homes of the party elite in comparison to the impoverished living conditions of the working-class.[12] Soviet history was rewritten to show for the first time that Stalin was a mass murderer who killed millions of innocents and former General Secretary Leonid Brezhnev lived an extravagant, corrupt, and materialistic life. Glasnost opened up a variety of new problems that angered and humiliated many of the Soviet citizenry. The dissolving of the “Soviet façade” intensified.

Soviet essayist Alexander Tsipko summed up the feelings that many citizens felt during the era. True, glasnost created more opportunities for freedom of speech and of the press, but the revelations that came with glasnost on Soviet history completely demoralized the Soviet populace. Tsipko wrote the following to define the shocking feeling that many Soviet citizens had from glasnost’s “therapy by truth”:

No people in the history of mankind was ever enslaved by myths as our people was in the 20th century… We thought that building communism in the USSR was the greatest deed of our people, but we were purposefully engaging in self-destruction…We thought that our national industry, organized like one big factory…was the ultimate achievement of human wisdom, but it all turned out to be an economic absurdity which enslaved the economic and spiritual energies of…Russia.[13]

This powerful sentiment mirrored the feelings to the majority of Soviet citizenry. The heartbreak felt by Tsipko echoed throughout the Soviet Union, as it seemed that everything that Soviet citizens had learned and believed in were all lies fabricated by the CPSU. The feeling of confusion and loss of the Soviet ideology was quickly replaced by open protest and rage against the system that many Soviets had spent their entire lives trusting. Consequently, glasnost allowed open expression of anti-communist and anti-Soviet views that ultimately gained momentum as organized social movements led to public protest against the CPSU.[14] Between the Chernobyl meltdown and the collapse of the USSR was five years of brutal honesty that destroyed many Soviet citizens’ belief in the Soviet system. What sparked this doubt toward the system and the intensification of glasnost was Chernobyl.  

Gorbachev in Retrospect

In a 2006 interview Gorbachev saw Chernobyl as the real reason the Soviet Union collapsed. Chernobyl showed the hypocrisy of glasnost, the CPSU’s unwillingness to be honest with the Soviet people, the economic and environmental devastation on the USSR, and the embarrassment of admitting a cover-up. Combined, they proved to the Soviet people that Gorbachev was not the reformer he claimed to be. Gorbachev states, “The nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl 20 years ago this month, even more than my launch of perestroika, was perhaps the real cause of the collapse of the Soviet Union five years later”.[15] Chernobyl was a moment that represented all the problems and hypocrisies that were to come with Gorbachev’s reforms. Yet this loosening of media relations led to more complications than the Soviet Union could swallow, as the policy of glasnost became more of a problem than a solution. Without the intensification of glasnost the Soviet Union could have survived longer than its collapse in 1991. However, if it was not for the Chernobyl meltdown and its failed cover-up, Gorbachev would not have felt obligated to intensify his policy of glasnost.

Why do you think the Soviet Union collapsed? Let us know below…

 

[1] Diane Koenker and Ronald D. Bachman, Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 499.

[2] Ibid. 499.

[3] Ibid. 499.

[4] Yuri Andropov. “KGB memorandum from Andropov to the Central Committee, February 21, 1979, on construction flaws at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant”, in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 501.

[5] The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “Urgent report on the Chernobyl accident from the first deputy minister of energy and electrification, April 26, 1986” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 501.

[6] The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, “Resolution of the Central Committee, April 29, 1986, on additional measures to be taken concerning the damage caused by the Chernobyl accident” & “Central Committee resolution of April 30, 1986, concerning progress in repairing damage caused by the Chernobyl accident” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 505-508.

[7] Vladimir Gubarev. “Report by Pravda journalist Gubarev on his observations at the site, May 22, 1986” in Revelations from the Russian Archives: Documents in English Translation, 509-511.

[8] Malia, The Soviet Tragedy: A History of Socialism in Russia, 1917-1991, 421.

[9] Strayer, Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change, 99.

[10] Ibid. 99.

[11] Ibid. 100.

[12] Ibid. 100.

[13] Alexander Tsipko. “Novy Mir 4”, in Why Did the Soviet Union Collapse?: Understanding Historical Change, 105.

[14] Ibid 105.

[15] Green Road Journal Writing Staff, "Gorbachev; Chernobyl Nuclear Accident Was Real Cause Of The Collapse of Soviet Union, But It Took 20 Years For The Truth To Come Out, Just Like TMI And Fukushima, Denial Plus Cover Up Is The Norm," A Green Road Journal, April 15, 2016, , accessed October 24, 2016, http://www.agreenroadjournal.com/2012/12/gorbachev-chernobyl-nuclear-accident.html.

The Unknown British War Hero - The Enigmatic Life of the ‘Genius Britain Betrayed’

Disastrous warfare, lethal weaponry, brave soldiers, French beaches; these are perhaps just a handful of things that come to mind when one thinks about the Second World War - and rightly so. Since the Armistice of the War on August 14, 1945, we have repeatedly paid homage to a generation of predominantly young male soldiers that rescued Europe from Hitler’s fascist clutches. The following article will attempt to uncover the tragically short but eventful life of an altogether different war-hero (but a hero nonetheless), the man that Marvin Minsky called ‘the key-figure of our century’; Alan Mathison Turing. Analysis of Turing has tended to focus on his scientific advances and the role of the code-breakers at Bletchley Park in hastening the end of the war. Yet Bletchley stands as an archetype for a more undervalued aspect of British life: eccentricity. Jon Hill explains.

Alan Turing.

Early Life

Born in London on June 23, 1912, Turing spent much of his childhood under the care of an old army couple whilst his parents spent most of their time in India due to his father’s work with the civil service. At school, he was never one to follow strict principles, spending much of his time in advanced mathematics to the neglect of his work. Turing’s school head teacher ironically claimed ‘if he is to stay here he must aim at becoming educated’. According to Turing’s biographer Andrew Hodges, his academic life changed when he met Christopher Morecambe, a future love interest who helped him become more communicative with his peers and more focused on his studies. Following Morecambe’s early death, Hodges suggests that Turing became even more determined to focus his analysis into his notorious machines. Before he left school, he had rather unintentionally won the respect of his peers for his own peculiar methods.

In 1931, he entered Kings College, Cambridge, as a mathematical scholar, where he enjoyed a more welcoming atmosphere, and was awarded a fellowship at 22.

Making of the Digital Computer

Turing made his most significant contribution to the age of computers in 1935, when he began his investigation into mathematical logic that would lead to the creation of the ‘Turing Machine’. His paper ‘An Application to the Entscheidungsproblem (decision problem)’ spawned the idea that a machine could be used to compute anything that a human mind could. In effect, Turing had created the first modern day computer, revolutionizing human activity in the process; every keyboard stroke you make owes something to Turing’s work.

The ‘Turing Machine’ was subsequently used by engineers at the University of Manchester to build the world’s first working digital computer in June 1948. For his work in Computer Science, the ‘Turing Award’ was established in 1966 - the highest accolade in the computing industry.

Wartime Work

In 1939, Turing was headhunted by the government to head the Bletchley Park cipher-breaking mission to crack Nazi encryption. Then, working day and night, Turing and his team oversaw the creation of the ‘bombes’ – the machine built to crack the ‘Enigma code’ in order to enable the government to read German naval signals. Every German U-boat carried an Enigma machine to receive operational orders. To stop them, Enigma had to be broken. This quiet mathematician’s code-breaking endeavors were quite literally a matter of life or death for millions. By 1941 the code had been cracked, thanks, in large part, to this quiet, unassuming, gay man, who wore a gas mask for his allergies, and chained his teacup to a radiator to ensure its safe-keeping.

For his wartime services he was awarded an O.B.E by King George VI in 1946. According to Churchill, Turing made ‘the single greatest contribution to the Allied forces victory in the Second World War.’

It is hard to imagine that such a peculiar group would be amassed by the British government today. Yet the undeniable eccentricity at Bletchley was key to its success. The mission brought together a distinctive cocktail of mathematicians, linguists, cryptanalysts, crossword geeks and other boffins, but left alone in a space to flourish, they experimented their way to greatness.

Betrayal and Death

Although Turing enjoyed popularity in his private life and at Walton Athletics Club (where he was very successful and almost qualified for the 1948 Olympics), the eccentric genius which made him a wartime hero was not as appreciated in peacetime. In 1952, when reporting a burglary to the police, he naively admitted to a relationship with a man. He was subsequently arrested for ‘gross indecency with males’, one of 1,600 men who had been convicted in 1952 alone. Instead of a prison sentence, Turing was ordered to undergo psychoanalysis and a year’s treatment of estrogen injections.

Turing’s homosexuality was not completely secret. Many of his friends and peers at Bletchley and Cambridge endeavored to keep his relations covert, which, according to I.J Good, was just as important to the war effort as the code-cracking mission itself; ‘if the security people had known he may well have been fired and we would have lost the war.’

On June 7, 1954, Turing was found dead at his home, with a cyanide poisoned apple confirmed to be the cause of death. The investigation stated it to be a suicide, although many Turing experts have ruled it to be an accident. With no suicide notes, no prior symptoms of depression, his regular trips abroad, and his knowledge of British intelligence, some have even suggested that he was deemed too much of a national security risk and was subsequently murdered with the knowledge of the government.

Legacy

It seems to me that Turing’s life (and death) is a reminder of much that was terrible about the twentieth century. His genius was suppressed by an embarrassing education system; he was used by the government to make one of the largest contributions to human survival in recent history, before being swiftly sidelined while lesser scientists took his work onto ‘the next level’; he was not only persecuted but tortured for his homosexuality and was allegedly condemned as a ‘risk’.

Bletchley Park now stands as not only a code-breaking museum, but also for the triumph of the outsider. Turing’s posthumous pardon in 2013 stands as a beacon of hope for a suppressed generation of gay people, made to suffer for the prejudices of others.

In his 1937 paper on computer machines, Turing stated ‘the human memory is necessarily limited.’ Turing’s legacy stands as a reminder that one should not allow their memory to become limited. The age of tolerance should remember Turing as a necessary sacrifice made by a man far ahead of his time. And for that, he deserves to be considered as one of the greatest men in human history.  

Do you agree with the author that Alan Turing was one of the greatest men in human history? Let us know below…

Sources

Ben Macintyre, ‘Bletchley Park: a fitting memorial to our enigmatic nature.’ Times (London, England), 22 August 2008.

Ben Macintyre, ‘The genius Britain betrayed.’ Times (London, England), 14 July 2006.

‘Codebreaker’, directed by Clare Beavan and Nic Stacey (2011).

M.H.A. Newman, ‘Alan Mathison Turing, 1912-1954.’ Royal Society, vol 1 (1955), pp. 253-263.

Richard Morrison, ‘The war’s forgotten hero.’ Times (London, England), 22 August 2008.