History society magazine february 2013
-
Upload
winstanley-college -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
description
Transcript of History society magazine february 2013
-
Winstanley College
History Magazine February 2014 Edition
-
Page 3.Editorial
Page 4.I Could Have Been King
Page 7.Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur?
Page 10.William Wilberforce: One Voice that Spoke for Millions
Page 13.Partisans: The Unsung Heroes of World War Two
Page 17.Edward Heath: Wrong Place, Wrong Time
Page 21The History of Solitary Confinement in the USA
Page 23..The History of Faberge Eggs
Page 25.The Role of Fidel Castro in the Cold War
Page 27..Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King Carolus Rex So Successful?
Page 30.Should We Be Proud of the First World War?
Page 34.Tutankhamun (COMPETITION WINNER!)
Page 37..Yet Another Quirk of Fate (COMPETITION WINNER!)
Page 39..Rwandan Genocide: Inequality Breeds Inequality (COMPETITION WINNER!)
Page 42.Why Was the American Civil Rights Movement So Successful?
Page 45.Frederick Barbarossa: The Man Who Drowned in a Puddle?
Page 48..What Makes History So Interesting
Page 49Jonathan Phillips Visits Winstanley College
Page 51...EXCLUSIVE Interview with Jonathan Phillips
Page 53..Winstanley Colleges Historical Drama
Page 55..Meet the History Society
Page 56...History Society Events
Contents:
Please note that any views or opinions expressed in this magazine are the views of
the author, and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of Winstanley College, or its
History Society
-
2014 is set to be an interesting year for
historians, marking in particular the
centenary of the beginning of the First
World War. This year will also mark one
thousand years since Pope Benedict
VIII recognized and crowned Henry of
Bavaria as King of Germany. Seven
hundred and fifty years since the Sec-
ond Barons' War (an English Civil War)
broke out. One thousand two hundred
years since the Bulgarians laid siege
before Constantinople. Ten years since
the launch of Facebook. Five years
since the Treaty of Lisbon came into
force. As John Gardner so rightly point-
ed out, history never looks like history
when you are living through it.
This edition of the Winstanley College
History Magazine provides a fascinat-
ing selection of articles, ranging from
an analysis of the trials and tribulations
faced by British prime minister Edward
Heath (see page 17), to a thought-
provoking insight into whether Britain
should be proud of its achievements in
the First World War (see page 30).
We are also delighted that this edition
contains three competition winning ar-
ticles written by students from Standish
Community High School. Students en-
tered a competition to have their arti-
cles published, and the standard of the
articles we received was incredible! The
winning articles were: Tutankhamun
by Eoin Bowden (page 34); Just Anoth-
er Quirk of Fate by Rose Mennell,
(page 37); and The Rwandan Geno-
cide: Inequality Breeds Inequality by
Nathaniel Wood, (page 39). Many
thanks to Standish Community High
School for their fantastic contributions,
and congratulations to our competi-
tion winners!
Also in this edition is an EXCLUSIVE in-
terview with historian Jonathan Phillips
(see page 51).
As ever, articles for publication in the
Winstanley History Magazine are al-
ways welcomed and can be on any his-
tory related topic - email your article to
the History Society or speak to a mem-
ber of the editorial team. Many thanks
to those who have written for this edi-
tion.
Enjoy!
Phoebe McGibbon (Editor)
Editorial
History, that excitable and unreliable old lady. - Guy de Maupassant
-
I Could Have
Been King... By Harry Griffiths
If only he hadnt died so early, I could be King of
England Edward The Black Prince, son of King
Edward III of England, is a very distant relative of
mine, and despite his heroic name, has gone under
the radar of many historians. Had he not died a
year before his father, you may not have known
me as a Winstanley College student...
Born at Woodstock Palace in Oxfordshire in June
1330, Edward was Earl of Chester aged 3, Duke of
Cornwall aged 7 (the first English duke), and Prince
of Wales by the time he was 13. He even acted as a
symbolic regent for a spell whilst his father was on
campaign. Whats more, in 1337 he acted as a
prime negotiator with the papacy about the Ed-
wardian War.
In 1361, he married his cousin, Joan The Fair Maid
of Kent, having gained permission from Pope Inno-
cent VI to marry a blood relative. A controversial
marriage, many deemed this a missed opportunity:
marriage to an Englishwoman wasted a chance to
form an alliance with a foreign power. Moreover,
this would be Joans third marriage, having married
Thomas Holland (1st Earl of Kent) & William Mon-
tacute (2nd Earl of Salisbury) previously, and so
such marital history saw many raise concerns about
Edward marrying her.
Edward represented his father in Aquitaine, France,
holding a court with Joan which itself was held in
high esteem, dubbed one of the best at the time.
Having been exiled from the Castile throne by his
brother, Pedro of Castile offered Edward the lord-
ship of Biscay in return for Edwards help in recover-
ing the Castile throne. Edward was successful in the
Battle of Njera, outclassing the combined French
and Castilian forces led by Bertrand du Guesclin,
although Pedro did not pay fully and excused to
yield Biscay alleging lack of consent of its states. In
the same year, 1367, Joan had given birth to a son,
Richard, who was therefore second-in-line to the
English throne.
Edward returned to Aquitaine, where he made him-
self unpopular with the nobility by levying taxes to
pay for his Spanish expedition. They rose in revolt
against him and in 1370 Edward besieged the city of
Limoges. When it fell, 3,000 of its inhabitants were
massacred. A year later, Edward returned to Eng-
land due to ill health.
His death came to him a week before his 46th birth-
-
day, on 8th June 1376 at Westminster Palace. De-
spite requesting to be buried in the crypt of Canter-
bury Cathedral rather than next to the shrine, Ed-
ward was buried on the south side of the shrine of
Thomas Becket behind the quire. His tomb consists
of a bronze effigy beneath a tester depicting the Ho-
ly Trinity, with his heraldic achievements hung over
the tester. Though the achievements have since
been replaced by replicas, the originals remain
nearby. The tester was restored in 2006. A
chapel had been prepared at Canterbury Cathedral
as a chantry for him and his wife Joan, Countess of
Kent. However, this is now the French Protestant
Chapel, but still contains ceiling bosses of her face
and of their coats of arms.
His death meant that he never lay claim to the Eng-
lish throne, as his death preceded that of his father,
King Edward III by a year, and so the Black Princes
son, Richard, became Richard II of England in 1377.
The Black Princes claim to fame was his remarka-
ble military leadership, seeing victory in many a
battle, including his victories over the French at the
Battles of Crcy (aged just 16) and Poitiers. Both of
these enhanced his reputation, and in 1348 he be-
came the first Knight of the Garter, of whose Order
he was one of the founders.
As regards his distinguished title as The Black
Prince, it is believed to have only come into exist-
ence over 150 years after his death. There are two
main reasons for such a title being branded which
are: 1) due to his black armour/shield that he often
sported in battle, or; 2) due to his brutal reputation
as a military warrior. According to Wikipedia, there
is no sound evidence that Edward ever wore black
armour, although John Harvey (without citing a
source) refers to "some rather shadowy evidence
that he was described in French as clad at the battle
of Crecy "en armure noire en fer bruni" in black
armour of burnished steel". Wikipedia further ap-
pears to favour the brutality association, claiming
Edward's brutality in France is also well document-
ed, and David Green believes that this is where the
title has its origins. The French soldier Philippe de
Mzires refers to Edward as the greatest of the
"black boars" those aggressors who had done so
much to disrupt relations within Christendom.
Often associated to The Black Prince is his shield for
peace, (below left), of three ostrich feathers, which
has since inspired the heraldic badge of the Prince
of Wales (below right).
In terms of my relation to Edward, The Black Prince,
my family traced back our family tree to as long ago
as 1500, where a relative of ours, John Owen is
found. His ancestry can be further traced to The
Black Prince via Joans children from her first mar-
riage to Thomas Holland: a marriage existed be-
tween the Holland family and the Owen family of
whom I am related to, and therefore (though far-
fetched and an entire parallel universe away) should
history have fallen in my favour (entirely), I could be
King of England now - I stress, EXTREMELY far-
fetched. Members of my family, including my moth-
er, have visited the tomb of The Black Prince, as
well as found the grave of the relative of whom pro-
vides the link to the Prince himself.
To finish with, the Epitaph on his effigy reads:
Such as thou art, sometime was I.
Such as I am, such shalt thou be.
I thought little on th'our of Death
So long as I enjoyed breath.
But now a wretched captive am I,
Deep in the ground, lo here I lie.
My beauty great, is all quite gone,
My flesh is wasted to the bone.
-
Ab
ove
: a
tim
elin
e o
f th
e lif
e o
f th
e B
lack
Pri
nce
-
By
By Megan Anderton
King Arthur is one of the most famous British
kings in history, despite almost certainly being at
least partially fictional. The legend of the heroic
king of Britain is also mirrored in folklore in
France, Iceland, Hungary, Norway and Italy,
showing just how powerful the legend is. Though
King Arthur himself may be just a legend, can any
truth be found in the legend?
He is said to have lived in the late 5th and early
6th Century, led the British in the defence of Brit-
ain against invading Saxons.
One of the most famous aspects of the legend is
the Knights of the Round Table, where Arthurs
most trusted knights such as Sir Lancelot and Sir
Galahad sat as equals. The round table first ap-
peared in 1155 in the work of the French poet
Maistre Wace. Many places have claimed the
round table as their own, including the round ta-
ble at Winchester Castle. Tree ring analysis of the
round table at Winchester show that it was proba-
bly made around 1290 for a tournament near
Winchester, but although the credibility of the
legend linked to this particular table has been lost,
the legend still remains. In 2010, historians re-
searching the legend of King Arthur announced
that they believed they had found Camelot on the
site of a Roman amphitheatre in Chester. The site
contained what they believed to be the round
table. Rather than being a wooden piece of furni-
ture for the 24 knights, it is a vast, circular stone
structure and would also have had wooden instal-
lations, which would have allowed over 1,000 of
his followers to gather. It is believed that regional
noblemen would have sat in the front row, with
the lower ranks sat on stone benches around the
outside. The most compelling piece of evidence is
the discovery of an execution stone and a possible
wooden memorial to Christian martyrs. In the 6th
Century a Welsh monk called Gildas referred to
the City of Legions with a shrine within. One of
Arthurs main battles is said to have been fought
at the City of Legions, and it is known that there
were two places with this name. One is St Albans,
but the other has remained a mystery. Research-
ers concluded that the discovery of the shrine in
the amphitheatre proved that the second City of
Legions was Chester.
Peter Ackroyd, in the introduction to his retelling
Is There Truth in the Legend of King Arthur?
-
By Harry Griffiths
of Sir Thomas Malorys Le Morte dArthur sug-
gests that there is other truth behind the legend.
Malorys collection of tales was first published in
1485. He was born, therefore, into a time of mass
violence and uncertainty after Richard II was over-
thrown in 1399. The disorder during the reign of
his successor, Henry IV, sets Sir Thomas writing
into a context of a time of suspicion and almost
continual violence which is mirrored in the leg-
ends of King Arthur, most particularly in the con-
flict between King Arthur and his traitorous neph-
ew Mordred. It is interesting that Malory, like
many other writers of the Arthurian legends, plac-
es Arthur within his own time.
King Arthur is not mentioned in early English
chronicles, but is referenced in Welsh chronicles.
This is good evidence for the original King Arthur
being a leader of the Britons. Between the years
500-550AD, the Britons appeared to successfully
hold back the Saxon advance, but were later
pushed back in to Wales and Cornwall. The land
taken by the Saxons eventually became known as
England, and they referred to the people in Wales
as Welsh, which comes from the Saxon word
weala meaning foreigner. This could be an ex-
planation as why Arthur as King of the Britons is
not mentioned in early English chronicles, as the
Saxons were unlikely to record the exploits of a
king who was successful at holding them back.
Indeed, the earliest reliable reference to King Ar-
thur in the Historia Brittonum, written by a
Welsh monk called Nennius around 830AD, refers
to Arthur not as a King but as a warrior, making it
possible that the legend has a factual basis on a
warrior leader the Britons defence.
Other theories of the origins of the legend of the
once and future King have been explored by his-
torians through the use of archaeology. It is little
to find much hard evidence during the supposed
era of King Arthur (367-734 AD), particularly after
Britain was Christianised in the 4th and 5th Centu-
ries and therefore grave goods were no longer
used. It was also uncommon for a tombstone to
be used, and it therefore becomes difficult for ar-
chaeologists to verify sites like Cadbury Hill-fort,
Glastonbury Abbey and Tintagelas the grave or
living place of Arthur, however, combined with
the literature surrounding King Arthur it is possi-
ble to track down plausible origins for the legend.
One man who has been associated with the leg-
end of King Arthur is Riothamus, the King of the
Britons. The name Riothamus can be roughly
translated as Supreme King, which leaves room
for speculation that Arthur or Artorius could have
been given as his British name, as it was common
at the time for people to have two names. There
are many similarities between the recorded life of
Rigothamus and Geoffrey of Monmouths account
of Arthurs life in History of the Kings of Britain ,
for example;
Riothamus led an army of Britons in to Gaul, and
like Arthur, was the only British King to do so.
Riothamus was betrayed by one of his deputies,
who cooperated with their barbarian enemies,
much like Arthur, who is betrayed by his nephew
Mordred.
Riothamus disappears from history after a fatal
battle, and has no recorded death. His last known
position was near the Burgundian town of Avallon,
which is very possibly the inspiration for the island
of Avalon, where Arthur was taken after he was
mortally wounded by Mordred in their final battle.
However, the fact remains that this is largely spec-
ulation, and there are many flaws in the theory,
for example, Riothamus died in 470AD, placing
him outside the timeframe of the late 5th Century
as in Nennius writings. Also, in Geoffrey of Mon-
mouths writings Arthur leads his armies against
Rome, but Riothamus and the Romans were allies.
However it is not uncommon for heroic stories to
change the enemies to suit changing political and
social attitudes, and also Geoffrey of Monmouth
was writing much later, in 1136.
In conclusion, it still remains likely that the stories
of King Arthur, Merlin, and the Knights of the
-
By Harry Griffiths
Round Table are mostly fiction; however histori-
ans do seem to have found a very plausible inspi-
ration for the legend in Riothamus. It is likely that
there are many elements of truth hidden within
the stories of chivalry and honour, of epic battles
and of magic. Perhaps Riothamus, despite proba-
bly not having a magician for a guardian or a drag-
on for a pet, perhaps Riothamus was so inspira-
tional himself that people down the ages felt the
need to honour him in their epic tales and leg-
ends. King Arthur continued to inspire a nation, so
much so that future kings of England would claim
that their ancestry could be traced back to Arthur
in order to show their legitimacy. The continued
influence of the legend shows just how powerful a
figure Arthur was, whether he was real or not.
-
William Wilberforce: One Voice That Spoke for Millions
By Phoebe McGibbon
At four oclock am on February 24th 1807, the Sec-
retary of State for Foreign Affairs, Lord Howick,
was asked by the speaker to move the second
reading of the Slave Trade Abolition Bill. For twen-
ty years, the slave trade had been debated by the
commons, and bills in favour of its abolition had
been abandoned and defeated time and again. But
this night, something was different. The Slave
Trade Abolition Bill was passed in the Commons by
a majority of 283 Ayes to just 16 Noes, having al-
ready been passed by the House of Lords. This Bill
would change the practises of the British Empire:
the capture, transportation and sale of enslaved
Africans was from this moment illegal. The House
of Commons rose to its feet in applause that night,
as it has done on few occasions in history. The
members cheered, saluted, and paid tributes to a
small, hunched figure, who sat, overcome with
emotion. His name was William Wilberforce.
Wilberforce was born in Hull, in 1759, the son of a
wealthy merchant who traded with Russia and the
Baltic States. Following his fathers death in 1768,
Wilberforce was sent by his struggling mother to
live with an aunt and uncle for three years. Re-
turning in 1771, he was discovered to be of excep-
tional intelligence; intellectual beyond his years. In
October 1776, Wilberforce earned a place to study
at St John's College, Cambridge. Following the
deaths of his grandfather and uncle in 1776 and
1777, he inherited a considerable wealth, and thus
had little need or incentive to devote himself fully
to his studies. He became absorbed in the Univer-
sitys social life, enjoying activities such as gam-
bling, cards and drinking. Entertaining, compas-
sionate, and a charming conversationalist, Wilber-
force soon became popular. He befriended in par-
ticular the studious William Pitt the Younger, who
was to become an outstanding Prime Minister in
his later life. In spite of engaging rather enthusias-
tically in some of the less academic aspects of stu-
dent life, Wilberforce achieved a Batchelor of Arts
Degree in 1781. He embarked upon a career in
politics, becoming MP for Yorkshire in 1784.
However, in 1784, Wilberforces life changed ra-
ther dramatically. He was travelling on the conti-
nent when he met with an old school tutor, a de-
vout Christian. The influence of his old tutor drew
Wilberforces interest to the Christian faith. He
read A Serious Call to a Devout and Holy Life by
William Law.
-
The book made him question his own lack of faith,
and stirred a deep change within him. Wilberforce
found himself being drawn to the Christian faith
but was unsure as to whether he could serve both
God, and his country in parliament. He sought the
advice of a dear friend, John Newton, a retired
slave ship captain who by this point recognised the
horrors of the slave trade. Newton advised Wilber-
force that God had intended him to go into poli-
tics, and had work for him there; that his life had
purpose and his task now was to discover that pur-
pose. Newton inspired Wilberforce to pursue both
a political career and a devotion to God, believing
that the two were intertwineable. This marked a
turning point in Wilberforces political career. John
Newton is best known for his famous hymn,
Amazing Grace, the lyrics of which reflect his de-
votion to God, and remorse at his own involve-
ment in the slave trade:
Amazing grace! How sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me!
I once was lost, but now am found;
Was blind, but now I see.
'Twas grace that taught my heart to fear,
And grace my fears relieved;
How precious did that grace appear
The hour I first believed.
Through many dangers, toils and snares,
I have already come;
'Tis grace hath brought me safe thus far,
And grace will lead me home.
Wilberforce had to this point, proved himself to be
an intellectual, dynamic character. It was clear to
many that he and his close friend Pitt were to be
the celebrities of British politics in the years to
come. Witty, young, and passionate, Wilberforces
eloquence and zeal made him one of the most
commanding debaters in the House of Commons,
even in its greatest age of eloquence. The Quak-
ers, a Christian movement of long-standing aboli-
tionists, formed an Abolition Committee in 1787,
along with other anti-Slave Trade campaigners.
However, they needed a figurehead within the
House of Commons, to bring about an "Inquiry in-
to the Slave Trade". It seemed that Newton had
not been incorrect in telling Wilberforce that God
had a purpose for him. The Quakers believed that
Wilberforce was the man they needed. Wilber-
force had found his cause. He and his friend Pitt,
who was by this point Prime Minister, shared a
famous conversation under an oak tree on his
country estate, in which Pitt advised Wilberforce
to take up the cause.
A young man named Thomas Clarkson, a founding
member of the Abolition Committee set about
travelling the United Kingdom, gathering infor-
mation on the Slave Trade. Wilberforce presented
the horrors that Clarkson had discovered, in his
first ardent and deeply moving speech to Parlia-
ment. Having exposed the realities of the trade,
Wilberforce famously declared to the law-makers
Having heard all of this you may choose to look
the other way but you can never again say that
you did not know.
Within three days of Wilberforces speech, parlia-
ment resolved that it would eventually ensure the
abolition of the Slave Trade. However, the opposi-
tion was fierce: much of Britains wealth was de-
pendent on the continuation of the trade, and its
defenders were every bit as zealous as the aboli-
tionists. Wilberforce was physically assaulted, and
at times had to travel with personal security. The
promise of gradual abolition began to look more
and more like empty words. But Wilberforces be-
lief in his cause was unshakeable.
The Abolitionists were a dynamic movement, and
consistently brought their cause to public atten-
tion. Appealing to the humanity and compassion
of the public, Wilberforce and his movement orga-
nized sugar boycotts, petitions, and at one point a
march on the prime minister's office. Wilberforces
battle for the abolition of the slave trade marked a
-
new era of public pressure campaigns. The public
response was positive; it seemed that a large pro-
portion of the population now recognised the bar-
barity of the trade. Petitions were signed by mil-
lions, and by 1796 the Abolitionists believed they
had sufficient support in Parliament to succeed.
However, the internal politics of the House of
Commons complicated matters. The Abolitionists
parliamentary opponents gave free opera tickets
to some of those who were intending to vote in
support of the bill, for the night of the vote. The
result was that the Bill was defeated in the Com-
mons by 4 votes.
Wilberforce was, for the time being, defeated. He
suffered a nervous breakdown and a collapse of
his health.
His old friend John Newton, however, offered in-
spiration and spiritual reinvigoration when Wilber-
force needed it most. Comparing Wilberforces
situation to the Biblical tale of Daniel in the Lions
Den, Newton explained to Wilberforce that "the
God whom you serve continually is able to pre-
serve and deliver you, he will see you through."
It seemed that this reinvigoration was precisely
what Wilberforce needed. Refreshed, he returned
to the political battlefield.
From this point on, Wilberforces proposed Aboli-
tion Bill was brought before the Commons each
year. Failed bill after failed bill did not deter his
passion, or utter devotion to his cause.
On the 23rd February 1807, the Abolition of the
Slave Trade Bill was once again debated in Parlia-
ment. After years of resilience and efforts, when
Wilberforce saw that the most of the speeches
given in the debate were in favour of the Bill, he
realised that the Bill was going to be passed. Wil-
berforce, by this point in ill health and a mere
shadow of the young man who first adopted the
cause, bowed his head and wept.
Wilberforces battle had taken twenty long years.
His dear friend Pitt had passed away in 1806, leav-
ing Wilberforce more determined than ever to
fight for the cause in which they had so fervently
believed together.
William Wilberforce passed away on 29th July
1933, poignantly just two days after hearing that a
second Bill which would abolish slavery through-
out the rest of Britains colonies would be passed
through parliament. Wilberforce is buried in West-
minster Abbey, close to William Pitt the Younger.
His legacy is cherished, and he is remembered as a
man whose ability, faith, humanity and determi-
nation changed the lives of millions across the
globe, and brought about the end of the Slave
Trade throughout the British Empire. Respected in
the end even by those who strongly disagreed
with him; Wilberforces achievements are perhaps
best reflected in his own words: We are too
young to realize that certain things are impossi-
ble... So we will do them anyway.
-
Partisans: The Unsung
Heroes of World War Two
By Daniel Foster
When we think of those involved in World
War 2, we immediately think about the
leaders, soldiers and civilians on the home
front, yet there is a 4th group who has
members from all these groups and in my
opinion had one of the most pivotal contri-
bution. In this article I will be explaining
how ordinary plain clothed people were
able to deal serve blows to the most of ad-
vanced and powerful army at the time.
A partisan is a member of an irregular mili-
tary force formed to oppose control of an
area by a foreign power or by an army of oc-
cupation by some kind of insurgent activity.
Unlike the other movements such as the
Free French Forces they did not have as
strong a structure as a normal army and op-
erated on much more on a local level and
would only receive resources by raiding
stockpiles, and air drops from other coun-
tries. Partisans were a communal effort and
almost any kind of resistance weather its
the shopkeeper tampering with restrictions
to get more food to the people or taking to
the street barricades in armed resistance
and whilst all occupied nations had partisan
groups there are some main.
The French resistance or as known in some
rural areas the Marquis, Its suggested
there were 300,000 members with most be-
ing members of left wing politics there were
members from all walks of social class and
professions but also, Women, Jews escaping
persecution as well as volunteers who fled
from Poland, Spain and Italy. Initially there
was little resistance in France as the South-
ern part (Vichy France) was left as a Nazi
-
puppet and seen to be safe to live in howev-
er soon the persecution and brutality began
after being made to pay taxes for the upkeep
of 300,000 German soldiers resistance began
at first it was passive. Coal miners going on
strike and similar protests shortly it lead to
arm conflict with many hit and run raids
crippling enemy supply lines. Through the
war the resistance was greatly helped by the
British Secret executive orders (SOE) that al-
most nightly were conducted high risk air
drops containing supplies and agents to help
train and co-ordinate attacks. By 1943 their
threat was so serve that not only had re-
serve German forces been sent but the Vichy
government created the Milice (Militia loyal
to the Nazis) because these men were re-
cruited from the same areas some partisans
came from, many knew where their hideouts
were and ultimately betrayed their country-
men. However their finest hour came in
1944 when months prior to D-Day they be-
gan destroying enemy locations and
transport routes but also mapped out the
remaining concentrations to be sent to allied
aircraft for bombing raids. Finally in 1944 the
citizens of Paris who had been preparing for
4 years had finally sensed their moment to
strike and launched a full uprising in Paris,
after the support of the 2nd Free French ar-
moured division and the loss of 1,000 opera-
tives Paris was liberated and respect for the
partisans cemented.
Similarly is perhaps the best organized
Group yet unfortunately due to Politics the
most ignored , The Polish Home army, set up
almost immediately after the surrender of
Poland.The original members were experi-
enced soldiers and officers who refused to
surrender and went into hiding, yet soon like
the French, all members of society had
joined the ranks. The poles went for a differ-
ent approach in their actions as all though
they did carry out some missions in the
countryside the concentrated on gathering
resources for an eventual uprising centred in
the capital, Warsaw the Poles quickly learnt
they could not rely on air drops and cap-
tured enemy supplies and so by using the
vast amount of skilled engineers they began
producing their own weapons including an
Armoured car called Kubu. The Warsaw ar-
my was referred to as the underground state
as in the sewers and cellars entire settle-
ments began complete with markets, hospi-
tals workshops and schools to educate chil-
dren whose education was disrupted by the
war. In a way Polands Home army has an el-
ement of Romance, amongst its ranks who
fought were many, writers, artists and other
leading cultural figures, yet it was full of
young teenagers determined to after the
war rebuild their democratic capitalist state
and experience a time of peace and prosper-
ity that they had never known. For years
they too had waited but in August 1944 they
saw their chance, soviet offensives had
pushed the Germans back in Poland and
they had reached the banks of the Vistula
river by Warsaw, citizens could hear the
sound of battle and felt the time was now.
A broadcast was made on the Underground
radio and the uprising began on August 1st
Initially the 20,000 insurgent met great suc-
-
cess and one unit captured a German tank
which then supported a liberation of a con-
centration camp resulting in hundreds of
Jews to immediately join the struggle. Unfor-
tunately Due to historic tensions Russian aid
never came and Stalin forbid the allies drop-
ping in supplies saying the Home army was
full of Capitalist nationalists that would be
just as bad as the Nazis. The home army
fought on against impossible odds showing
the true resilience of Partisans and after Two
months the Germans had recaptured War-
saw with 85% of the city destroyed and
150,000-200,000 civilians killed in reprisals.
The Final Group is without question the larg-
est with some estimates suggesting half a
million members but also proves a point that
one of the Germans greatest strengths was
also a crucial weakness, When Blitzkrieg had
swept through Russia vast amounts of sol-
diers and civilians had managed to escape
and settle in the vast woodlands of Soviet
republics, especially Belorussia. The soviet
High command thought partisans could be
an effective weapon and began to send in
political commissars to act as leaders for
units however they received little training,
no radios and no co-ordination between oth-
er units, as a result in 1941 2,800 units were
created but in 1942 only 270 survived. In
1942 a Partisan headquarters was set up
which started to send in experts in Guerrilla
warfare who also supplied radios, a final
measure was to include trained medical and
craftsman to support the partisan settle-
ments. However due to the mass refugees
when the Germans found the locations the
partisans were often unable to evacuate and
have to fight to the death. However it was
sabotage they excelled in one incident a sin-
gle saboteur was able to destroy an entire
rail junction filled with 120 supply wagons
and 8 tanks. Further proof is during the
battle of Kursk, many German reinforce-
ments being brought in by rail were being
delayed due to sabotage, further delays oc-
curred when repairing the lines would often
lead to ambushes meaning many German
units suffered casualties hundreds of miles
behind the front.
Perhaps more importantly if you look at the
battle of Kursk which was a major a turning
point on the Eastern front at some point
there was real deadlocks which if all the Ger-
mans had been able to gather all reinforce-
ments un-delayed could have been
breached. The Germans tried to destroy a
large enclave in Belorussia, they deployed
60,000 men, 137 tanks, 236 guns, 70 aircraft
and 2 armoured trains, the partisans who
numbered 60,000 caught word and 2,000
local partisans were ordered to help build a
1,000 meter airstrip in hilly marsh made out
of logs. The completion aloud many wound-
ed and vulnerable civilians to flee. The survi-
vors remained behind to fight and only
15,000 survived. When the areas were liber-
ated by the Russian army many partisans
simply signed up to be regular soldiers.
At first glance its easy to ignore the parti-
sans achievement as many of the mission
were petty sabotage resulting in some sup-
plies destroyed and a handful of enemy sol-
diers killed yet when you take into consider-
-
ation these missions were repeated 1,000s
of times throughout Europe then it becomes
easy to understand how the Germans
suffered 500,000casualties In Belorussia
alone through to Partisan activities.
Secondly the Passive resistance from forced
labourers is perhaps the most important on
paper workers tampering with weapons and
munitions in a discreet manner wouldnt
cause the overseer to pay much attention
but when a soldier receives a rifle on the
front line that doesnt fire properly hes not
likely to last long.
In conclusion Partisans may not have won
major battles and the Leaders arent as well
known as men like Montgomery and Rom-
mel but they caused Psychological harm on
the soldiers stationed in their areas con-
stantly fearing an ambush. The Germans cre-
ated an SS division (normally seen as the
most elite and fanatical German soldiers) 4th
SS Polizei Panzergrenadier Division compris-
ing of 10, 00-15,000 soldiers supported by
tanks and artillery just to fight civilians
armed with rifles in the machine guns.
On the other hand some partisan forces
such as the Yugoslavian became virtual ar-
mies as they were the only ones to have an
air force and a navy in which small patrol
boats raided German and Italian ports.
In conclusion whilst partisans are not a part
of our culture and heritage, it is important
their stories be remembered, as without
them Mussolini may have been able to es-
cape. Above all, partisans demonstrate
throughout history that there will always be
those who are prepared to stand up to evil.
-
Edward Heath: Wrong Place,
Wrong Time.
Edward Heath is too often criticised by not
just the left of the political spectrum, but
by his own party for his supposed failings
during his premiership between June 1970
and February 1974. When studying history,
it is too easy to criticise individuals for their
actions and choices without taking in to ac-
count the full impact of the context and
conditions in which these decisions were
taken. The Conservative loss of the 1974
election is a prime example of where our
often unforgiving judgement clouds reality
and ensures that in this case, we forget the
circumstances in which Labours Harold
Wilson had left Heath, as well as the poor
foreign and domestic affairs in the light of
which, Heaths reputation as a leader and a
politician would be torn to pieces.
Wilson's government of 1964 to 1970 left
an array of issues, mainly with the trade
unions, which meant that Edward Heath's
time as Prime Minister would be plagued
with troubles. It is true also that these is-
sues overshadowed the personal failings of
Heath between 1970 and 1974. However,
the difficult legacy on its own was not
enough to topple Heath's government in
1974. In fact, external circumstances which
then provoked the trade unionists to cause
further problems had just as much impact
as the difficult legacy of Wilson's time in
power. Heath's government therefore
would be remembered as a victim of poor
industrial relations caused by the previous
government as well as of the external cir-
cumstances in which these problems would
then amplify.
The difficult legacy left behind by the La-
bour government of 1964 to 1970 was
caused to a large extent by Wilson himself.
In creating the Department for Economic
Affairs, or DEA, in 1966, he had set up two
By Tom Davies
-
long-term rivals against each other. George
Brown would oversee the new depart-
ment's running, which would in turn relieve
the Treasury, run by the chancellor James
Callaghan, of around half of their responsi-
bilities. Wilson argued that this would im-
prove the economic situation in Britain; it
would turn out to be a bitter failure, largely
due to infighting between Brown and Calla-
ghan. This resulted in poor management of
Britain's economy, which would be charac-
terised by rising unemployment, growing
inflation and harsh wage controls. Unem-
ployment by 1970 had reached 628,000 -
and this would continue to rise until it
reached 1 million during Heath's term as
Prime Minister. This milestone of 1 million
is key to why Heath lost the 1974 election
because it symbolised the first time since
the war that Britain was not running full
employment. It is therefore very important
to understand that Wilson's difficult eco-
nomic legacy placed Heath's government in
a troublesome situation, which would be
nearly impossible to shake before the elec-
tion of 1974.
However, the Heath administration was tar-
nished from the beginning by a much more
pressing issue, which would affect the elec-
torate much more than unemployment fig-
ures did at the time. This problem was that
of poor industrial relations left by the Wil-
son government. Unemployment, of
course, would catalyse this issue of bad re-
lations with the trade unions, but therefore
isn't the most important reason why Heath
would lose the 1974 election. The major
event of the Wilson government which
would put relations with the Unions at risk
was the White Paper 'In Place of Strife' in
1969. The imposition of such legislation
would mean that trade unions would be
required to hold a ballot and a 28-day con-
ciliatory, or 'cooling-off', period before any
strike action could take place, else it would
be deemed illegal. The proposition proved
most unpopular with the unions, who be-
lieved that their power would diminish as a
result of the legislation. The policy was
abandoned when 50 Labour MPs threat-
ened to rebel. Labour's failure to deal with
the growing power of the unions when the
problems were still in their first stages
meant that Heath's government would be
condemned upon their introduction of the
Industrial Relations in 1971, which was fol-
lowed by a wave of strikes and was a major
factor in the outcome of the 1974 election.
It is true that Heath did not possess all the
qualities that were expected of a Prime
Minister, especially in the lack of charisma
he seemed to have compared with Harold
Wilson. By 1974, it seemed as though
Heath was losing touch with the voting
public; his campaign for the election had
the tag-line "Who Governs?" - which was a
reference to the chaos that the trade un-
ions were causing as a result of their ri-
oting. However, it seemed that he was mis-
taken, and the electorate would remind
him that it was they who governed the
country, by voting the Tories out. As Antho-
ny Seldon argues, "had he been a better
more inspiring communicator to the coun-
-
try and to his own party, Heath might have
made more headway in the unpropitious
circumstances". Though this statement ap-
pears to support the argument that Heath's
personal failings were the main reason for
the 1974 election loss, it is important not to
underestimate the significance of the
"unpropitious circumstances" in which
Heath found himself in. Therefore, Heath's
personal failings certainly had much less of
an impact in the general election of 1974
than external circumstances or the poor in-
dustrial relations.
In terms of external circumstances, Heath is
often thought of as the least lucky Prime
Minister in modern British history. Just as
the problems with the trade unions intensi-
fied, the third Arab-Israeli war erupted in
the Middle East. The Arabian members of
OPEC halted exports to Western countries,
whom they believed were in support of Is-
rael. The impact on Britain was devastating.
The balance of payments deficit rose to
1bn, the value of sterling dropped from $2
to $1.57 and interest rates hit 15%. The
electorate saw a Prime Minister who failed
to deal with these problems and the NUM
took full advantage of this by demanding a
pay rise in November 1973. With the impo-
sition of the three-day week, many argue
that Heath sealed his fate in the forthcom-
ing election, but the unions were holding
the country to ransom, and Heath faced a
tough decision; he would either lose credi-
bility and give in to the miners' demands,
or try to face them down. With hindsight, it
is easy to say that he made the wrong deci-
sion, but at the time, the choice was not so
clear cut. Moreover, the devaluation of the
pound in 1967 had a knock-on effect when
the currency was again lowered in value as
a result of the oil crisis; a weak pound
makes imports more expensive, so the im-
pact was doubled because Wilson's govern-
ment had left it too late to devalue the
pound in the first place. Had Wilson deval-
ued the pound earlier, the benefits of this
action would have been much more devel-
oped by the time that the oil crisis came
about, and it would have had much less of
an impact on Britain's economy. The dra-
matic ramifications of the Yom Kippur war
on Britain's economy made worse the al-
ready poor outlook of Heath's government.
Thus it was external circumstances, com-
bined with the sorry economic inheritance
from Wilson's time in power and the period
of poor industrial relations, which were
predominantly to blame for the result of
the 1974 election.
Troubles in Northern Ireland are another
problem which Heath faced over which he
had little control. After 'Bloody Sunday',
Heath suspended the Parliament of North-
ern Ireland and imposed direct rule from
Westminster. Heath was unable to do much
more; after the events of the aforemen-
tioned Sunday, the British public were
shocked and embarrassed that such an
event could occur on their soil, so close to
home. The crisis had a big impact on
Heath's image, as many saw him as incapa-
ble of bringing about a sensible democratic
solution to the sectarian violence. In fact,
-
he did offer a sensible conclusion - but it
was one which involved a certain, unthinka-
ble (at the time) level of co-operation be-
tween unionists and Catholic politicians. As
Heath himself later stated, "Ultimately it
was the people of Northern Ireland them-
selves who threw away the best chance of
peace in the blood-stained history of the
six counties." Yet again, it appears to be the
external circumstances in which Heath's
government found itself in that would en-
sure its fate in the general election of 1974.
There is a recurring theme throughout
Heath's time as Prime Minister, and it is
that external events, that is to say those
over which he had no control, would pre-
sent themselves at unfortunate times, and
that they would be amplified by the diffi-
cult legacy which Wilson left, most im-
portantly with regards to industrial rela-
tions. The legacy of Wilson's problems with
the unions served as a catalyst for the is-
sues Heath faced after the Industrial Rela-
tions Act of 1971 and in the latter part of
1973. Quite simply, Heath was, as Marr
puts it, "ruling at a time when public sym-
pathy was more with the unions than with
the government". Heath's time in power
was stained by conflict with the trade un-
ions which stemmed from Wilson's initial
poor handling and was worsened by exter-
nal circumstances. This combination ulti-
mately led to the downfall of the Conserva-
tive government in 1974. Of course, it must
be noted that Heath's personal failings did
nothing to aid his chances, but they were
by no means enough to secure a defeat in
the 1974 election as a standalone factor.
We make judgements about the past to
best reflect our views in the present, and to
learn from the mistakes that others have
made in order that we do not make them
again. But it is important not to make
judgements about people and events with-
out fully understanding the complexities
surrounding them, otherwise we risk advo-
cating beliefs that are not our own and we
remain ignorant of the truth.
Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing.
-
The practice of solitary confinement first found its
place in medieval monasteries, where it was used
to punish disobedient monks. But made its way
over to the US after the Revolution with its most
prominent advocate being Benjamin Rush of Phila-
delphia who also happened to be a signatory on
the Declaration of Independence and was widely
regarded as Americas foremost physician. During
this time there was a push from many social critics
to develop a fairer criminal justice system, more fit
for a democratic republic. Rush objected to capital
punishment, corporal punishment and unruly jails
and published and essay in 1787 titled An Enquiry
Into the Effects of Public Punishments Upon Crimi-
nals, and Upon Society. In the essay he sought to
criticise punishments that did little to rehabilitate
the criminal, and endorsed the creation of a new
kind of prison; one that would be grounded on the
Quaker principle of inner light. It was thought that
if prisoners were isolated with only a Bible to keep
them company, they would soon see the error of
their ways, pray for forgiveness and become
changed men. "A whipping post, nay even a gibbet
are all light punishments compared with letting a
man's conscience loose upon him in solitude,"
Rush wrote.
Each prisoner would be forced to remain in his cell
at all times, however they would be allowed a
brief daily exercise period held in an individual pen
adjoining each cell. Meals were eaten in cells and
when the prisoners were allowed to leave their
cells they werent allowed to interact with other
prisoners and had to wear hoods to protect their
anonymity. Numbers were used instead of names
to identify prisoners and silence was maintained at
all times. On average, inmates spend two to four
years along in their cells, underneath a single
round skylight, known in the prison as the eye of
God. All of this was to finally be put into practice
in 1821 when reformers convinced the Pennsylva-
nia legislature to approve funding for Eastern
State Penitentiary.
Despite their well-intentioned ideas, however,
many of the men placed in these new prisons
went insane. A Supreme Court opinion on the
effects of solitary confinement on inmates housed
in Philadelphia Justice Samuel Freeman Miller
found, "A considerable number of the prisoners
fell, after even a short confinement, into a semi-
The History of
Solitary Confinement
in the USA
By Georgia Sampson
-
-fatuous condition, from which it was next to im-
possible to arouse them, and others became vio-
lently insane; others still, committed suicide; while
those who stood the ordeal better were not gen-
erally reformed, and in most cases did not recover
sufficient mental activity to be of any subsequent
service to the community."
Upon travelling to Philadelphia in 1810, Charles
Dickens visited the famed Philadelphian Peniten-
tiary. During this time, he wrote of his experience.
The system here is rigid, strict, and hopeless soli-
tary confinement. I believe it, in its effects, to be
cruel and wrong. In its intention, I am well con-
vinced that it is kind, humane, and meant for
reformation; but I am persuaded that those who
devised this system of Prison Discipline, and those
benevolent gentlemen who carry it into execution,
do not know what it is that they are doing. I be-
lieve that very few men are capable of estimating
the immense amount of torture and agony which
this dreadful punishment, prolonged for years, in-
flicts upon the sufferers; and in guessing at it my-
self, and in reasoning from what I have seen
written upon their faces, and what to my certain
knowledge they feel within, I am only the more
convinced that there is a depth of terrible endur-
ance in it which none but the sufferers themselves
can fathom, and which no man has a right to inflict
upon his fellow-creature. I hold this slow and daily
tampering with the mysteries of the brain, to be
immeasurably worse than any torture of the body:
and because its ghastly signs and tokens are not so
palpable to the eye and sense of touch as scars
upon the flesh; because its wounds are not upon
the surface, and it extorts few cries that human
ears can hear; therefore I the more denounce it, as
a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is
not roused up to stay. I hesitated once, debating
with myself, whether, if I had the power of saying
'Yes' or 'No,' I would allow it to be tried in certain
cases, where the terms of imprisonment were
short; but now, I solemnly declare, that with no
rewards or honours could I walk a happy man be-
neath the open sky by day, or lie me down upon
my bed at night, with the consciousness that one
human creature, for any length of time, no matter
what, lay suffering this unknown punishment in his
silent cell, and I the cause, or I consenting to it in
the least degree. (Dickens, 1842, p. 81)
In 1913, the solitary system in Philadelphia peni-
tentiary was officially abandoned although it had
been declining in use before that point. Instead,
solitary confinement became a short-term punish-
ment for misbehaving prisoners rather than the
prison's standard operating procedure.
Still, the use of solitary confinement goes on
worldwide as well as US prisons thanks to the rise
in the famed Supermax prison. Despite having
been abandoned the practice is back up and run-
ning in these prisons. The famed Supermax Pelican
Bay is one institution that uses the practice as part
and parcel of its everyday procedure, with the SHU
(Special Housing Unit) or the Hole as it is re-
ferred to by inmates the hub of the practice. Dr.
Stuart Grassian, a Harvard Medical School psychia-
trist concluded that the SHU drives prisoners in-
sane, and estimates that one-third of all SHU in-
mates are psychotic. He writes of what he calls
"the SHU syndrome," the symptoms of which in-
clude self-mutilation and throwing excrement.
Estimates on the number of prisoners placed in
solitary confinement are hard to come by due to
the fact that many prisons simply choose not to
make the data available and some decide to not
even keep records of the data altogether.
Attempts to reach any figure are therefore imper-
fect based on both the lack of consensus on defini-
tions well as counting procedures in the different
States.
But one thing for certain is that this awful practice
is unfortunately not confined to the past yet.
-
By Heather Nelson
In the 18th century, for Russian Orthodox
Christians, Easter was the most important
event of the year, especially for Russian
royalty.
In 1842, Gustav Faberge established a firm
that produced exquisite pieces of art; the
most famous was the Faberge Egg.
Five years later, Gustav Faberge retired at
only 46, and took his family to Dresden
where his son Carl Faberge, would learn
how to become the perfect craftsman to
continue the Faberge legacy.
In 1872, when Carl was just 26, he took
over his Fathers business in St Petersburg
injecting his creativity into the company. He
claimed that expensive things interest me
little if the value is merely in so many dia-
monds of pearls.
In 1882, Carl gained the attention of the
Imperial Family, and was invited to an exhi-
bition in Moscow, where he was given per-
mission to incorporate the jewellery at the
exhibition into modern objects this is
when he came up with the idea of the
Faberge Egg.
The Tsar at the time was Alexander III, who
had taken the throne after his father Alex-
ander II was assassinated in March 1881.
His fathers death authenticated that the
autocracy was not popular with Russia;
when the Tsar was on his way back from a
ceremony, a bomb was thrown under his
carriage, but did not harm him. Thus, a sec-
ond bomb was thrown, ripping his stomach
open. Miraculously, he was able to make it
to the palace to die there, with his family
around his deathbed.
Alexander III was now Tsar and his new re-
History Of Faberge Eggs
-
forms centred all power on himself, iso-
lating him from the people. After his fa-
thers assassination, his moved his family to
Gatchina Palace, a few miles away from St
Petersburg. Despite the palace having over
900 rooms, the palace itself was like a pris-
on it was permanently surrounding by
guards.
When Easter arrived, the royal family
would receive eggs as gifts but shockingly,
the eggs were from terrorists threatening
to blow up the palace by embedding
bombs into the eggs. This is when the first
Faberge Egg was made.
They first became a symbol of royalty when
in 1885 Tsar Alexander III gave his Tsarina,
Marie Federovona, a white enamelled egg,
about two and a half inches high to cele-
brate the Holy Week, distracting his wife
away from the threat of the revolutionar-
ies.
The gift was, of course, a Faberge Egg, and
cost 4, 151 roubles (about 28,000 now)
which surprisingly was not that expensive
compared to the Tsars nine million roubles
income (70 million).
It is unsurprising that two decades later
there would be an uprising which would
dismantle the Tsarist autocracy forever
the Russian Revolution of 1905.
Referring back to my earlier point, the
Faberge Egg that the Tsarina received es-
tablished Faberge as the court supplier. The
Egg itself opened to reveal a golden yolk,
and within it contained a golden hen a
diamond miniature of the Imperial crown
with a ruby pendant on it.
Faberge Eggs would be required each year
for the Tsar to give to his Tsarina the Rus-
sian Orthodox Easter Festival. It became a
tradition each egg was specially made,
the first Hen egg reminded Maria of her
childhood, and therefore, each egg pro-
duced after that would be personal to the
Tsarina.
However, after the Revolution of 1905, the
Faberge Egg family left Russia. Today, a to-
tal of 50 eggs have been produced but only
42 have survived. 2 were lost during the
Revolution. The Faberge trademark has
been sold several times, recreating the fa-
mous Eggs.
Malcolm Forbes, the son of the creator of
Forbes Magazine, holds twelve of the Eggs.
The others are placed in Museums world-
wide, such as in St Petersburg and Mary-
land, America.
Faberge Eggs gained their popularity and
prestige through the autocracy of Russia.
The last egg was made in 1916, when the
war began and marked the end of Faberge
productions, but led to a lasting legacy, and
even today the Eggs are considered exquis-
ite pieces of art that represent the downfall
of the autocracy.
-
By Sally Dickens
Fidel Castro, born in 1929 in Cuba, was a success-
ful ambitious student who studied Law at the Uni-
versity of Havana. He had a powerful mind-set and
had intended to run for election which was sched-
uled for 1952. However, with General Fulgencio
Batista overthrowing the government and creating
a right-wing state with himself as the dictator, Cu-
ba was then ultimately fascist-inspired; with the
poor being treated terribly and Americas rich us-
ing Cuba as their playground- they would go to
Cuba to gamble and live the good life.
Castros beliefs were opposite to that of Batistas
Castro rejected democracy and had strong com-
munist beliefs this opposition to Batista led to
Castro and his brother Ral leading a rising against
Batista in 1953. However, this was unsuccessful
and Castro was sentenced to 15 years in prison.
He was released and fled to Mexico, where he met
with the (some say) icon that is Che Guevara. In
1956, Castro and Guevara started the 26th of July
movement, in which they used guerrilla warfare
against the government. Two years later in 1958,
Castro launched a full scale attack in which Batista
was forced to flee Cuba. In 1959 Castro became
Prime Minister of Cuba and announced it Com-
munist the poor were thankful, however most
Cubans fled, primarily to the US). The US went
from having good relations with Cuba to becoming
hostile to the point where they imposed eco-
nomic sanctions on Cuba in 1960. The US opposed
Cuba as they had become what they most feared
Communist!
The US feared the domino theory they believed
that once one country became communist, every-
one else would follow. Their greatest fear was that
communist Russia would ultimately take over the
world. This opposition of Communism versus the
rest of the world stated the 46 year long Cold War
between the US and Russia. Although these pow-
ers were never in direct physical conflict, they did
oppose each other in ways such as the Vietnam
War and through others, such as Fidel Castro.The
Vietnam War was also a conflict between Com-
munism and democracy, with the communist
countries such as Russia and Cuba supporting
communist North Vietnam. Cuban airmen went to
North Vietnam and trained two sets of North Viet-
Fidel Castro in the Cold War
-
namese airmen to attack US navy ships. The US
was supporting Southern Vietnam which was dem-
ocratic the sending of troops to Vietnam was
very controversial in the USA at the time of
peace (if youre not sure what time this is, watch
Forrest Gump). The US and Russia were both de-
termined to destroy one another.
The opposition between the US and Cuba became
very apparent in the 1960s. Firstly, with the Bay
Of Pigs Invasion; Cuban exiles invading Cuba in
April, 1961. This invasion was supported by the
CIA, but nonetheless it failed, rising the already
high tensions between the US and Cuba. Perhaps
Castros most vital role in the Cold War was his
permission for the Russians to secretly build sites
for nuclear missiles in Cuba. This permission ena-
bled Russia to create and develop their nuclear
weapons, and led to the Cuban Missile Crisis of
1962. The Cuban Missile Crisis was the nearest
that world ever came to nuclear war. Tensions
arose as the US feared they would be under a nu-
clear attack and President Kennedy demanded
that the Soviet missiles had to be removed from
Cuba. The public revealing of this nuclear weapon
finding created more tension on both sides of the
conflict; this conflict was eased (only slightly!) by
Russias Khrushchev sending a passionate letter in
which he proposed removing the Soviet missiles
and personnel, however only if the US guaranteed
that they would not attack Cuba- Russia wanted to
protect their communist ally. Tensions between
the US and Russia eased on October 28th, 1962 as
Khrushchev announced that he would dismantle
the missiles and return to Russia. The US then as-
sured that they would not invade their neighbour,
Cuba.
Castro was supported by Russia for many years
after Cubas input in the Missile Crisis, and Cuba
hugely benefited economically from this support.
This is because the Cuban Missile Crisis was ena-
bled by Fidel Castro allowing the missiles to be
placed in Cuba. He did this to aid Communist Rus-
sia and also for the security of Cuba; he knew that
the US would attack again after the Bay of Pigs In-
vasion of 1961!
Although the Cold War was never a physical com-
bat as such, and although it was a long war 46
years! I believe that Fidel Castros role may seem
vital to the Cold War as he provided Russia with a
base to hold their nuclear weapons, which ulti-
mately enabled the Cuban Missile Crisis to hap-
pen. This shows that Castro did seem to play a vi-
tal part in the confrontation that was the nearest
that the world ever came to Nuclear War.
However
Would two of the greatest powers in the world,
Russia and the US, not have gone to some sort of
war without the input of the tiny little island of
Cuba anyway?
-
By George Pearson
"Never have I seen such a combination of
uncontrollable dash and perfectly con-
trolled discipline, such soldiers and such
subjects are not to be found the wide world
over except in Sweden"
General Stenbock, Gadebusch 1712
Charles XII, known by his latinised name
Carolus Rex was one of the most famous
kings in Swedish history as it was his ex-
ploits which brought Swedish empire back
into power before crumbling after his
death. Known for his military prowess with
his elite soldiers, the Caroleans; he was a
devout Christian who abstained from alco-
hol and women. He was rumoured to have
a supernatural tolerance to pain, an utter
lack of emotions and felt most comfortable
when leading his armies into battle; earn-
ing himself the title the last of the Vi-
kings.
When the Great Northern war commenced
in 1700, the Swedish army decisively won
pitched battles against multiple foes under
the leadership of Carolus Rex, who ensured
that the Caroleans never lost a battle that
he was in direct control of. Though ulti-
mately he lost the war, his defiance against
impossible odds led to the survival of Swe-
den as an independent and successful
country today.
On 5th April 1697, Charles reign began at
the age of 15. For the first 3 years the
peace remained, until the neighbouring
countries of Denmark, ruled by his cousin
Fredrik IV, Russia and its Tsar Peter the
Great and the Polish-Lithuanian common-
wealth with the Polish king Augustus II de-
clared war on Sweden and initiated the
Great Northern war. With a young king on
Why Were the Military Tactics of the Swedish King
Carolus Rex So Successful?
-
the throne they saw this as an opportunity
to dismember Sweden which back then
controlled areas such as Finland, part of
Norway, Livonia (modern day Latvia/
Estonia), Estonia and Ingria (territory
around modern day St. Petersburg).
Charles XII proved quickly that he was an
exceptional military commander; defeating
the Danes first at Holstein and within
months had the Danes pull out of the war.
His next target was the Commonwealth and
Russia, the latter of which had begun
storming through Livonia and Estonia on
the same day Denmark was subdued.
Charles engaged the Russian forces on No-
vember 19th 1700 at Narva. The weather
conditions were winter blizzards and the
Russian army numbered 4:1 to the Swedes.
In the cover of the blizzard the Caroleans
split the Russian forces and decimated
them, with many of them fleeing the battle
and subsequently drowning in the Narva
river- Swedish losses totalled 667 whereas
the Russians lost 9,000 men and had
20,000 captured.
This was the battle that cemented tactical
genius of Charles XII and the expertise of
the Caroleans. It also highlights the Swe-
dish armys very aggressive tactical doc-
trine which they used to vicious efficiency-
a tactic known as the GP (Go-On). This
tactic involved marching (or a quick run) to
within 20m of the enemy lines, firing a sal-
vo, then engaging the enemy in melee
combat with bayonets, pikes and rapiers.
This severely demoralized any facing the
Caroleans due to the ferocity of the attack
and the lack of fear they showed faced with
enemy fire. This required enormous
amounts of discipline and organization
within the ranks of the Caroleans which
was maintained by a strict set of rules, an
absolute faith in God, and high amounts of
Camaraderie amongst the Swedish forces.
Charles then fought the Commonwealth,
again achieving victories in battles pitched
against him. After Poland surrendered,
Charles XII dethroned Augustus II and put a
puppet on the throne. As he was still in
control of his native Saxony Augustus
attempted to retake the throne with the
help of Russian forces and challenged the
garrison at the Battle of Fraustadt in 1706.
Augustus was 120km away from the main
contingent with additional forces, but be-
fore Augustus could meet with his general,
Schulenberg, the army was wiped out by
the Carolean army half their size due to
their expert usage of cavalry resulting in
15,000 casualties against the Swedes 1,400.
Augustus gave up his claim to the Polish
throne and remained in Saxony leaving Rus-
sia as the last power. Fraustadt highlighted
the Caroleans use of encirclement and their
Cavalry variant of the GP, which took
the aggressive tactics and altered them to
make devastating, highly mobile Cavalry
charges using tight formations to maximize
damage.
1707. Peter had since taken Swedish Ingria
and as Charles advanced into Russian terri-
tory he was buffeted by one of the coldest
recorded winters in history and the Russian
-
scorched earth tactics were taking their toll
on Swedish forces. The last great victory for
Carolus Rex came in July 1708 at Holowczyn
(near modern day Minsk, Belarus) where
they surprised the Russian army across the
Vabich River. The Russian forces however
were able to retreat and regroup and the
end of the Caroleans March came at Polta-
va, June 1709 in modern day Ukraine.
By this point Charles forces were heavily
depleted, as the expected re-enforcements
were ambushed by the Russians. He took
the fort at Poltava, but during the siege
Charles was wounded and in a coma due to
cold and blood loss. Command was handed
over to his two generals, whose communi-
cations and battle strategies were poorly
relayed and disputed, causing a breakdown
of strategy and order within the Swedish
ranks. The outnumbered Caroleans were
losing the battle and while watching the
battle from a stretcher after regaining con-
sciousness during the battle, Charles XII or-
dered a retreat. They were pursued by Rus-
sian cavalry and forced to surrender.
This was the beginning of the end for the
Swedish empire and Charles spent 14 years
in exile with the Ottomans in Constantino-
ple and on returning to Sweden found his
country under attack from all sides. He led
multiple campaigns into Norway, but in
1718 and at the siege of Fredriksten he was
struck in the head whilst inspecting the
trenches near the front line, killing the king.
The siege was broken and Charles body
brought back to Sweden where it remains
today.
The legacy of Carolus Rex pertains today
was seen as the last great king of Sweden
before the empires collapse. He was
revered by people, inspired songs, and
holds his legacy of being one of the great-
est military tacticians of his time.
-
Should We Be Proud of the
First World War?
By Cameron Fleming
Recently education minister Michael Gove
showed his disgust to the message that the
Blackadder series Blackadder goes forth
gives and its portrayal of the First World
War as being disastrous and said disasters
being caused by allied high command and
subsequently banned the series from being
shown in schools. So, should this social
control be justified by its wrong message or
is the portrayal in Blackadder accurate (if
comedic in nature) and should we be proud
about Britains part in the First World War?
And which parts should we be proud of?
It seems all too often the poets view of
the war is all that is portrayed in the media.
The mud, wire and drama of such films as
the warhorse and the portrayal of trench
warfare in period dramas such as Downton
abbey have done nothing to support the
view that the war was worth winning and
the fact that the great war claimed the
lives of 702,410 service personnel (not in-
cluding those captured or wounded which
takes the figure to over 2 million) com-
pared to the 264,443 killed in the second
world war shows the high death toll
suffered by British forces in the first war hit
the 43 million population hard.
However the high death toll in the First
World War may also be the reason for the
lower in the second. That is that British
losses and the reaction to the bloodbath of
the First World War saw a more cautious
approach to warfare proved by the actions
of Winston Churchill swapping from risky
expeditionary forces in the Dardanelles to
the looking for a soft underbelly of fascist
Europe. In short it could be viewed that the
losses shocked the public and military alike
-
to put for a possibly isolationist or passive
view of international relations which in
part led to the rise of fascism with Hitler
gaining appeasement due in some part to
allied fear of German retaliation. Neverthe-
less, this also led to an outlook of greater
involvement in international affairs with
the League of Nations being set up with
Britain as a prime leader. This mixed reac-
tion to the war shows some sort of change
in British foreign affairs in Europe at least.
However, maybe the moral judgement of
the war should not be its results and reac-
tions but the reason for joining in the be-
ginning. Traditionally the poets view stated
that another Balkan war became a western
European affair through alliance groups
(triple entente and the central powers be-
ing the most prominent) with Britain join-
ing after the attack on brave little Bel-
gium and this influencing British troop
placement around Belgium, Luxemburg
and north eastern France. However, many
socialist or communist writers on the sub-
ject viewed the whole war as a plot to in-
crease nationalism, reduce class awareness
and produce goods for the arms industry
thus all benefitting the bourgeoisie but this
view has little empirical evidence for moti-
vation to join and the fact that the 40% in-
heritance tax and the high death toll
among officers shows that the
capitalist class was too hit hard by the war.
It seems more of a foreign relations break-
down of sorts rather than an international
plot!
Nevertheless, the opposing view put for-
ward by Historians such as Hastings is that
the war was necessary to stop German im-
perialism and to halt its growth militarily
and recent revelations of colonial death
camps in German colonies in Africa seem
to back this up however the British empires
record as colonial masters and expansion-
ists does not fare much better like the Boer
war and Afghanistan showed. Also, our
closest allies in the war France, Belgium
and Russia could be horrific masters with
tsarist Russia leading to revolution in 1917.
However, even if German aggression was a
valid reason for counter aggression it is lu-
dicrous, when looking on a map of any-
where in the world in 1914, to suggest that
the entente could be threatened by Ger-
many and the central powers as the British
Empire alone covered a third of the earth
and added on to that was all of the French
possessions in west Africa, north Africa and
Indochina as well as the Russian swathe
that covered the northern hemisphere. Al-
so, the minor belligerents in the war and
their possessions; Portugal, Italy, the USA,
Serbia and japan to name a few compared
to a collection of the Germans (with only a
few possessions in west and east Africa to
lay claim to) who could be brought to the
ground through lack of trade and blockade,
the Austro-Hungarian Hapsburg empire
and their Balkan allies and the sick man of
Europe, the ottoman empire.
To put on top of that, the fact that their al-
ly, Italy joined the opposing side rather
than join the central powers (although
-
this may have more to do with longstand-
ing friendship with France since Cavour and
a hatred of the lack of irridentian lands)
shows at least that the central powers just
couldnt be strong enough to fend off the
numerically and economically superior en-
emies it faced.
Finally, in support of the new View of the
war, it is notable that the medias portrayal
may not always be so accurate. For the
years 1915-17 on the western front warfare
was that which is portrayed, that of wire,
mud and shelling but at the beginning, like
at Mons and at the end of the war when
the western allies were supported by
American troops the war was more fluid
and less stagnant with the start seeming
more like the wars of the previous century
with horse artillery, cavalry charges and
volley firing in the Brits famous mad mi-
nute bringing more memories of Napole-
on than Hindenburg. Then, at the end of
the war when tanks could break some of
the deadlock more shock troops or storm
troops were used. The armies make up was
closer structurally and equipment wise to
the start of the Second World War. On
many other fronts the war was similar; in
the east, it was as if the Russians were re-
fighting their 1812 campaigns in many
ways and in the south, in Mesopotamia
(modern day Iraq) the fighting too was
reminiscent of more of the Zulu and Boer
campaigns in many ways.
Yet, again the poets view prevails because
of the sheer fact that the amount of casual-
ties in any part of the war were simply hor-
rific and the setting in the middle of the
war simply made things worse. In any place
during the war the modern technology
twinned with old ideas meant that ordinary
people went through and sometimes did
extraordinary and horrific things.
Overall, it seems, the poets view of the
war is largely accurate (if raw and emotion-
al) and their view should not be cast off as
easily as is it has been done lately. But sur-
prisingly there is also merit in the
officers view (if you like) war may have
been necessary to save Belgium and the
wars effect was often social progress like
the fact that after the war women got
suffrage due to The Representation of the
People Act 1928 and the death toll lead to
major revisions of foreign policy and how
the army was to be ran.
However, it seems that the idea of a good
or just war hasnt been placed upon the
shoulders of the First World War like it has
upon the second. The fear of Fascism is
seen today as more of a motivator than
German imperialism and the result left em-
pires in ruins and victors mutilated but
most importantly the way we view any war
should take into consideration everyone
who took part and the way that the war
effected them and for the first time in the
great war, normal people at home were
effected on both sides. The rise of Zeppe-
lins and aircraft led to total war and the
technology left horrific scars upon the
world.
-
In conclusion, I think it is necessary to be
proud of those who took part in the war as
much as we can, the ordinary soldiers who
did extraordinary things; going over the
top, dogfights and ferocious charges show
the bravery in the war but often the true
heroes are the faceless medics, the people
of occupied territories and for Britain the
empire for that is how we survived the war.
But still the foreign policy in the war is
nothing to be proud of and even less so the
tactics of trench warfare.
In the end, the true legacy of the war and
the thing we can be proud of is that it gave
us a chance to re-evaluate the status of or-
dinary people in the world and it made
sure that the brutal tactics of the war were
not repeated and it is therefore unjustifia-
ble to control only one viewpoint of the
war as Mr Gove is doing currently.
-
Tutankhamun
By Eoin Bowden
(Standish Community High School)
Tutankhamun is a pharaoh from the time of
ancient Egypt and is possibly the most fa-
mous of them all as his mask is used to
symbolize the entire of ancient Egypt. This
mask is currently located at the Cairo muse-
um and is a popular tourist attraction in
Egypt.
Tutankhamun was discovered in 1922 by
Howard Carter and George Herbert, but
was avoided soon after his discovery be-
cause many believed that his tomb was
cursed. There were several reasons why
these thoughts occurred. The first of these
reasons was that some of Howards team
and some visitors in the tomb died in mys-
terious conditions. Lord Carnarvon was the
first of these mysterious deaths. He was
bitten by a mosquito and accidently
scratched the bite he got off it with a razor.
This caused the bite to get infected and he
died of blood poisoning. Six months after
Lord Carnarvon was buried, Dr Derry car-
ried out the first autopsy on Tutankhamuns
body and noticed that a healed patch was
on his left cheek. Since Lord Carnarvon was
already buried, no one could know where
the mosquito bite was located. This caused
many people to believe that the tomb as
cursed even though they didnt know
where the bite was. Another reason why
people believed that the tomb was cursed
was because of Sir Bruce Ingham. Bruce re-
ceived a gift from Howard Carter that had a
mummified hand with a bracelet on it.
-
Writing on the bracelet said, "Cursed be he
who moves my body. To him shall come
fire, water and pestilence." Shortly after re-
ceiving this gift, Bruce Inghams house
burned down and was later destroyed by a
flood, after the reconstruction of his house.
More reasons to why people believed the
curse existed and caused the media to go
crazy over the tomb, making it well known.
After the rumour of this and other tombs
being cursed were proven false, Egyptolo-
gists came to the tomb and analysed it. In-
side, they found things such as a wooden
bust of Tutankhamun that allowed them to
know what he looked like and that he was a
young boy. Through research of the tomb,
Egyptologists found that Tutankhamun rose
to the throne at the age of nine a