The Long History of Tourism at Pompeii and Mount Vesuvius

The Ancient Romans have left a legacy of its sprawling empire through ruins, architecture and history firmly rooted in Italian culture. This legacy has inspired artists and writers for generations and the archaeological site of Pompeii, located in southern Italy, has fascinated historians as a place frozen in time after the tragic eruption of Mount Vesuvius in 79 CE.

Here, Amy Chandler considers the history of tourism at Mount Vesuvius.

The eruption of Vesuvius in 1794 by Alessandro D'Anna.

This tragic natural events after the eruption of Mount Vesuvius buried both Pompeii and Herculaneum and was left undisturbed until 1748. In the immediate aftermath of the eruption, efforts were made by the new Emperor Titus to relocate those who survived to nearby cities such as Nola, Naples and Capua. (1) Despite initial attempts, human interference reduced with only looters attempting to dig through the newly formed igneous rock to retrieve valuables. Soon the site became overgrown and forgotten leaving Pompeii frozen in tragedy. In 1863, under Italy’s new leader Garibaldi, Giuseppe Fiorelli was appointed as director of the excavation to uncover Pompeii’s lost history. (1)

The story of Pompeii and those fateful days leading to the eruption fascinates visitors and draws 2.5 million tourists each year to the site, with 1 million visiting Mount Vesuvius. Visitors are eager to walk in the footsteps of history and understand the civilisation that was destroyed and connect with the past in a meaningful way. The reasons as to why many visit the historic site and climb the mountain with such a volatile reputation has changed over the centuries from a spiritual enlightening to an insatiable form of consumerism. Arguably, climbing Mount Vesuvius was seen as what modern society refers to as the bucket list. The attitude and needs of the tourist shifted from a spiritual enlightening to the desire for comfort and speed where travellers focused on the destination rather than the journey. The types of tourists shifted as new forms of interacting with the area and travel evolved. This article will explore how tourism has changed from the elite grand tour to Mount Vesuvius and Pompeii to a destination attracting tourists from all over the world.

The eighteenth century tourist

In the eighteenth century, the Grand Tour of Europe was common amongst the elite upper class of the male English aristocracy to broaden their knowledge and experience of the world through cultural enrichment in Europe and beyond. (2) Seen as a rite of passage, many would bring back souvenirs from their travels. (2) Travel was primarily common in the elite and most wealthy as it wasn’t financially or physically accessible, therefore the only way to experience these locations was through travel writers, and paintings from those privileged enough to travel across Europe. It wasn’t until the 1840s with the rise of the middle class and the boom of industrialisation and railways that this elite activity became more accessible to a wider group of people who could afford to travel for leisure. This soon broadened the type of tourist and diluted the exclusivity of the elite grand tour. Grand tourists visited the main cities in Europe and travelled by boat and horse drawn carriage in a lengthy and often challenging journey that could easily last a year or longer. There wasn’t any set route but would begin by crossing the English Channel by boat and entering France. From there the journey could deviate but would mainly consist of entering Italy either from the Alps and Lyon or Marseille to Livorno, Italy. Once in Italy, the tour would drift through Florence for the Renaissance art, Venice for partying and the annual carnival and detour to Rome to visit the ancient ruins. It wasn’t until the excavation of Pompeii and Herculaneum in 1738 and 1748 that tourists deviated to southern Italy into Naples to visit the ruins.

The journey to climbing up Mount Vesuvius in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century was either by purchasing a private carriage that provided a leisurely journey or, which was most common, a communal horse drawn carriage called a corricolo or calesso. (3) The journey became easier after the introduction of the 1839 railway to Portici that was one of Italy’s first railway lines that followed the Vesuvius coastline offering a picturesque journey for visitors. Before this, the journey was often an exciting and treacherous adventure where the visitor became involved with the locals. Most tourists arrived at the Piazza della Fontana, which was compiled of 12 buildings and a stable. (3) This was usually where many would haggle and bargain with local tour guides. Once visitors had acquired a guide, they begun the ascent up the mountain where the landscape suddenly transformed from rich volcanic soil to a “realm of death and the slain earth’s dust alone slips beneath your unassured feet” as described by Madame de Stael in her 1807 travel guide Corinne, ou l’Italie. (3) Travellers usually rode on donkeys until they reached what many referred to as a “half-way house to heaven”, “Casa Bianca” or most commonly the Hermitage of San Salvatore. (3) The Hermitage offered travellers rest and food before the next journey towards the summit and was built in the 1650s, 600 metres above sea level by fugitives of the plague and was close to the previous Hermitage that was destroyed by the 1631 eruption. Galignani’s Guide (1824) described the lodgings as a “neat plain white building of two stories” with a chapel. (3) The Hermitage offered more than just a rest for travellers, but was an opportunity for a change in tour guides. The Hermitage also offered a Visitor’s Book for travellers to sign with many recording details of their stay. While there was no fee for staying, those who ran the Hermitage expected a suitable reward in return for their hospitality.

From that moment on, tourists travelled on foot for about an hour, which was followed by a strenuous ascent to the volcano. As eruptions occurred, so did the increase in tourism, the Hermitage was particularly busy in autumn after 1822 which meant a need for more staff and tour guides. Many illustrations depicted flocks of wealthy tourists in inadequate attire climbing the mountain, which emphasises the mass interest in the area. Due to the nature of the hot and rough terrain a cobbler was stationed at the Hermitage to mend worn out and damaged shoes. The higher the climb the tougher it became as one traveller described the ascent as “climbing a sand hill” combined with the sulphurous fumes from the volcano. (3) At this point, the guides would wrap belts around their group and drag each other up the mountain. On some occasion, sedan chairs carried those who were unable to walk on the rough terrain.Much of the allure of visiting the volcano came from the thrill and unpredictability of nature. No two visits were the same, with the terrain altering after an eruption to occasional explosions to full eruptions depending on the time and environmental factors of the climb. The greater the danger meaning the greater the thrill that only created a mixture of fear, awe and apprehension at the strength of nature. Mount Vesuvius was a reminder that this volcano was responsible for wiping out a civilisation in one swoop leaving history frozen in time.

Modern intervention

The process of finding and bargaining with a guide was seen as a rite of passage and perceived as a fixed itinerary when visiting Naples by the 1820s. However, by 1862 the process was streamlined through a ticketing system and aided by Thomas Cook tours in 1864, which organised excursions across Europe and the UK. (3) Thomas Cook introduced Pompeii into the wider itinerary for European travel and created structured visits, transforming the whole experience entirely. (4) This streamlining process aided in structured and accessible exploration without the reliance on local knowledge from tour guides. The structured approach to visiting Naples and the volcano became compacted in visitor guidebooks that provided details, logistics and descriptions of the site that prepared visitors instead of blindly entering the area. In many ways, this approach allowed greater control, but took away that thrill of foreign travel that was once alluring to those undertaking the grand tour and the stories of unknown territory. However, with an influx of tourists and the instability of volcanic eruptions the typography changed through man-made interventions and eruptions cutting new paths to the summit. For example, throughout the nineteenth century, a road was built leading to the Hermitage and by 1844 an Observatory was built that increased accessibility and scientific interest, once again changing the way visitors interacted with the area. (3) The road allowed easy access for carriages and turned the path to Mount Vesuvius into a commodity that many could just ride up in a carriage and pay enough money to be taken to the summit. Some travellers referred to the lines of carriages all flocking the summit as ‘Derby Day’. Even the way that visitor experienced the climb changed from many embracing the dirt and ash and the physical toil that the climb had on their body to those who didn’t need to exert themselves at all.

As tourism flourished, the need for tighter regulations also increased. The local government began to regulate the guides and control their numbers and activities on the mountain. (3). The Ordinance of 1846 reduced the number of official guides to 16 with the requirement to speak at least one foreign language and be of “good character”. (3) These official guides were issued permits and given fixed prices to charge for tours to the summit, this eliminated the need for bargaining that so many travellers associated with early visits to Naples. The intervention of the local government undermined the select few who held a monopoly on activities in the area and controlled the routes to and from Mount Vesuvius previously. Visitors now had a variety of options and better communication while travelling. Despite this improvement a handful of tourists still preferred to continue to travel through the Resina area for the adventure rather than to choose the convenience of the railway. Ultimately, the need to haggle and bargain for a guide was unnecessary and the production of widely accessible guidebooks stating the dangers of guides who bargain eliminated this step. The intervention of travel agencies like Thomas Cook played a major part in the flourishing of tourism and the accessibility to a wider audience. This intervention sanitised the experience and today it is very common for travel agencies to employ English-speaking travel reps to work in hotels abroad and act as a point of contact and excursion organiser for British tourists. This checkpoint removes the need to integrate within the local culture and is distant from the experience of those who undertook the grand tour in the eighteenth century.

Growing strains

Furthermore, the greater the number of visitors the greater the strain on the surrounding infrastructure to accommodate the growing needs. It is only natural that as these attractions become popular, the need to modernise or transform the way that visitors interact with the area must adapt to the new needs of tourists. The development of photography and ability to produce souvenirs from the excursion created a heightened awareness that reached a wider audience. By 1880, the introduction of a funicular railway to Mount Vesuvius eased the journey and reliance on guides for the whole journey. Instead guides were only needed for the climb to the summit. This railway cut a 1 hour and 30 minute ascent to a 12-minute ride that could transport 300 passengers a day. (3) Despite improving the visitor experience, the funicular didn’t achieve much of a profit and cost too much to run. By 1887, Thomas Cook’s son John Mason Cook swooped in to save the funicular but refused to accept the guide’s request for a concession payment. (3) This created major tension and protests from the tour guides resulting in the burning of the station, cutting the track and throwing one of the funicular cars into Vesuvius’s crater. The guides interfered with repairs and damaged the line, prompting the closure for 6 months until an agreement was settled. Finally a settlement agreed that a portion of every ticket sold on the funicular was given to the guides in exchange for their services at the upper station to the top of the volcano (100 yards). (3) This agreement changed the structure of guides from independent to employees. Albeit, the funicular did close in 1955 after the completion of a road and was no longer used. Tourism rapidly changed because of the work of travel agents like Thomas Cook. They created an itinerary and holiday with strict structures that focused on stress-free experiences that avoided the issues that past travellers had to negotiate. Before long, a hotel, restaurant, railway and toll roads that issued levies on non-Cook customers surrounded the volcano. (3) These infrastructures provided stable income for the local community and the romantic idea of struggle and enlightenment through the treacherous climb was replaced by comfort, ease and convenience. Tourists were distanced from physical challenges of the environment and the immersion with the locals. The volatile volcano could be conquered with little effort, which is a far cry from the gruelling path made by many grand tourists of the eighteenth century.

Both the site of Pompeii and Herculaneum preserve history in a fixed point in time, but some historians argue that this moment may not reflect the extent of daily life as many did evacuate and take personal possessions. These sites still offer historians and visitors a unique opportunity that no other historical or archaeological site can do, even if much of the original structures were severely damaged during the eruption. The excavation of Pompeii opened up a human and emotive narrative that connected with visitors on a different level than just an event in the past. However, with the growing number of tourists visiting Naples today, there is increased concern for the safety of both the site of Pompeii and Herculaneum. Pompeii has a lasting legacy and it appears many tourists wish to do the same. Reports include tourists vandalising and purposefully damaging the frescos with one Dutch visitor writing their name in permanent marker in bold letters and some scratching their initials into the stone. (5) In the future, there must come a point where local governments and heritage bodies such as UNESCO need to evaluate the safety of the sites with the growing number of visitors. Arguably, some visitors potentially view the site as a tourist attraction or commodity for their personal consumption rather than a place of immense historical value and a memorial to those killed by the eruption. This point is something that is lost through the commercialisation and allowing open access to the public. Italy has also started to restrict the number of tourists entering Pompeii by only issuing 20,000 tickets per day and utilising timed slots in peak summer times to help ease the human pressures placed on the fragile site. (6) It’s not just Pompeii that is struggling under the number of visitors, popular locations like Venice, Portofino, Capri and Rome also experience immense strain during peak season. (6)

Conclusion

The awe and unpredictability of nature is one that has captivated visitors for centuries and still offers an unmatched experience. To visit Mount Vesuvius and walk around the site of Pompeii has only grown in its popularity due to the timeless preservation of history. Pompeii is a haunting reminder the natural world cannot be domesticated irrespective of technology that monitors and tries to predict the next natural disaster. The rise of tourism to the area and many other UNESCO World Heritage Sites in Europe have been made accessible through industrialisation, railway and other transport options that connected remote areas that were once only accessible by carriage. Large travel agents have replaced the control from the local monopoly that select families had over visitor routes and territory by structured excursions. The Grand Tourists of the eighteenth and nineteenth century embellished a daring and treacherous experience through writing, artwork and word of mouth, which creates this fear of missing out. Social media is just a more advanced way to distribute these stories about Pompeii and other cities that replaces the old-fashioned grand tourists. However, like with all major cities that often become shrouded in a romanticised version or one that is often embellished, the reality of visiting some of these locations can often be underwhelming. This is especially evident when heritage sites become flooded with tourism that poses a threat to the preservation of heritage and culture. What is most evident is that while museums, writers and artist can attempt to capture the feeling and atmosphere of cities and heritage sites, they cannot always replicate that feeling of being there in person.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

References

(1) J. Renshaw, In search of the Romans (London, Bloomsbury Academic, 2012),pp. 267, 273.

(2) Royal Museums Greenwich, ‘What was the Grand Tour?’, 2025, RMG < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/what-was-grand-tour >[accessed 20 January 2025].

(3) J. Brewer, Volcanic: Vesuvius in the age of revolutions (USA, Yale University Press, 2023), pp. 12, 14,15,21-23, 152 -154.

(4) Pompeii Archaeological Park, ‘How Tourism in Pompeii Boomed Through Photography and Middle Class Enthusiasm’, 2025, Pompeii Archaeological Park <

https://pompeiiarchaeologicalpark.com/tourism-in-pompeii/ > [accessed 22 January 2025].

(5) Reuters, ‘Dutch tourist accused of graffitiing Ancient Roman villa in Herculaneum’, 2024, CNN Travel < https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/05/travel/dutch-tourist-defacing-roman-scli-intl/index.html >[accessed 30 January 2025].

(6) G. Dean, ‘Pompeii to cap daily tourist numbers at 20,000’, 2024, BBC News <

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cjdl1njj1peo >[accessed 22 January 2025].

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: George ‘Bugs’ Moran

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Three years, three bosses dead. The North Side track record was less than desirable, George Moran would have been well aware of this when he took over after the death of Vincent Drucci in April of 1927. He had said goodbye to three of his good friends, the flower shop was gone, Mr. Schofield having kicked them out after Hymie Weiss’s assassination, and having run from the past at least once already in his life, George Moran took stock of his life and probably thought about throwing in the towel. But Chicago was home and he couldn’t just forget everything that had happened. A part of him still wanted revenge and leaving the North Side would have felt like letting his friends down. So Moran did what he did best, he carried on.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here, part two is here, and part three is here.

Note: An image of Moran is available here.

Minnesota Years

George Moran, the prohibition gangster most associated with being the arch enemy of Al Capone and by extension Chicago was actually from St. Paul, Minnesota and named Adelard Cunin. Born on August 21, 1893 to a French immigrant named Jules and his wife Marie, he was, like his friends enrolled in a Catholic School. And also like his friends, turned to crime at a young age, in fact he had served time three times before he reached the age of twenty one.

He and his father did not get along and Adelard regularly was hit with a belt by his dad for his behavior at home. At school, they also believed in corporal punishment and by the time he got home his father could be waiting to punish him again. Strong willed and resilient, the beatings did nothing to change his personality or willfulness. He turned to crime as an outlet for his frustration. At the age of eighteen, he escaped from jail and made his way south to Chicago. His father refused to have anything to do with him, but his mother still kept in touch.

It was after arriving in Chicago that Adelard started adopting different names, including George Gage, George Morrisey, George Miller and, of course, George Moran.

In photos, Moran typically is wearing something that covers his neck. When he was living in Chicago in 1917, he got in the face of someone heckling a public speaker. A fight broke out and Moran was cut several times on the neck with a knife. He was rushed to the hospital where they managed to stop the bleeding and save his life. He was lucky but also self-conscious of the way the scars looked and would do his best to hid them throughout his life. There was good to come of the incident, though. In his recovery he would meet Dean O’Banion.

The Beginnings of the North Side and Rise to Leader

In 1917, Dean O’Banion was working as a waiter at McGovern’s Tavern, charming customers with his beautiful singing voice. This tavern was where Moran began to become a regular during his recovery. He met there a man named Charles Reiser, who introduced him to bigger kinds of burglary. For the most part, George would steer clear of bootlegging, at least at first, he preferred to stick with thieving and safe cracking.

One of Reiser’s safe cracking proteges was O’Banion and the two were drawn to each other, both with independent, stubborn spirits. Although, Moran was much quieter and kept his cards close to his chest. They were joined shortly after by Hymie Weiss and the three became a trio of safecrackers. They were joined by Drucci last and though he was also readily accepted, it was not likely that it was for his thieving skills as his charm and reckless bravery.

They were well on their way to becoming the North Side Gang of legend, when Moran was sent to jail again and this time, after an escape attempt that was going well until he got caught, Moran would be absent in Chicago until 1921 as he served his sentence at Joliet Penitentiary.

When Moran got out his friends were waiting with good news: they were big shots in the bootlegging business and Moran was happy to help. He even went to Canada to see about a shipment for O’Banion. That wasn’t to say that bootlegging was his only occupation. He was arrested at least once with O’Banion and Weiss for burglary. And at one point Weiss and Moran were both involved in a police chase that ended when the police fired on the car and the pair decided it was safer to pull over.

Also, in 1921, Moran met a woman with whom he fell instantly in love, Lucielle Logan. Lucielle was worried that George would run when he found out she had a son, but George was just as smitten with him and adopted him, spoiling him and helping him learn English, as Lucielle and her son, who would go by John George Moran for the rest of his life, spoke French. Surprisingly, he loved being a family man and when one reporter asked him what was next after a funeral, he probably wasn’t lying when he said he just wanted to live with his wife and kid in peace.

In 1924, when O’Banion was murdered, Moran was fully on board with Hymie Weiss’s plans to get revenge. There was also another item of business that Moran could not wait to handle. He had never been a fan of O’Banion’s bodyguard, Louie Alterie. So, when Alterie was talking to the media about shooting the murderers of O’Banion and, strangely, following Torrio and Capone to New York after the funeral, Moran sent Alterie packing, saying there was no place for him in the North Side Gang. With that taken care of, it was time to get to the real business of getting even, even if the boss was in jail.

While Weiss was in jail in the summer of 1925, Drucci and Moran tried several hits on the Gennas. They weren’t exactly subtle about it though.

Between the two of them, neither Moran nor Drucci was known for thinking revenge plans through to the full extent. And with Weiss in jail and the grief over losing O’Banion mixed with a disdain for the Gennas they were more gung ho than usual. Amatuna, who had been a shooter of Dean O’Banion had agreed to hand over to Moran and Drucci the other two men believed to be responsible: John Scalise and Albert Anselmi. They believed Amatuna and went to the rendezvous where they were promptly shot at and both had to be treated at a nearby hospital.

After Weiss’s death, Moran agreed with Drucci that peace was the best option but he wasn’t happy about it. And when Drucci died, he kept the peace but he could feel his nagging hatred for Capone, the man who had stolen O’Banion and Weiss from him, itching at him. Then, after Capone battled with other men, he eventually started eyeing a Northwest gang whose territory he wanted. He had the leader bumped off. The man, John Touhy, was an old friend of Moran’s. Seeing another of his friends dead by the hand of Capone reopened the wounds that had never closed from O’Banion and Weiss’s deaths. The war was back. And this time it was going to take a massacre to end it.

Checkmate

After the death of Touhy, Moran and Capone continued to battle. Murdering continued until Capone had had enough. Somehow word got back to him that Moran was having a meeting at the North Side’s garage on Clark Street. Al Capone was never one to do anything quietly, a fact which irritated his friends back in New York, who found his ostentatiousness to be too attention seeking for their comfort. And what Capone had planned was nothing short of attention grabbing. Unfortunately for him and the seven men who would be in the garage, it wouldn’t see the end of his arch enemy.

On February 14, 1929, Moran was late to his meeting at the Clark Street garage. If he was like people of today, running late to your first meeting on a very cold, snowy morning, probably makes you think that your day isn’t going to go well. So, when he turned onto Clark Street and saw black police vehicle sitting outside his garage, he changed his course and went into a nearby diner to wait.

Men had been waiting across the street for Moran to enter the garage. When they thought they saw him enter, the signal was given and two men dressed as police officers entered. They had the men surrender their weapons and face a wall with their hands raised. Then they pulled out Thompson submachine guns and opened fire. Six of the men were killed instantly but one was still alive when the real cops arrived, although in his short time left he refused to identify the killers. The carnage was unlike anything Chicago had ever seen and the police and medical examiners were sickened by it. The lone survivor was the mechanic, James Mays, dog, Highball. When the police finally arrived they found him howling and shaking. He was later euthanized due to being unable to recover from what he had witnessed.

Word of what happened reached Moran and in a rare show of emotion, he checked himself into a hospital for exhaustion and a stomach issue. When police eventually found him, the only thing he would say was “Only Capone kills like that.” The man who was killed in Moran’s place was Al Weinshank. He looked uncannily like Moran in build and facial features. He was not a criminal, he simply associated with them.

Moran didn’t stay long in Chicago after that. And the North Side Gang was no more. Capone had won the Beer Wars.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources:

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Assessing the Legacy of the Chehab Era: A Model for Contemporary Lebanon?

The Republic of Lebanon has had a sad history, one marred by religious hatred, conflict, and in recent years a financial catastrophe that has impoverished most of its citizens. But there was a time when the state experienced an age of great elevation, one that stands out as an example of the kind of nation Lebanon can be if it followed a similar path today. That period was the Chehab Era.

 Vittorio Trevitt explains.

Fouad Chehab.

September 2024 marked the 60th anniversary of the end of the presidency of Foaud Chehab, who rose to power following a civil war in 1958. This was precipitated by the attempt of the incumbent president Camille Chamoun to obtain a second term; a move that went against the constitution. In a tactful decision that went down well with the nation’s Muslim community, Chehab (the leader of the Lebanese Army), believed that if he used the military against the rebels it would lead to mutiny amongst Muslim soldiers and declined to do so.

Chehab’s rise to the presidency took place against the backdrop of enormous upheaval in the Middle East. Although during the second half of the Twentieth Century Jordan and most of the Gulf States (Qatar, Oman, Bahrain, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and the UAE) maintained monarchical structures of government, a series of coups throughout the Fifties and Sixties brought to power authoritarian socialist leaders in Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and Libya, while a military conflict in Yemen led to the formation of a radical left-wing state in the south of that country. Fearful that Lebanon’s turn would be next, Chamoun asked for help from the United States who subsequently sent thousands of troops to the country, although their presence was a nonactive one. At the end of the war, with the loss of thousands of lives, Chehab was elected president by the national legislature. What made Chehab different from many of his regional contemporaries was the fact that, instead of establishing a one-party state and (as dictators have often done throughout history) alter the constitution to prolong his tenure, Chehab relinquished his office after the end of his full six-year term.

Quality of life

A striking feature of Chehabism (the name given to his political movement) was the emphasis that its founder placed upon the quality of life of ordinary Lebanese. A major programme of reform and stage-supported development was rolled out that sought to tackle headlong the underlying causes of the 1958 civil war; namely the sectarian social divisions that had long been festering sores on the body politic of Lebanese society. Following the Arab-Muslim conquests of the 7th century, Christians found themselves essentially living as second-class citizens, but by the time of the conflict the situation had reversed itself to the point where Muslims found themselves at a disadvantage compared to members of the Christian community in terms of personal wealth, education and career opportunities; such as in the civil service. Adding to this disparity, uneven regional development under Chamoun meant that a rich Muslim minority and Christians were the primary beneficiaries of economic progress. The seeds of the conflict had therefore been planted long before its inevitable outbreak.

The extent of these inequities were highlighted when a French research institute (IRFED) was commissioned by Chehab’s government to examine the roots of the war, and estimated that half of the nation’s people lived in poverty. This culminated in a series of measures designed to bring about a more just and prosperous Lebanon. Multiple schemes aimed at improving the quality of life in rural areas were launched, with government-operated hospitals and pharmacies set up and several villages provided with basic services like electricity and drinking water. Agricultural cooperatives were encouraged and a Green Plan was promulgated under which many farmers were supported by land reclamation. Efforts were made to enforce health and safety requirements in the workplace while a law aimed at stimulating the supply of affordable homes was enacted. During Chehab’s second year as president, an Office of Social Development was founded that improved the provision of social aid for vulnerable and elderly citizens. This was followed in 1963 by a landmark National Social Security Fund designed to provide workers and their families with a range of benefits such as health and workplace accident insurance and maternity support. The economy flourished, while workers received a larger slice of the economic pie, with the buying power of average earnings going up and the percentage of the nation’s gross national product accruing to labour outstripping that held by capital by 1964. 

Education

Apart from poverty alleviation, the hand of reform would reach out to other aspects of Lebanese life. Many educational initiatives were carried out during the Chehab Era, including the establishment of free primary schooling and new facilities, the encouragement of teacher training and vocational education, a new law school, and grants for overseas study. Joint bank accounts were enabled by law, May Day became a public holiday, and an array of new rights for women came into being, amongst which included local political representation, choice of citizenship, and equal inheritance for non-Muslims. A package of measures was introduced that sought to provide a 50-50 share for Muslims and Christians in the civil service, along with new universities and opportunities for state employment that benefitedShia Muslims. Chehab’s pragmatism towards religious community relations was additionally demonstrated in the international sphere, where he endeavoured to build bridges with both Arab and Western nations rather than favour one side over the other.

However, the tangible progress attained under Chehab, which continued to some extent under his successor Charles Helou, was not sustained, while the strong economic growth Lebanon experienced during their presidencies proved to be a two-edged sword. While developmental initiatives undoubtedly helped many people, big commercial farms replaced smaller ones and precipitated the exodus of peasants into squalid urban areas, while income distribution remained deeply unequal. Despite real wage gains, low pay and inflationary pressures fuelled multiple strikes. Although leading government figures expressed sympathy for their grievances and presided over an improved minimum wage, Chehabist administrations at the same time made use of legislative powers to dismiss striking workers and passed legislation curbing the ability of workers to do so. Additionally, the treatment of Palestinian refugees during the Chehab Era proved to be a black spot on that period.

Security

Seen as a threat to national stability owing to growing levels of armed and political activity amongst Palestinians, their lives were effectively controlled and monitored by the security services, with imprisonment, deprivation, restrictions on movement and even murder amongst the horrors experienced by refugees. Despite Chehab’s concern for the poor and commitment to social justice, the approach taken towards Palestinian refugees during his tenure was one of moral bankruptcy.

In spite of these moral and economic failings, the Chehab Era had many good points and important lessons that Lebanon’s political leaders would be wise to learn from. In his utilisation of the state as an instigator of social betterment, religious equality and economic expansion, Chehab left Lebanon a better country than how he found it, while showing what expanded government can do when used for public beneficence and not self-enrichment. In a nation wracked by financial hardship and sectarian tension, the more positive aspects of Chehabism serve not only as lessons from history, but as signposts for what Lebanon could potentially become.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

The Gastarbeiters and the Beginnings of a Multicultural Germany

Modern-day Germany is an image of 21st century globalization and multiculturalism; however immigration is still a relatively recent phenomenon. Eager to fill the labor force shortages threatening Germany’s post-World War 2 economic miracle, the West German government turned to foreign personnel and made Gastarbeiter, or Guest Worker, agreements with numerous countries during the 1950s and 1960s. This marked the start of Germany’s multiethnic diversity.

Holly Farrell explains.

An Italian Gastarbeiter family in 1962. Source: Bundesarchiv, B 145 Bild-F013071-0001 / Wegmann, Ludwig / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

What was the Gastarbeiter program and why was it implemented?

In the aftermath of Germany’s defeat in the Second World War and the fall of the Third Reich, the allied powers found it imperative for Germany to undergo a process of democratization with institutions resilient enough to prevent a repeat of the Nazi dictatorship. This included a process of re-education to address the undue respect for authority and a process of denazification. As Germany was divided into four zones of occupation by each allied power, these processes were not uniform throughout the country. From 1949 this then differed between West and East Germany.

However, the allies were also very aware of the failures of the punitive approach after the First World War and so wanted to avoid leading Germany into economic ruin which could fuel extremist groups. Consequently, a robust economy and a well-functioning welfare state became further pillars for post-war stability. West Germany received extensive financial aid through the Marshall Plan which fueled an unexpectedly quick post-war economic recovery (East Germany did not receive Marshall Aid and underwent a socialist transformation). Soon there was not enough personnel to support West Germany’s growing industry due to the high casualty rate amongst German men during the war, and the broad consensus for women to remain at home. After the construction of the Berlin Wall in 1961, the significant flow of East German workers into the West also dried up, leaving a shortfall of labor. The government subsequently turned to non-German workers. On December 22, 1955, West Germany signed an agreement with Italy for Gastarbeiter, or guest workers, to temporarily join the German labor force. Further agreements were later signed with countries like Spain (1960), Greece (1960), Turkey (1961), Portugal (1964), and Yugoslavia (1968). However, the arrival of Turkish workers was especially significant. By 1973, Turkish employees were the largest immigrant group, making up one-third of non-Germans and providing the foundations for the growth of Germany’s current Turkish community.

The Gastarbeiter’s countries of origin were also keen to cooperate. They hoped that the transfer of employees’ wages back to their families would benefit their balance of payments, whilst the loss of workers would relieve pressure on their own labor markets.

Life for the Gastarbeiter

By the fall of 1964 the number of foreign workers in West Germany exceeded 1 million, and this rose to 2 million five years later. Although the acceptance of foreign workers seemed to symbolize a strong break from the ethno-racial nationalism of the Third Reich, Germany’s steps towards greater diversity did not yet extend to social integration. The authorities tried to hire single men (and eventually women) due to their higher levels of flexibility and mobility. Workers were housed in isolated barracks, usually owned by the company, where there would be four to six beds per room. Contact with the native German population was therefore limited. The 1965 Ausländergesetz (Foreign Regulation Law) also categorized Gastarbeiter as foreigners, which determined their rights of work, social security, and residence but did not permit the right to naturalization. This was only eventually granted in 2000. Gastarbeiter were also frequently subject to discrimination and prejudice within German society. As divisions intensified between the Western allies and Soviet Union, West Germany’s economic recovery and entry into NATO took priority over denazification efforts. Consequently, denazification focused mainly on Nazi party membership and failed to give enough attention to social attitudes. A 1947 survey by the US Office of Military Government (OMGUS) consequently found evidence that a significant minority of the population still possessed lingering antisemitic and racist attitudes, which fueled an ‘othering’ of the Gastarbeiter.

Labor contracts also took the concept of a guest worker rather literally. Workers were initially only given one-year contracts, after which they should have been exchanged for other workers under the so-called rotation principle. However, this was not applied consistently. Industrial firms valued having trained permanent staff as frequent change required expensive training for new workers, who typically had low levels of language knowledge. Employers desired longer stays and their requests for an extension of a foreign employee’s work permit was usually granted. Relatives of the Gastarbeiter were then often able to join the company on the worker’s recommendation. However, the hiring of guestworkers was still flexible depending on the needs of the labor market. For example, following the recession in 1966/67 employment fell from 1.3 million in 1966 to 0.9 by January 1968.

Gastarbeiter typically took unpopular and low-paying positions in heavy industry, road, or underground construction. This led to stratification within the workplace. Whilst migrants filled positions with lower wages and higher health risks, German employees moved up to the better-paid higher positions.

The position of female Gastarbeiter

In presentations of the Gastarbeiter scheme, female workers have remained largely invisible. However, although there were initially fewer female Gastarbeiter, women made up approximately 30% of foreign employees in the German labor market by 1973. This was especially significant when you consider that less than one-third of West German were employed. The employment of female Gastarbeiter saw a positive shift in the 1970s due to the influence of the women’s emancipation movement and a growing demand for labor that could no longer solely be met by the male workforce.

Like their male counterparts, women were assigned the least attractive jobs in industry and services but were often preferred for jobs in factories involving stockings, porcelain, and electronics due to their smaller and delicate hands. From the 1950s women also filled labor demands within nursing and healthcare. This particularly attracted women from South Korea, the Philippines and India.

However, female Gastarbeiter faced additional challenges compared to the men. They were particularly exposed to racist stereotypes and exoticism from their coworkers or other sections of the population, and they were assigned to ‘light wage groups’ where they earned 30% less than the male Gastarbeiter.

Nevertheless, women did not remain passive. They often took instrumental roles in labor movements and strike action and so eventually achieved the abolition of discriminatory wage groups. At the Pierburg factory in Neuss, for example, women made up 1,700 of the 2,000 employees who initiated a general strike in June and August 1973 to demand the abolition of the low wage group and pay rises of 1 Deutsche Mark per hour for all workers. They were successful in gaining the abolition of the wage group and a wage increase of 30 Pfenning for all workers. This was one of over 300 ‘wildcat strikes’ (‘wildcat’ as they were not started or supported by a trade union) where foreign workers and Germans cooperated to improve working conditions.

The end of recruitment

By 1973 the oil crisis triggered a stagnation in West German economic growth, so the government passed a ‘recruitment freeze’ in November 1973 to relieve the labor market, marking the end of the Gastarbeiter program. Although 12 million of the 14 million Gastarbeiter had returned to their countries of origin by 1973, 2 million decided to remain in Germany. Returning would have led to the loss of their residence or labor permit and many Gastarbeiter faced economic or political uncertainty in their home countries. This fueled the migration of the Gastarbeiter’s family members to Germany, marking the beginning of Germany’s move towards a multicultural country of immigration.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Chin, Rita, Heide Fehrenbach, Geoff Eley, and Atina Grossmann. “German Democracy and the Question of Difference, 1945–1995.” In After the Nazi Racial State: Difference and Democracy in Germany and Europe, 102–36. University of Michigan Press, 2009. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3998/mpub.354212.8.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Invisible Caretakers – Labor Migration of Women in Germany’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/die-versorgerinnen-arbeitsmigration-von-frauen-in-deutschland/.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Recruiting “Guest Workers” (“Gastarbeiter”)’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/migrationhistory-in-pictures-1960-recruitment/.

DOMiD | Documentation Center and Museum of Migration in Germany. ‘Strike at Pierburg – Solidarity among Workers’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://domid.org/en/news/pierburg-strike-solidarity-among-workers/.

eKathimerini.com. ‘Doc Shines Light on the Overlooked Greek Female Gastarbeiter’, 11 May 2024. https://www.ekathimerini.com/culture/1238269/doc-shines-light-on-the-overlooked-greek-female-gastarbeiter/.

Historisches Lexikon Bayerns. ‘EN:Gastarbeiter (Guest Workers) ’. Accessed 22 January 2025. https://www.historisches-lexikon-bayerns.de/Lexikon/EN:Gastarbeiter_(guest_workers).

Willems, Rebecca. ‘Female Guest Workers in Germany’. herCAREER, 11 March 2024. https://www.her-career.com/en/female-guest-workers-in-germany/.

Winston Churchill: A Titan of the 20th Century

Winston Churchill (1874–1965) was one of the most significant figures of the 20th century, renowned for his leadership during the Second World War, his eloquent oratory, and his indomitable spirit. Born into the British aristocracy, Churchill's life was marked by remarkable achievements, profound controversies, and an enduring influence on world history.

Terry Bailey explains.

Winston Churchill with Charlie Chaplin in 1929.

Early life and education

Winston Leonard Spencer-Churchill was born on the 30th of November, 1874, at Blenheim Palace, Oxfordshire. He was the son of Lord Randolph Churchill, a prominent Conservative politician, and Jennie Jerome, an American socialite. Despite his privileged upbringing, Churchill's childhood was characterized by a distant relationship with his parents and struggles in school. However, he excelled in history and literature, which laid the foundation for his later career as a writer and historian.

After a turbulent education, Churchill attended the Royal Military Academy at Sandhurst, graduating with distinction. His military career began with postings in Cuba, India, and Sudan, where he participated in the famous Battle of Omdurman. His early experiences as a soldier and war correspondent showcased his bravery and literary talent, earning him public attention and acclaim.

Political career and ambitions

Churchill's entry into politics was swift and ambitious. He was elected as a Member of Parliament for Oldham in 1900 as a Conservative but soon defected to the Liberal Party in 1904 due to ideological disagreements. This shift marked the beginning of his reputation as a maverick politician.

As a Liberal, Churchill held several key positions, including President of the Board of Trade, Home Secretary, and First Lord of the Admiralty. His tenure at the Admiralty was particularly notable for his efforts to modernize the Royal Navy, an essential preparation for First World War. However, the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign of February 1915 to January 1916 for which Churchill was held partly responsible, temporarily derailed his career and damaged his political reputation.

In the interwar years, Churchill returned to the Conservative Party, where he became a vocal critic of appeasement policies toward Nazi Germany. His warnings about Adolf Hitler's ambitions were largely ignored, but they would later vindicate him.

Winston Churchill's strengths

Winston Churchill's reputation as a resolute leader stems from his extraordinary ability to inspire and galvanize people during some of the most turbulent periods in history. His oratorical skill was unmatched, with speeches like "We shall fight on the beaches" becoming iconic rallying cries during the Second World War. Churchill possessed a unique talent for using words to convey hope, determination, and resilience, even in the darkest hours. His speeches were not merely eloquent but infused with a profound understanding of the historical moment, motivating both his contemporaries and future generations to stand firm against adversity.

Another hallmark of Churchill's strength was his indomitable courage and determination. He was unafraid to make unpopular decisions when he believed they were right for the nation. During the Second World War, his unwavering opposition to appeasement and his insistence on standing up to Nazi Germany showcased his foresight and moral clarity. Churchill's ability to make tough choices, often under intense pressure, defined his leadership style and earned him the trust and admiration of many.

Churchill's intellectual curiosity and versatility were also defining traits. He was a prolific writer and historian, producing works such as 'The Second World War and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'. His ability to synthesize complex historical, political, and military dynamics into compelling narratives reflected his sharp analytical mind. This intellectual rigor informed his policymaking, enabling him to navigate the intricate challenges of global conflict and diplomacy.

Furthermore, Churchill's resilience in the face of personal and political setbacks was remarkable. He endured numerous failures throughout his career, including the Gallipoli Campaign during the First World War and his political exile in the interwar years, yet he remained steadfast in his belief in his vision and abilities. This capacity to recover, adapt, and continue striving for his goals underscores a strength of character that has cemented his place as one of history's most formidable leaders.

Churchill's enduring legacy lies in his ability to combine rhetorical brilliance, courage, intellectual depth, and resilience to lead Britain through its "finest hour." His strengths as a leader extended beyond his achievements during the war, shaping his impact as a statesman, historian, and symbol of determination and hope in the face of seemingly insurmountable odds.

Winston Churchill's weaknesses

While Winston Churchill is celebrated as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th century, his legacy is not without controversy. His weaknesses, both personal and political, have often been overshadowed by his wartime heroics, yet they are critical to understanding the full picture of his complex character.

One of Churchill's most notable weaknesses was his often erratic judgment, particularly in military and strategic planning. The disastrous Gallipoli campaign during the First World War, which he fervently championed as First Lord of the Admiralty, is a prime example. The poorly executed operation resulted in massive Allied casualties and is widely regarded as one of the First World War's great failures. This misstep led to his temporary political exile and cast a long shadow over his career.

Churchill's views on empire and race also reveal a more controversial side to his leadership. A staunch imperialist, he resisted movements for independence in colonies like India, often dismissing leaders like Mahatma Gandhi with disdain. His statements and policies, including his handling of the Bengal Famine of 1943, have been criticized as reflective of an outdated and racially prejudiced worldview. This has led to a reevaluation of his legacy in post-colonial contexts, where his policies are often seen as detrimental to millions.

Another weakness was his inability to manage relationships within his political party. Churchill's political career was marked by party-switching from Conservative to Liberal and back again, which earned him a reputation as untrustworthy among colleagues. His return to the Conservative Party was met with skepticism, and his leadership style, which was often domineering and dismissive of dissenting opinions, alienated many potential allies.

Churchill's impulsive and stubborn nature, while an asset in moments of crisis, also created challenges in peacetime governance. His second tenure as Prime Minister (1951–1955) was marred by declining health and a lack of significant achievements. His insistence on maintaining Britain's global influence at a time when its power was waning often appeared out of touch with the realities of the post-war world.

Despite these flaws, Churchill's weaknesses underscore his humanity and add nuance to his towering legacy. They provide a reminder that even history's greatest figures are not immune to misjudgment and controversy, offering valuable lessons for leaders in any era.

Military Service: The Boer War and the First World War

Winston Churchill's military career was driven by a desire to gain firsthand experience of combat and distinguish himself in service. His exploits in early campaigns such as Cuba, India, and Sudan and during the Boer War (1899–1902), in addition to, the First World War (1914–1918) offer glimpses into his courage, resourcefulness, and determination, traits that would later define his leadership as Britain's wartime prime minister.

During the Boer War, Churchill served as a war correspondent for, the Morning Post but soon found himself embroiled in the conflict. In November 1899, while accompanying an armored train patrol, his train was derailed by Boer artillery shelling and at the battle of Chieveley was captured, made a prisoner of war (POW) and interned at a camp in Pretoria. His imprisonment at the State Model School in Pretoria did little to dull his ambitions. In December in a daring and audacious escape, Churchill evaded his captors by scaling a wall and navigating hundreds of miles across enemy territory, eventually reaching safety in Portuguese East Africa (modern-day Mozambique).

The escape transformed him into a national hero, cementing his reputation as a man of extraordinary determination and ingenuity. It also served as a launchpad for his political career, returning to Britain he won his first seat in Parliament in 1900.

Churchill's military involvement resumed during the First World War when, after the Gallipoli campaign debacle, he resigned as First Lord of the Admiralty and sought to redeem his reputation. In 1916, he joined the British Army on the Western Front, first with the 2nd Battalion of the Grenadier Guards and then later with the 6th Battalion of the Royal Scots Fusiliers taking command of the Battalion. Stationed near Ploegsteert Wood in Belgium, Churchill was no mere figurehead; he immersed himself in the grim realities of trench warfare. Known for his concern for his men's welfare, he led by example, often exposing himself to danger while inspecting front-line positions. His experiences in the trenches profoundly affected him, deepening his understanding of the horrors of war and the challenges of command.

Churchill's time on the battlefield, in early campaigns as well as South Africa and the Western Front, showcased his unyielding courage and drive. These experiences not only enriched his political insight but also shaped the resilient and tenacious leader who would later steer Britain through its darkest and finest hours.

Influences and legacy

Churchill's life and career were shaped by his aristocratic heritage, his military background, and his profound love of history. He was heavily influenced by his father, whose political ambitions he sought to emulate and surpass. His mother's American connections also fostered a lifelong appreciation for Anglo-American relations.

Churchill was a prolific writer and historian, earning the Nobel Prize in Literature in 1953 for works such as 'The Second World War and A History of the English-Speaking Peoples'. These writings not only cemented his place as a man of letters but also ensured his version of events would dominate historical narratives.

Winston Churchill's life was a tapestry of triumphs and failures, courage and controversy. His legacy as a wartime leader and a defender of democracy endures, even as historians grapple with the complexities of his character and policies. Churchill's influence on the 20th century remains unparalleled, a testament to his singular determination and vision. His story is not merely one of a statesman but of a man who shaped history and inspired millions in the face of adversity.

In conclusion, Winston Churchill's life encapsulates the duality of human greatness, his extraordinary achievements are inseparable from his profound flaws. As a leader, he rose to the most daunting challenges of his time, rallying a nation and the world with his unyielding resolve and masterful rhetoric. Churchill's legacy as the steadfast architect of Britain's resistance during the Second World War stands as one of the most iconic chapters in modern history. His speeches, decisions, and unrelenting vision for victory became symbols of hope in the face of tyranny, shaping the course of global events.

Yet, Churchill was far from infallible. His career was marked by controversial judgments, unyielding imperialism, and a personality that could alienate allies as easily as it inspired followers. From the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign to his contentious stance on colonial independence, these shortcomings remind us that even the most monumental figures are subject to the limitations of their time and their humanity. They offer a more nuanced understanding of a man who, despite his imperfections, left an indelible mark on the world.

Churchill's enduring influence extends far beyond his wartime leadership. His prolific writing not only chronicled pivotal moments of history but also shaped how those moments are remembered. As a statesman, he embodied a complex blend of courage, intellect, and resilience that continues to inspire leaders and thinkers across generations. His unwavering belief in democracy and the strength of the human spirit resonates as powerfully today as it did in the darkest days of the 20th century.

Ultimately, Winston Churchill was more than a titan of his time; he was an attestation to the power of determination and vision. His story is not simply one of victories and defeats but of a life lived on the grandest stage of history, where he became a beacon of fortitude in a world desperate for leadership. Churchill's legacy serves as a reminder that greatness is not the absence of flaws but the ability to rise above them to achieve extraordinary things.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes on the Gallipoli campaign:

The Gallipoli campaign, undertaken during the First World War remains one of the most notable military disasters of the 20th century. Intended to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front, the campaign aimed to seize control of the Dardanelles Strait and ultimately capture Constantinople (modern-day Istanbul). This bold strategy promised to open a new front, supply routes to Russia, and weaken the Ottoman Empire, Germany's ally. However, poor planning, miscommunication, and delays turned the operation into a tragic quagmire.

One of the pivotal failures of the campaign occurred during the disembarkation of Allied troops on the Gallipoli Peninsula in April 1915. The initial naval bombardments on Ottoman defenses were moderately effective, producing a brief window of opportunity for a rapid troop landing. However, the navy, overly cautious and indecisive, delayed the disembarkation. This gave Ottoman forces critical time to regroup and fortify their positions. When Allied soldiers finally landed, they faced a well-prepared and entrenched enemy, turning what could have been a swift advance into a grueling stalemate.

The leadership of the campaign was equally fraught with errors. Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was a key sponsor of the Gallipoli operation. His vision for using naval power to force a breakthrough was bold but poorly supported by strategic foresight and coordination among military branches. When the campaign faltered, Churchill became an easy scapegoat for the failure. His political career suffered a significant blow, forcing his resignation and temporary retreat from high office. Although the blame was shared by many, Churchill's association with the campaign left an indelible mark on his reputation.

The Gallipoli campaign's failure was not only a strategic blunder but also a human tragedy. Over 500,000 casualties were suffered by both sides, including many from the ANZAC (Australian and New Zealand Army Corps), whose sacrifices became a defining moment in their nations' histories. The lack of cohesive leadership, the delayed deployment of forces, and the underestimation of Ottoman resistance sealed the fate of the operation. Gallipoli remains a stark lesson in the consequences of poor planning and inter-service rivalry in military strategy.

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: Vincent Drucci

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

If you asked Vincent Drucci what his biggest fear was, it might have taken him awhile to answer. He was reckless and seemingly fearless with a massive disregard for anyone’s personal safety but especially his own. His past times included jumping bridges, riding on the sides of speeding cars, dressing as a priest and stealing his friends’ shoes. And though he wouldn’t admit it to you, it is possible his biggest fear was losing everyone he loved. And by the winter of 1926, that was beginning to seem like a likely reality for him. So, when he took over from Hymie Weiss, he made a decision that was probably not well liked but that he desperately needed.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here, and part two is here.

The mausoleum of Vincent Drucci at Mount Carmel Cemetery, Hillside, Illinois. Source: Nick Number, available here.

Early Life and Meeting His Crime Family

Sicilian gangsters of Chicago are most often associated with Cicero and the South Side, but there was also a small community on the north side of the city and that was where John and Rosa D’Ambrosio settled with their family. On April 27, 1899, they welcomed their sixth child of what would eventually be ten children, Ludovico D’Ambrosio, the Latin spelling of Victor. Not much is known about Victor D’Ambrosio as a child. Census records indicate that he went to school and that he learned to read and write. It is most likely that he was supposed to enter the family construction business at some point. However, his temper and need to continuously be moving, paired with a tendency towards dreaminess made him a poor fit.

He joined the Marines when the United States became involved in World War I and ended up shell shocked and with little disregard for life when he came home. None of this served to make him a better employee for the construction business, either the work itself or the customer service part of it and, since his father had passed away in 1916, there was no pressure to stay on in the job he hated and for which he wasn’t well suited. Crime seemed a much better career path for him.

While he started robbing phone boxes he eventually met Dean O’Banion and Hymie Weiss, as well as George Moran. Dean, despite his rumored hatred of Sicilians could speak a little of the language and found in Victor, now calling himself Vincent Drucci, a kindred spirit. Both men were charming, fun loving with violent tempers. Where O’Banion was quick to settle his problems with a gun, Drucci was more likely to create a scenario that was so outlandish and crazy that at times you had to let him do it, if only to see if it would work.

This wild imagination earned him the nickname ‘Schemer.’ His plans did not just revolve around his current life of crime though. At one point he is rumored to have come up with a plan to get himself to the US presidency. It was all illegal, of course, but no one could ever accuse Vincent Drucci of thinking small.

Cinema Style Gangster

When he joined with O’Banion, Weiss, and Moran, it was like he had found four extra brothers. Weiss was his older brother that he could needle and poke but who would always still adore him. O’Banion was the older brother who taught him how to poke Weiss and encouraged him in his mischief making and prank pulling.

His best known prank took place on the busy State Street. Somehow, Drucci came into procession of a priest’s collar and robes. He would regularly stand outside Schofield’s (yes, directly across from a Catholic Church) and yell obscenities at passersby. Once, O’Banion came out to join, pretending to be offended and beating him up.

A driver for the North Side Gang remembers Drucci coming to ask for his keys so he could move his car, without a second thought he handed over the keys. When Drucci returned he simply handed the keys back without a word and walked away. It wasn’t until the man went to his car that he found out why he had been so tightlipped. Drucci had filled the man’s car with freshly shoveled snow from the sidewalk. Dean, while he paid to get it cleaned, couldn’t help finding it to be hilarious. And then, there was the “Shoe” game, which more than likely got Drucci in fights often enough, but the only example we have is from when he pulled it on the serious and temperamental, Weiss.

The Shoe Game involved someone wearing a new pair of shoes. When he spotted the shoes, Drucci yelled the word “shoes,” and tackled the person, stealing them off their feet. Weiss was his victim one day and somehow not only did Drucci get the shoes off but managed to chuck them out the second story window of Schofield’s. Weiss’s head appeared to the pedestrians below, politely asking them to bring up his shoes. The person who brought them up remembered Vincent howling with laughter while Weiss cursed loudly. For a man with a temper that got his brother shot, Weiss was clearly not angry enough with Drucci to really lose his cool and loved him dearly. Not to mention, it was an example of the fearless of Vincent Drucci. But no one doubted that. Not after the bridge jump, something straight out of a movie.

At the end of August in 1922, Drucci was involved in a chase with police, wanted for forfeiting his bond from a safe cracking arrest, when he came to the DuSable bridge on Michigan Avenue and the gates just coming down for the bridge to rise, letting a barge through. A common occurrence in Chicago and one that should have been the end of the chase. Not one to be thwarted by something as trivial as a gap in a bridge, Drucci, put the car in gear, pressed the gas, broke through the barrier and successfully jumped the bridge. Unfortunately, the two police officers did the same and Drucci encountered a traffic jam. It made headlines and has become a legend in the Chicago history.

Violent Temper, Broken Heart

None of this is to say that Vincent Drucci was simply a fun loving guy on the wrong side of the law. He was a violent, dangerous man when crossed or on a bad day. There was a new gun law in Chicago in 1925 staying that it was illegal to carry a concealed weapon. Drucci was arrested but then walked free, fined $300 by a judge. According to most people who were there, Rose Keefe says in “The Man Who Got Away,” Drucci “seemed amused by the whole thing.” And then a detective chose to make an example of him on the steps of the courthouse, saying he would frisk him every time he saw him.

Drucci did try to avoid carrying a weapon after that but between the feeling of paranoia and gang war he was involved in, he didn’t have much patience left to be tested. When he was denied use of a telephone at a local business, he turned on his heel and went back out to his bodyguard, asking to borrow his gun. He didn’t shoot the man, instead he beat him over the head with gun. The man had to be treated for scalp wounds at a nearby hospital.

The attempt on his life and that of Hymie Weiss outside of the Standard Oil building in August of 1926 was really just par for the course for Drucci by that point. As was attempting to escape on the running boards of another car. And the hit on Capone at the Hawthorne Hotel, despite Weiss being credited as the mastermind behind it, seems to have all the signature pieces of a Vincent Drucci plan. There was nothing subtle or sophisticated, except maybe the firing of blanks. And it wasn’t effective in the way they had hoped for. Since the three men—Weiss, Drucci, and Moran—never declared a true leader, they all had a say in it, but it feels like a Vincent Drucci scheme more than a Hymie Weiss plan. And it’s too thought out to be a George Moran plan.

On October 11, 1926 when he heard of the shooting of his best friend, Hymie Weiss, between Schofield’s and Holy Name Cathedral, he jumped in his car and headed for the scene. Thankfully, someone stopped and gave him the update, Weiss was dead. Drucci turned the car around and going back to his hotel, emptied it of his necessities and went into hiding. He appeared at the funeral but the police avoided him, rightly thinking he would blow his lid if they questioned him there. On October 17th, the police did take him in for questioning while he was sitting at a Cubs game. He refused to say anything, telling the police he had been in New York. An obvious lie, but the police had been through this enough by now and chose not to press it. If a gangster wasn’t going to tell you, he wasn’t going to tell you and nothing would make him.

The loss of Weiss put Drucci in charge, more or less, of the North Side Gang and he agreed to peace terms with Capone. It was the agreement of a man who had lost too many friends already, not to mention his dad and then in 1924, a much younger brother had passed as well. In his family life and criminal life, Drucci had had enough.

A Short Reign

Drucci wasn’t completely done with his prankster ways though and shortly after taking over, he and Moran managed to impersonate police officers and pretend to raid some alcohol…from the police. How he did this is unclear but the police force was very unhappy and embarrassed.

In the biography of Joe Lewis, a comedian of the twenties, called “The Joker is Wild,” Lewis gave insight into how Vincent Drucci had calmed a little after the deaths of his two best friends. He closed a speakeasy called “The Green Mill,” almost every night and would walk back to the hotel that both he and the comedian had rooms in, with Lewis. He was considered a calm and polite and a genuinely friendly guy. At some point over the years, he had gotten married, but far from being a calming influence on him, his wife Cecilia was just as feisty and tough as her husband.

Things all seemed to be going well, until election day, April 4, 1927. The North Siders and the South Siders were working together to get Big Bill Thompson elected as mayor of Chicago again. Drucci was apprehended by police officers for threatening people voting against Thompson.  One of the policeman was Detective Dan Healy, a straight cop with a short fuse who never took bribes and loathed gangsters like Drucci. He had already shot one thief the previous year and almost a second in November.  Drucci and Healy were already on unfriendly terms and it seems Drucci was in a bad mood. Even before they had made it to the car the two were arguing as Drucci had called Healy a name for holding him too tight and Healy had pulled his gun and threatened to shoot him. Inside the car it didn’t improve, Drucci and two of his associates sat in the backseat with Healy and another officer, and two more officers were up in the front seat. As the drive continued Healy and Drucci’s argument grew more intense until Healy shot him three times.

Depending on who you asked the story was a little different. The police officers, Healy, Sergeant Daniel Keough, Sergeant Matthew Cunningham and Lieutenant Liebeck, said that Drucci began by punching wildly at the car’s curtains. After that he jumped at Healy, threatening him and Healy shot him.

The two men who had been arrested with Drucci, Henry Finkelstein and Albert Singel, said that Drucci had been sitting with his hands in his lap when he was shot three times, in the leg, the stomach and the arm. He was taken to a local hospital which said he needed more assistance than they could give him and put him in an ambulance to the county hospital. He didn’t live long enough to make it.

Buried with military honors, Vincent Drucci was laid to rest in the family vault at Mount Caramel Cemetery, near where Hymie Weiss and Dean O’Banion were interred. In an outlandish display of flowers that the man himself surely would have appreciated, one funeral picture shows the letters, “VD” made out of flowers.

George Moran was taking over a gang that had lost two leaders in less than six months. He had his work cut out for him and he still harbored a hatred of Capone that no amount of “peace talks” would quench. Moran’s top men, the Gusenbergs, who had been around since the O’Banion days, became good friends with him. They had often been mistaken for each other, except in the near future, it would be their similar builds and looks that would save Moran’s life.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Theodore Roosevelt: A Life of Unyielding Determination and Vision

Theodore Roosevelt (1858–1919) was a dynamic force in American history, renowned for his larger-than-life personality, progressive policies, and relentless energy. Born into a wealthy New York family on the 27th of October, 1858, Roosevelt overcame severe health challenges as a child to become one of the most influential figures in American politics. His career spanned a remarkable array of roles: war hero, conservationist, reformer, writer, and the 26th President of the United States.

Terry Bailey explains.

Theodore Roosevelt - presidential portrait. By John Singer Sargent

Early life and formative years

Roosevelt's early life was shaped by a contrast of privilege and adversity. His father, Theodore Roosevelt Sr., was a philanthropist and businessman who deeply influenced young Theodore's sense of duty and morality. However, Roosevelt's childhood was marked by debilitating asthma that left him frail and often housebound. Determined to overcome his physical limitations, he embarked on a rigorous regimen of exercise, boxing, and outdoor activities.

A voracious reader and curious intellect, Roosevelt attended Harvard College, where he excelled in academics, particularly history and biology, although he struggled in Greek and Latin. His interest in natural science would later inform his conservation efforts. After Harvard, he briefly attended Columbia Law School but left to pursue a career in public service and writing.

Political ambitions

Roosevelt's political career began in earnest when he was elected to the New York State Assembly in 1881 at the age of 23. A staunch reformer, he gained a reputation for fighting corruption, earning him the enmity of political bosses but the respect of reform-minded voters.

A series of personal tragedies in 1884—losing both his mother and wife on the same day, his mother, Mittie Roosevelt died of typhoid fever in the early hours of the morning of the 14th of February, 1884, aged 48. In the afternoon and in the same house, Theodore's first wife, Alice Lee Roosevelt, unexpectedly died of Bright's disease. This led him to retreat to the Dakota Territory, where he immersed himself in ranching and frontier life. This interlude strengthened his resolve and shaped his rugged, self-reliant persona.

Returning to politics, he served as New York City Police Commissioner, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, and then as the leader of the Rough Riders, a volunteer cavalry regiment that gained fame during the Spanish-American War. Roosevelt's battlefield heroics catapulted him to national fame and a seat as Governor of New York in 1898. His progressive reforms as governor positioned him as a rising star in the Republican Party, leading to his nomination as Vice President under William McKinley in 1900.

Presidency and progressive reform

McKinley's assassination on the 14th of September, 1901 thrust Roosevelt into the presidency at the age of 42, making him the youngest person to hold the office. Roosevelt's presidency marked a dramatic departure from the laissez-faire policies of his predecessors. Known as the "trust buster," Roosevelt sought to curb the power of monopolies through antitrust lawsuits and regulation. He championed the rights of workers, as seen in his intervention during the 1902 coal strike, and pushed for sweeping reforms under his "Square Deal" policy, which aimed at fairness for workers, consumers, and businesses.

Roosevelt's influence extended beyond domestic policy. He played a pivotal role in expanding America's influence on the global stage, adhering to his famous maxim, "Speak softly and carry a big stick." He oversaw the construction of the Panama Canal, brokered peace in the Russo-Japanese War, earning the Nobel Peace Prize in 1906, the first American to win a Nobel Prize, reinforcing the United States' status as a burgeoning world power.

Conservation Legacy

Roosevelt's passion for nature and the outdoors translated into a groundbreaking conservation agenda. He established the United States Forest Service, created five national parks, and protected approximately 230 million acres of public land through national monuments, forests, and wildlife refuges. His vision laid the groundwork for modern environmental preservation efforts.

Strengths and weaknesses

Strengths

Theodore Roosevelt was a paragon of dynamic leadership and unyielding tenacity. His larger-than-life personality, boundless energy, and progressive vision helped to define an era of transformation in America. Roosevelt's strength lay not only in his robust physical presence but also in his intellectual vigor, reformist zeal, and commitment to public service. A man of action and ideas, he combined these traits to leave an indelible mark on the nation.

One of Roosevelt's greatest strengths was his unwavering determination. From an early age, as indicated he battled debilitating asthma, which he overcame through sheer willpower and a regimen of rigorous physical activity. This same resolve carried into his political career, where he faced challenges with unrelenting fortitude. Whether it was breaking up corporate monopolies, championing conservation, or navigating international diplomacy, Roosevelt approached every issue with a boldness that inspired both admiration and action.

Another hallmark of Roosevelt's character was his intellectual curiosity and progressive vision. A voracious reader and prolific writer, he was deeply informed on a wide range of topics, from history to natural sciences. This intellectual foundation enabled him to craft policies that balanced innovation with pragmatism.

Roosevelt's charisma and ability to connect with the American people were unparalleled. His infectious enthusiasm and relatable demeanor resonated across social and economic divides. Whether charging up San Juan Hill during the Spanish-American War or delivering fiery speeches advocating for the common man, Roosevelt embodied the ideals of courage and resilience. He understood the power of symbolism and used his persona to inspire a nation to strive for greatness.

In the realm of international relations, Roosevelt's strength as a diplomat and strategist came to the forefront. His efforts to mediate the end of the Russo-Japanese War was the act that earned him the Nobel Peace Prize, a testament to his skill in fostering dialogue and compromise. At the same time, his "big stick" foreign policy underscored his belief in America's role as a global power, combining negotiation with a readiness to act decisively when necessary. In every arena he entered, Theodore Roosevelt exemplified leadership rooted in action, intellect, and a profound sense of duty.

Weaknesses

Although Theodore Roosevelt, the 26th President of the United States, is often celebrated for his robust personality, dynamic leadership, and progressive policies, like any historical figure, he was not without his weaknesses. These vulnerabilities provide a more nuanced understanding of a man who, while towering in the public imagination, was deeply human.

One of Roosevelt's most prominent weaknesses was his impulsiveness. While his decisiveness was often an asset, it occasionally led to hasty decisions that lacked thorough consideration. For instance, his initial enthusiasm for U.S. intervention in the Philippines during the Spanish-American War evolved into a prolonged and controversial conflict. Roosevelt's tendency to act swiftly sometimes overshadowed a more measured approach that could have mitigated long-term challenges.

Another weakness was his combative nature, particularly in dealing with political adversaries.

Roosevelt relished a fight, whether in the political arena or the wilderness, and his aggressive tactics sometimes alienated allies and opponents alike. His disdain for those he deemed unprincipled or overly cautious often translated into strained relationships, as seen during his fractious split with William Howard Taft, his handpicked successor. This division not only fractured the Republican Party but also contributed to the election of Woodrow Wilson in 1912.

Roosevelt's rigid worldview also presented challenges. He was deeply committed to the ideals of rugged individualism and the moral superiority of the United States, but this sometimes manifested as an inflexible approach to complex international and domestic issues. His belief in the "civilizing" mission of American expansionism led to policies that disregarded the sovereignty and cultures of other nations, particularly in Latin America. His push for the construction of the Panama Canal, while a remarkable engineering feat, was steeped in controversial diplomatic maneuvers that critics argue undermined U.S.-Panama relations.

Finally, Roosevelt's relentless drive for personal and national achievement took a toll on his health and relationships. His larger-than-life persona often masked the physical and emotional strain of his pursuits. By the time he sought a return to the presidency in 1912, his once-boundless energy was noticeably diminished. His need to constantly prove himself, whether through daring exploits or political battles, sometimes hindered his ability to step back and reflect.

These weaknesses, while significant, are a testament to the complexity of Roosevelt's character. They provide a reminder that even the most celebrated leaders are marked by flaws that shape their legacies in profound ways.

Later years and legacy

After leaving the presidency in 1909, Roosevelt remained politically active, dissatisfied with the direction of his successor, William Howard Taft. In 1912, he ran as a third-party candidate for the Progressive ("Bull Moose") Party, splitting the Republican vote and inadvertently aiding Woodrow Wilson's victory.

Roosevelt's final years were marked by declining health but continued engagement in public life. He was a vocal critic of President Wilson's neutrality during the First World War and advocated for greater U.S. involvement. Despite his declining health, Roosevelt remained active until his death in the early hours of the 6th of January, 1919, at the age of 60.

In conclusion, Theodore Roosevelt's life and career embody a relentless pursuit of excellence, reform, and progress. He transcended the limitations of his childhood frailty to become one of America's most vigorous and influential leaders. From his tireless efforts to combat corruption and monopoly power to his enduring contributions to conservation and global diplomacy, Roosevelt reshaped the role of the presidency and left an indelible mark on the nation's trajectory.

Roosevelt's vision for America was one of fairness, opportunity, and strength, an ethos encapsulated in his "Square Deal." His emphasis on balancing the interests of labor, business, and government reflected a commitment to equity that resonates even in contemporary political discourse.

His work as a conservationist remains one of his most celebrated legacies, inspiring generations to value and protect the natural world.

While Roosevelt's assertive policies and imperialistic tendencies invite critique, they also underscore the complexities of his character, a man whose ambitions and ideals often mirrored the contradictions of his era. His larger-than-life persona, unyielding determination, and innovative leadership made him a figure of profound influence, one whose impact continues to shape the United States and its global role.

Theodore Roosevelt's legacy endures not merely in the policies he championed or the lands he preserved but in the spirit of resilience, reform, and vision he exemplified. He remains a towering figure in American history, reminding us of the transformative power of courage, intellect, and action.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Bright's disease

Bright's disease is a historical classification of kidney diseases that are described in modern medicine as acute or chronic nephritis. It was characterized by swelling and the presence of albumin in the urine, and was frequently accompanied by high blood pressure and heart disease.

The North Siders - Chicago’s Pirate Robin Hoods: Hymie Weiss

The Roaring Twenties were a time period filled with tales of adventure and glamour. Prohibition fueled a party lifestyle - and made available a dangerous but adrenaline fueled life to some of the more enterprising members of the underworld. In Chicago, Illinois, the Twenties have become a time of legend and usually call to mind one man, Al Capone. But Capone, for all intents and purposes, was only a figure head during the Beer Wars. He ran his gang and racket, but he delegated the dirty work.

To the north of him was a group that was, as one newspaper of the time called them, Modern Day Pirates, The North Side Gang. Consider Capone the Prince John to their Robin Hood and his Merry-men, an analogy that Rose Keefe introduced in her book, Guns and Roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion. Robin Hood isn’t quite as steal from the rich to give to the poor and you’ll need to give Little John a temper and thirst for vengeance that was unrivaled. Also, make the merry-men a little crazier and a lot more deadly. You get the picture.

Hymie Weiss more than likely would look back at 1924 as one of those years where everything and anything just seemed to have gone wrong for him. It had all calumniated in the death of his best friend and mentor in November. When Dean O’Banion died, Hymie said everything he had in the world was gone. But that didn’t mean that he was going to stand by and let it stay that way. He mourned his friend, buried him and then began a campaign of vengeance.

Erin Finlen continues her series.

Part one is here.

Grave of Hymie Weiss at Mount Carmel Cemetery in Hillside, Illinois. Source: Nick Number, available here.

Childhood

West Division Street ran through the middle of the Polish neighborhood of Bucktown on the West Side of Chicago and at 2021 W. Division Street was a saloon that was run by William Wojciechowski and his wife Mary. The pair had moved from New York with their children, Joseph, Bernard, and Frederick. In Chicago, they welcomed another daughter named Violet. Then, on January 25, 1898, the youngest of their children, Henryk Josef Wojciechowski, was born, although he would later change his name to Earl, saying it sounded like royalty. His mother would eventually decide to Americanize their last name to Weiss, although not legally.

He was enrolled at a school, St. Malachy’s on Washington, where he, from all accounts was a smart child with lots of friends, adored by his teachers. One even gave him a pocket bible which he would carry in his pocket for the rest of his life. The influences of the saloon life ran deep, and in 1913 his oldest brother, Joseph, was arrested and charged in the murder of three men. According to Joseph and his father a fight had broken out and Joseph was acting in self-defense. He was acquitted. However, rumors soon started circulating in the newspapers that the trial had been fixed and Joseph moved to New Mexico, where he died from Tuberculosis. Whatever the effect this had on Jospeh’s younger siblings is hard to say, as at this time Henryk would have been sixteen and already involved in crime on his own. He had also taken the name Earl.

Hotheadedness and violence seemed to run in the family though, as William, his father was arrested and injured in a labor dispute in Buffalo, New York in 1894 and Fred, Earl’s brother, was also considered to have had a formidable temper as well.

For the most part though, young Earl was no different than most other boys his age, involved in street gang wars from the time he was ten. He wasn’t the healthiest and had suffered from headaches for a long time. In 1918, he tried to join the army but was denied, as his draft card says, for a “double rupture” in his heart. At the time, Weiss was angry, annoyed that he couldn’t serve his country with the skills he had earned on the street. History, though, had different plans for Earl Weiss.

The Making of an Outlaw

Weiss was not an outwardly friendly individual and he was even less adept at making friends with newspapermen, telling them, “If you take my picture, I swear I’ll kill you.” Making an enemy of the press had earned him a much hated nickname, “The Perfume Burglar,” after he tried to rob a store, knocked over the perfume counter and was arrested smelling strongly of multiple scents. Eventually, the press and the underworld gave him a new nickname, “Hymie,” because of his outwardly Jewish appearance, even though he was catholic. He didn’t mind the nickname and seems to have let it stick.

After being turned away from military service he turned his criminal pursuits to safe cracking with Charles Reiser, where he met his mentor and best friend, Dean O’Banion. As discussed in Dean’s article the pair were a study in opposites and while Weiss is often branded the temperamental one it was he that was better at thinking through his actions and planning ahead. Unless provoked, of course.

In June of 1920 he shot his brother, Fred, in their shared apartment for a joke his brother made about Hymie not serving in the military (while newspaper articles at the time say that Fred served in the army, I have yet to find anything besides his draft card and his headstone does not bare the veteran symbol). In a fit of anger he shot Fred square in the chest and then, took him to a nearby hospital before running away. Fred survived and begged the doctors to not look into, although they reported it to the police anyway. The police arrested Weiss, but were not able to find any evidence to convict him.

In the meantime, he was busy helping Dean build their bootlegging empire with their friends Vincent Drucci and George Moran. They were making enough money now to be able to bribe most cops and judges. While they were bootlegging, they continued to pursue other criminal activities. In 1922, Weiss and Moran, under his alias of George Nolan were arrested after a police chase for stealing jewels. No charges were ever pressed all the police did have to fire shots to get the pair to pull over.

Illness and Mourning

At the same time, Weiss was making regular use of the couch that Dean had placed in his office for him. The regular headaches that had plagued him all his life were growing more frequent and the pain getting so unbearable he once had a fit on the floor of the North Siders garage. In early 1924, he left Chicago for Hot Springs, Arkansas in hopes of improving his health. While away, his brother in law and Dean were placed under suspicion for the murder of John Duffy and his name was brought into the equation due to the car being in his name. There probably wasn’t much of the hoped for relaxing on the trip.

When he returned he received a devastating diagnosis, he had terminal arterial cancer. This had been causing the headaches and fainting for so long. It was also the cause of that double rupture that had kept him out of World War I. He was given around two years to live and he intended to make the most of them. He is quoted as saying, “I’m not going to live long, but I will live long enough.” He just had to deal with fallout from Sieben Brewery raid.

It is suspected that he was the real mastermind behind ending the Torrio treaty. He was the thinker of the group but whether he didn’t consider the consequences or simply didn’t think they would be so severe, he still found himself mourning the loss of his best friend in November of that year.

A lifetime of an impulsive temper and hard knocks had taught Weiss a thing or two about revenge and as he drove out of Dean O’Banion’s funeral he was determined to make the people who took him from him pay.

Love and War

Weiss waited and he planned. From November until January he gathered information and observed. Then on January 24, 1925, when Johnny Torrio and his wife pulled up outside their home after a shopping trip Weiss and Moran with Drucci driving the car pulled up next behind them. After waiting for Anna Torrio and the dog to be clear of the car they fired on Johnny Torrio, hitting him multiple times. When he fell to the ground, George Moran ran up to shoot the fatal shot when a laundry truck came around the corner and Drucci blew the horn: it was time to go. Thinking they had done enough damage the North Siders fled the scene. Anna Torrio, a nurse ran to her husband’s side and slowed the bleeding until ambulances arrived.

When word reached Hymie Weiss that he had not succeeded in eliminating Torrio, who was now in critical condition but very much alive in a hospital he was furious. One nurses account gives us an idea of how he reacted when the planning and intelligent part of his brain gave way to the impulsive and angry emotions. She told authorities that a man had run up to the desk demanding to know where Torrio was. She refused, saying no one was allowed to see him, Torrio’s wife had insisted on no one but family and an approved few friends. The man insisted and the nurse, thinking quickly, informed him that there was an increased police presence at the hospital. The man left in hurry after that. The nurse later identified the man as Earl “Hymie” Weiss from his mugshot.

1925 was not off to an auspicious start in anyway and in April, Weiss appeared in court for charges from a bootlegging arrest the previous year. Having originally made a plea of not guilty, he changed it to guilty and in May would serve six months at McHenry County Jail. He was still able to keep in touch and visit with the other members of the North Side Gang and by this time it had become clear that he was the new boss, through his intelligence and the charm that he did have but regularly chose not to use.

When he got out in the fall of 1925, the Genna Gang was no longer an issue, being eliminated through the police, Capone, and Drucci and Moran. He seemed to have relaxed a little and that could be because fell in love shortly after his release.

He met a Follies’ Girl by the name of Josephine Simard in the lobby of the Congress and the two immediately hit it off. He even followed her to New York when she left and returned with her now as husband and wife.

She was what Dean had been for him, a ray of sunshine to his dark moods and while they did fight often—the famous scene in “The Public Enemy” (1931) where James Cagney shoves a melon into Mae Wests face is supposedly based off of Hymie Weiss shoving an omelet in Josephine’s face when she wouldn’t stop talking one morning— they were a well matched pair and seemed very happy together.

He might have cooled in his quest for revenge but his temper certainly had not. In June of 1926, when he was at a party raided by police, he forced the policeman to leave at gun point. The police obviously came back with help and Weiss and a friend were arrested. Weiss wasn’t done yet and filed a petition to be reimbursed for items he believed were stolen during the raid. The petition was quickly denied, but it seems that it might have stirred something of the old Weiss in him.

The Battle Resumes

In August of 1925, Weiss and Drucci, who had been a massive thorn in the side for Al Capone for a while were attacked by rival gangsters and involved in a shoot-out in front of the Standard Oil Building. Well, Drucci was. Weiss ran for cover and Drucci hopped on the running boards of a passing car, telling the driver to follow the assailants, before he was nabbed by the cops. Weiss telephoned his mother, Mary Weiss, who showed up at the police station to pay Drucci’s bail. Drucci’s explanation to police for the event was the gangsters were trying to rob him.

Police and the North Siders weren’t fooled. It was the Capone gangsters as retribution for the killing of Al Capone’s chauffeur, who it was believed was kidnapped and tortured for information about Capone’s routine by the North Side Gang (Note: John Binder, in his book “Al Capone’s Beer Wars” posits that this was probably not the North Side Gang and I am inclined to agree: it did not fit with any of the other crimes committed by the gang under Weiss. Torture of those not directly involved with a life of crime was not their style. It was more likely the Saltis gang behind the chauffeur’s death).

For a month, Hymie Weiss, Vincent Drucci, and George Moran waited before their next attack. The audacity and publicity of the attack has gone down in history as one of the more dramatic gangland attacks of all time. On September 20, 1926 a parade of cars pulled up in front of the Hawthorne Hotel where Capone was having lunch. They fired a first volley of blank ammunition to draw Capone outside and then the real firing began. The mess of shooting used somewhere around two hundred bullets and witnesses agreed they saw Hymie Weiss and Moran or one of the Gusenberg Brothers get out and fire Tommy Guns into the restaurant. One of the Capone gunmen from the Standard Oil Shootout was injured and so was a woman eating in the restaurant. Capone paid for her hospital bills.

Capone decided to give peace talks one more try but not in person, he sent a liaison. Capone was famously scared of Weiss and it’s easy to see why. Capone was a man with a lot to lose and Weiss, as he saw it, had nothing. Weiss told the liaison that he would agree to peace if Capone surrendered John Scalise and Albert Anselmi, who he knew were involved in the murder of Dean O’Banion, to the North Siders. Capone refused and Weiss left the meeting angry.

October 11, 1926, Hymie Weiss’s car pulled up outside Holy Name Cathedral, with four of his men. As he was crossing the street bullets from Thompson SubMachine Gun burst from the window of a nearby apartment. Weiss fell to the ground unconscious and died on the way to the hospital. Paddy Murray, a fellow gangster was also killed and the other three men were critically injured. The side of the church was broken with machine gun bullets and streets away, when Vincent Drucci heard the news he was distraught and newspapers reported that he was being held back from attacking the perpetrators.

Saying Goodbye

Weiss’s funeral wasn’t quite as big as O’Banion’s, a fact that irritated Josephine Simard, but Moran tried to gently explain that they had lost several friends to violence over the last two years. Mary Weiss was accompanied by her two sons and sobbed next to the coffin.

In the fall of 1927, the will of Earl J. Weiss was called into question and while Josephine tried to stand her ground she was no match for the formidable Mary Weiss, who refused to relinquish anything except the car that had been gifted to her (and even that was on court orders) without a marriage certificate, which Josephine could not produce.

Left with two bosses to choose from, there was really only one person to step in after Hymie Weiss died, the man who had loved him as a brother and the one who was nicknamed Schemer for his crazy plans, Vincent Drucci.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

Binder, J. J. (2017). Al Capone’s Beer wars: A Complete History of Organized Crime in Chicago during Prohibition. Prometheus Books.

Burns, W. N. (1931). The one-way ride: The Red Trail of Chicago Gangland from Prohibition to Jake Lingle.

Keefe, R. (2003). Guns and roses: The Untold Story of Dean O’Banion, Chicago’s Big Shot Before Al Capone. Turner Publishing Company.

Keefe, R. (2005). The Man who Got Away: The Bugs Moran Story : a Biography. Cumberland House Publishing.

Kobler, J. (2003). Capone: The Life and World of Al Capone. Da Capo Press.

Sullivan, E. D. (1929). Rattling the cup on Chicago crime.

Otto von Bismarck: The Architect of German Unification

Otto von Bismarck (1815–1898) was a German statesman whose name is synonymous with the unification of Germany and the realpolitik approach to diplomacy. Born into a noble family in the Kingdom of Prussia, Bismarck was well-educated and initially embarked on a career in law. However, he was soon drawn into politics, where his career would have a monumental impact on the future of Europe.

Terry Bailey explains.

A portrait of Otto von Bismarck by Franz von Lenbach.

Early life and entry into politics

Bismarck was born in Schönhausen, a small town near Berlin, into a family of Junker nobility. His early life was marked by a rigorous education, first in law at the University of Göttingen and then at the University of Berlin. His political career began in earnest when he became a member of the Prussian Landtag (state parliament) in the 1840s. During this period, he became known for his conservative views and strong advocacy for the interests of the Junker aristocracy.

Bismarck's early political career was largely uneventful, but he gained attention in 1847 when he was appointed Prussia's envoy to the German Confederation in Frankfurt. His time in Frankfurt exposed him to the complex political dynamics of the German states, and it became clear that his ambition was to elevate Prussia to the leadership of a unified Germany. He returned to Prussia in 1851 and was soon appointed to the Prussian cabinet in the House of Lords.

Architect of German unification

In 1862, Bismarck was appointed Prime Minister of Prussia by Wilhelm I, who sought a strong leader to counter growing tensions within the German Confederation. This appointment marked the beginning of Bismarck's full ascendancy in European politics. Bismarck's primary political goal was the unification of Germany under Prussian leadership, but he understood that this could only be achieved through a combination of diplomacy, military strategy, and deft manipulation of the various German states.

His most famous and successful diplomacy was the orchestration of the wars that would unite Germany: the Danish War (1864), the Austro-Prussian War (1866), and the Franco-Prussian War (1870–1871). In each case, Bismarck employed a mix of political maneuvering, military force, and diplomatic alliances to isolate Germany's enemies and win wars that were pivotal for unification.

The Danish War saw Prussia form an alliance with Austria to seize the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein from Denmark, weakening Austria's influence in the region. The Austro-Prussian War, however, marked a definitive shift in the balance of power. Bismarck cleverly engineered the conflict to ensure that Austria was isolated diplomatically and defeated swiftly. The war led to the exclusion of Austria from German affairs, paving the way for the formation of the North German Confederation under Prussian leadership.

The final step in the plan came with the Franco-Prussian War. By provoking France into declaring war, Bismarck played on French fears of a united Germany under Prussian leadership, and in the subsequent victory, the southern German states were drawn into the newly formed German Empire. The proclamation of the German Empire in 1871 at the Palace of Versailles was the crowning achievement of Bismarck's career, but it was not the end of his influence.

Strengths

Otto von Bismarck stands as one of history's most formidable statesmen, whose political strength and strategic acumen reshaped 19th-century Europe. Known as the "Iron Chancellor," Bismarck's ability to balance ruthless pragmatism with long-term vision enabled him to unify Germany under Prussian dominance, securing its place as a major European power. His political strength lay not only in his grasp of realpolitik, the politics of pragmatism and power but in his skillful diplomacy, his understanding of timing, and his ability to manipulate complex political landscapes to his advantage.

His unmatched capacity for strategic diplomacy was pivotal in his success. He masterfully exploited the rivalries among Europe's great powers to achieve his objectives while avoiding prolonged wars. For instance, his orchestration of the wars against Denmark (1864), Austria (1866), and France (1870–1871) followed a calculated progression. Each conflict was designed to isolate his enemies, bolster Prussia's influence, and rally German states around a shared national cause. His deft handling of alliances ensured that Prussia remained secure and dominant while his opponents were often outmaneuvered and divided.

As Chancellor, his political strength was equally evident in domestic affairs. His introduction of progressive social reforms, such as Germany's pioneering welfare state, was a strategic move to counteract the growing appeal of socialism among the working class. By providing health insurance, accident insurance, and pensions, Bismarck both stabilized German society and secured the loyalty of key segments of the population. This innovative approach demonstrated his foresight, blending conservative governance with reforms that preempted social unrest.

Another key aspect of the man's strength was his adaptability and control over the political narrative. He was adept at using the press and public opinion to further his goals, exemplified by his manipulation of the Ems Dispatch to provoke France into declaring the Franco-Prussian War. This event unified German states against a common enemy and ensured their allegiance to Prussia. Bismarck's ability to manipulate information for strategic purposes underscored his comprehensive understanding of power dynamics in a rapidly changing world.

His political strength was a combination of his diplomatic brilliance, his willingness to innovate when necessary, and his mastery of realpolitik. His legacy, though complex, remains a testament to the power of strategic foresight and the skillful use of both diplomacy and pragmatism to achieve transformative goals.

Weaknesses

As stated, Otto von Bismarck, is often celebrated as the "Iron Chancellor," and a statesman of unparalleled influence who unified Germany through shrewd diplomacy and strategic warfare. His political strength lay in his ability to manipulate allies and rivals, navigate the complexities of European power dynamics, and create a unified German Empire under Prussian dominance. Yet, even this giant of 19th-century politics was not without weaknesses, both personal and professional, that shaped and sometimes undermined his legacy.

One of Bismarck's greatest weaknesses was his tendency to centralize power to the extent of becoming a micromanager. While this trait allowed him to control the intricate web of alliances and negotiations that defined his foreign policy, it also made his administration overly reliant on his presence. His reluctance to delegate authority left his successors ill-prepared to manage the empire he had built, a flaw that became glaringly evident after his forced resignation in 1890. Without Bismarck's guiding hand, the complex alliances he had forged began to unravel, setting the stage for the geopolitical tensions that culminated in the First World War.

Domestically, Bismarck's authoritarian approach to governance revealed significant weaknesses. While his Kulturkampf sought to reduce the influence of the Catholic Church, it alienated a significant portion of the population, ultimately forcing him to abandon the campaign. Similarly, his Anti-Socialist Laws, intended to suppress the growing socialist movement, failed to address the root causes of workers' discontent, even though he was instrumental in instigating small social changes. By prioritizing suppression over reform, Bismarck inadvertently fueled the very movements he sought to neutralize. His short-sighted domestic policies created long-term tensions that his successors struggled to manage.

His foreign policy brilliance was accompanied by a significant flaw: his emphasis on isolating France to maintain peace in Europe. While his creation of the intricate system of alliances, such as the League of the Three Emperors and the Triple Alliance, kept France diplomatically marginalized, it depended on maintaining a delicate balance between competing powers like Austria-Hungary and Russia. Bismarck's inability to resolve the underlying tensions between these two empires meant that his carefully constructed system was inherently unstable. When Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck, the absence of his balancing act left Europe vulnerable to conflict.

On a personal level, Bismarck's paranoia and manipulative tendencies alienated many of his contemporaries. His habit of using crises, both real and manufactured, to consolidate power created distrust among allies and subordinates alike. His relationship with Wilhelm I was often fraught, and his domineering style did not endear him to the young Wilhelm II, who ultimately dismissed him. Bismarck's inability to adapt to changing circumstances and his overreliance on confrontation rather than compromise limited his effectiveness in the later years of his career.

Bismarck's strengths as a political strategist were undeniable, but his weaknesses, an over-centralization of power, inflexibility in domestic policies, an unsustainable foreign policy framework, and a manipulative approach to leadership, cast a long shadow over his achievements. While his legacy as the architect of German unification remains intact, the vulnerabilities in his approach sowed seeds of discord that would later fracture the empire he worked so tirelessly to create.

In conclusion, Otto von Bismarck's life and career stand as a testament to the power of strong, calculated leadership and the profound influence a single individual can have on the course of history. His contributions to the unification of Germany not only redefined the map of Europe but also established Germany as a central power on the world stage. Bismarck's ability to navigate the complex web of 19th-century European diplomacy was unparalleled, as he skillfully maintained peace through a carefully balanced system of alliances designed to preserve Germany's position and prevent large-scale conflicts.

However, his legacy is far from unblemished. While his Realpolitik solidified German unity and stability during his tenure, his policies also fostered a fragile equilibrium that depended heavily on his oversight. His dismissal by Kaiser Wilhelm II disrupted this delicate balance, and the subsequent abandonment of his cautious diplomacy contributed to the volatile environment that would lead to the First World War. Moreover, Bismarck's emphasis on authoritarian governance, repression of socialist movements, and the Kulturkampf revealed a darker side to his statesmanship, which continues to spark debates about the long-term impact of his methods.

Ultimately, Bismarck's legacy is a dual-edged sword. On one hand, he was a visionary who forged a modern German state and achieved unparalleled diplomatic success. On the other hand, the very foundations he laid carried within them the potential for instability and conflict. His life exemplifies both the triumphs and the limits of power, leaving an indelible mark on European history that continues to be studied and debated. Bismarck's story is not just a narrative of unification and strategy but also a cautionary tale about the unintended consequences of even the most masterful leadership.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content for over 12 years. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating here.

Notes:

Ems Dispatch

The Ems dispatch (French: Dépêche d'Ems, German: Emser Depesche), sometimes called the Ems telegram, was published on the 13th of July, 1870; it incited the Second French Empire to declare war on the Kingdom of Prussia on the 19th of July, 1870, starting the Franco-Prussian War.

The actual dispatch was an internal telegram sent by Heinrich Abeken from Prussian King Wilhelm I's vacationing site at Ems to Otto von Bismarck in Berlin, describing demands made by the French ambassador concerning the Spanish succession.

Bismarck, the chancellor of the North German Confederation, released a statement to the press, stirring up emotions in both France and Germany.

The name referred to Bad Ems, a resort spa east of Koblenz on the Lahn river, then in Hesse-Nassau, a new possession of Prussia.

The Kulturkampf

In the history of Germany, the Kulturkampf (Cultural Struggle) was the seven-year political conflict (1871–1878) between the Catholic Church in Germany led by Pope Pius IX and the Kingdom of Prussia led by Chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

The Prussian church-and-state political conflict was about the church's direct control over both education and ecclesiastical appointments in the Prussian kingdom as a Roman Catholic nation and country.

Moreover, when compared to other church-and-state conflicts about political culture, the Kulturkampf of Prussia additionally featured anti-Polish sentiment.

A Remarkable World War 2 Major – John Howard

Major John Howard (December 8, 1912 - May 5, 1999) served as an Officer in the British Airbourne Division during the Second World War. His military career and his reputation were made famous during the early hours of D-Day at the Orne River and Cean Canal Bridge, more famously referred to as Pegasus Bridge. The operation to seize these Bridges from the Germans was of vital importance to the whole of the D-Day invasion. His wartime exploits featured in the iconic war film the Longest Day. In that film Howard was played by actor Richard Todd who in fact served under Howard himself and was present in real life at Pegasus Bridge. Who was this real life hero and what was his story?

Stephen Prout explains.

Major John Howard.

John Howard’s early years

Within Howards own written account he describes his early very ordinary upbringing which was not unusual for families in Britain at the time. He was born in West London in 1912. At school Howard performed well academically, but he would be denied the chance of a place in a secondary school due to the poor state of his family’s finances. He found his outlet as a member of the scouts where he could exercise his passion avidly in outdoor pursuits, boxing, and various other sports he enjoyed. This focus on his physical fitness would serve him well in the following years with his time in the army.

He then began working life starting in a clerical position at a stockbroker. This position was then abruptly cut short by the economic recession of the 1930s. The outlook for most families in Britain at this time was bleak and Howard’s family was no exception and so with few other options Howard joined the British Army where he went on to serve two separate terms.

First enlistment in the army

Howard enlisted in the British Army in 1932, serving in Shrewsbury first as a private soldier and then as a non-commissioned officer until 1938. His first term in the army was not particularly eventful. There were few opportunities for advancement in a peacetime army and his attempts to build a career were limited. Howard also found army life difficult in so much as he did not find settling in easy. His skill at physical fitness soon attracted the attention of his superiors and he performed consistently well on army exams to become became a company clerk and later a physical training instructor.

However when his application for a commission as an officer was rejected, the highest rank he would reach at this stage was to corporal. He therefore left in 1938 to serve as police constable in Oxford. With the outbreak of World War Two John Howard was recalled for duty. This time his army career would be quite different and earn him a small place in the history books.

The Second World War and second enlistment

By September 1939 Britain was once again at war with Germany and Howard began serving a second term in the Army. This would present him with a completely distinct experience from his first spell in the army. This time he would progress multiple times up through the officer ranks. He began his second term as Regimental Sergeant Major in the King's Shropshire Light Infantry and by the time he was in action on June 6, 1944 he advanced to the rank of Major. He was one of the first of many of the allied soldiers in combat within the opening hours of D-DAY at Pegasus Bridge. It would be an event that would make him remembered.

The war changed the culture in the Army but only very gradually. Howard’s first challenge was a familiar one and it was to do with ascension into the higher chain of command in the army. Howard was one of the first officers in the British Army whose rise in rank was not assisted or influenced by the incredibly old and exclusive social class network that was prevalent at the time. It was a network where only select individuals from certain backgrounds were permitted into the officer ranks and these individuals were usually drawn from the wealthy classes.

His progression was a rarity amongst the officer classes, and he would feel this discomfort so much so that this rise in the ranks was not always met with ease. Due to the elitist nature of the British Army Officer class, Howard initially had difficulty establishing himself with the ranks of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, second battalion, initially as Second Lieutenant. The idea of an officer being recruited, progressing, and breaking traditional norms was not common and in many quarters frowned upon by existing officer classes. All this would gradually change as the war progressed. Acceptance eventually came by the time he was promoted to Captain in 1941. His reputation would establish him as a respected leader and by the time his mission on D-Day was over his abilities were never in doubt. He was then swiftly promoted to Major.

The Road to D-Day

Howard soon proved to his peers to be an outstanding, committed, professionally driven officer and he quickly earned their respect. In the months preceding D-Day he trained his men relentlessly, and at the same time also expected no less if not more from his officers. He constantly tested the men and officers’ physical fitness with a combination of continuous training such as day and nighttime maneuvers with regular sporting activities. The results paid off in the way the men performed and quickly executed their mission on D-Day at the Orne River bridges. As his assault began the defending Germans on the bridge were caught by surprise. They were convinced that they were facing a superior if not larger force on that eventful night of June 6.. Howard’s men quickly overcame the defenders. The training had paid off.

Howard prepared his men exceptionally well and he was determined that he and his men would be ready for the tasks that lay ahead. For one exercise he requested that a training ground be found which could resemble the terrain and conditions he and his men expected to face in Normandy to carry out simulations. Such a site was identified and that was near the River Exe in Exeter, Devon.

In that simulation he deployed his men to execute numerous demanding drills and practice assaults. Once the exercises had finished he then had his men march back from Exeter to their base in Oxford. It was a long haul, and they were all met with a mixture of heavy rain and scorching summer weather, but the men and Howard continued to persevere. There were no exceptions with no “officer privilege” as all ranks including Howard were to complete the march together. It earned him the respect of his men.

Howard also expected discipline from his officers when they had finally returned to base and his men were showered, fed, and bedded down. When he was not conducting day or night military training he insisted the men of his D Company were kept active with various sports or cross country runs. By the time Operation Overlord was ready to be launched they were a cohesive professional elite force.

During the training, Howard reported that he suffered constant airsickness and the only occasion he avoided this was on the actual assault on Pegasus Bridge where of course he had other matters on his mind.

Between 1941 and 1942 he moved between ranks as he joined the airborne division and took on D Company. He took a temporary demotion from Captain to take on the command of the glider division, but his rank to Captain was restored in 1942 and he would progress further on to become a Major.

On June 5 there was a lot of anticipation and fraught nerves which were made worse by the waiting as an adverse weather front was not going to settle. Later that day the signs were beginning to show that the weather was turning and so the mission was ready to launch. "D" Company began to mobilize and prepared to board their gliders. The gravity of the moment was not lost. In Major Howard’s words, "It was an amazing sight. The smaller chaps were visibly sagging at the knees under the amount of kit they had to carry.” Prior to boarding Howard attempted to give them a pep talk, "I am a sentimental man at heart, for which reason I don't think I am a good soldier. I found offering my thanks to these chaps a devil of a job. My voice just wasn't my own." Just before eleven o’clock, Howard's glider took off, followed at one-minute intervals by the remainder of his attacking force. One hundred and eighty-one airborne troops were heading into German occupied France in the dead of night.

Operation Overlord and Pegasus Bridge – the strategic importance

There were two Bridges that needed to be taken quickly to assist and progress the planned British landing at Sword beach. It was of vital importance that the Allies denied access to any potential German counterattacking force. Once those bridges were secured the Allies could press further inland to push back the German forces and proceed with their post invasion plans.

Howard had one hundred and eighty men in those initial early hours at his disposal together with the element of surprise. This was a small force but highly professional; however they were only lightly armed therefore in some respects vulnerable at that early stage in the invasion. They landed close to the bridges in their gliders and quickly departed from the fuselage and assaulted the German occupiers while the sentries were either stunned or sleeping.

After quickly overwhelming the defenders, which took less that fifteen minutes, Howard and his men had a long uncertain night ahead. They were alone for the next few hours in German occupied France in the dead of night. They were only lightly armed with every possibility of a strong counterattack until support arrived from the larger invasion force. That support arrived a few hours later with further support coming from Lord Lovatt’s Special Service at midday. The mission was a success, and it became an essential and often referenced story of Operation Overlord’s history.

His citation on his conduct on D-Day reads as follows:

Major Howard was in command of the airborne force which landed by glider and secured the bridges over the River Orne and Caen Canal near Benouville by Coup de main on 6-6-44. Throughout the planning and execution of the operation Major Howard displayed the greatest leadership, judgment, courage, and coolness. His personal example and the enthusiasm which he put behind his task carried all his subordinates with him, and the operation proved a complete success.

In those three months following D-Day Howard distinguished himself, earning the DSO medal.

Re-Posting home, Injury, and the Wars End

Howard returned to England on September 4, 1944. For three months after the taking of the two bridges he and his troops were involved in heavy fighting around Caen as part the continuing Allied advance into Nazi occupied Europe. Howard began originally with one hundred and eighty-one men - by the time of he was returned home only forty remained and he was the only officer left alive. His objectives were met but the cost was high. On his return he was immediately tasked with rebuilding his company and conduct further training in readiness for further operations. However, events took a different turn. He was involved in a car accident in November 1944 where whilst driving at speed he crashed his car inflicting him with life changing injuries.

He remained in this hospital until March 1945, and so played no further part in the war in Europe, missing momentous events such the Battle of the Bulge, Market Garden, the crossing of the Rhine, and the invasion of Germany. After being discharged from hospital he was assigned another task. This time the focus was on Asia as the war with Japan continued after Germany surrendered. His job was again to train and condition his 6th Airborne Division for a proposed assault on the Japanese mainland.

During training he was again put out of action by injury. The commander of the 2nd Oxford & Bucks Light Infantry asked Howard if he could be fit in time to resume command to undertake this proposed mission and so Howard immediately began an arduous physical training regime at a running track near his home with only after a few months of recuperation, but he was not fully healed. On his second day of training his hip jammed under the strain of his physical training and his nerves in his right leg deadened. He returned to hospital for a further operation and by the time he was discharged a second time the war in Asia was over.

Celebrating Major John Howard - After the War

There have been accounts that he was discharged quietly without any ceremony that recognized this bravery and contribution, but this is not strictly true. In 1946 he received an audience with King George. Also, in that same year he received the coveted Croix de Guerre avec Palme in France for his wartime heroics at the two famed bridges. As a tribute, Pegasus Bridge aka the Bénouville Bridge was renamed "Esplanade Major John Howard" in his honour. His legacy endured in many ways. Afterwards he went on to lead a quieter life as a public servant in the National Savings Committee and the Ministry of Food.

Later, his part was depicted in the classic film, The Longest Day that brought Operation Overlord to the cinema. However, his career, his rise through the ranks and his final year in the army would be a bittersweet one and not one fitting or expected for such a hero as he was forced to sit the war out from a hospital bed.

His contribution and that of his men at D-Day captured vital strategic objectives against impossible odds. That brief time in the whole of the war was a vital contribution that ensured Operation Overlord’s success. Whatever the duration of time Major John Howard had spent in the war, it is without doubt that those three months he served in active duty has earned him his place in history.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.