The Wartime SAS Legend in the Postwar Period: David Stirling

The story of David Stirling is well known. He was one of the founders of the SAS, and he owned a wartime reputation as the Phantom Major which has been written about at length. To this day this legendary status persists although some writers now doubt the authenticity of some of those wartime claims. Stirling’s wartime experience was cut short when he was captured by the Germans in 1943 and endured an extended period of incarceration in Navi Prison Camp and in the infamous Colditz Castle. After the war he left the Army in 1947 but retrained to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the reserves until 1965. This article is primarily about Stirling’s life and career after the Second World War.

Steve Prout explains.

David Stirling during World War 2.

Liberation and return to England

Following liberation from his wartime captivity, Striling returned to England. He played no further part in the SAS or indeed any other active service. His tried numerous attempts to rejoin his regiment but he was unsuccessful, meeting subtle rejection from senor military command. He tried unsuccessfully to use some of his more influential contacts such as Randolph and Winston Churchill to argue his case, but again this was without success. His political connections had lost their value because Churchill had now lost the 1945 election to Clement Atlee and now no longer held power.

None of this prevented Stirling from trying to get back into his old fold but times had moved on. Whilst the war with Japan was continuing he presented plans to create a new branch of the SAS trained specifically to fight in Asia where the war with Japan continued. Without doubt he viewed that theatre of war as his last chance of action and to prove himself.

The proposal was to create and train a specific unit comprising of US personnel to operate inside China using tactics he adopted during his time on SAS operations. This plan however was not enthusiastically received by his superiors. Mountbatten, the Supreme Allied Commander, of British forces in East Asia did not see the value in Stirling’s proposal and his opinions held the most weight. Although there was some marginal support from a Major General Richard Gale of the US 1st Airbourne Corps, the idea never progressed. Stirling’s military career and his part in the war was now finished. It was time to redefine himself.

Creating a Legend

David Stirling was to become more widely known as the Phantom Major. It was not until the late 1950s that the legend of David Stirling, The Phantom Major was created and firmly established in the public’s eye and imagination. Up until now his wartime exploits were limited to a scattering of wartime newspaper articles and little more but he would now recycle those stories and with the help of an author create that legend. After the death of fellow SAS member and legend Paddy Mayne, there was an opportune moment to create this new image without any serious challenge to the authenticity of those accounts.

It was American writer and journalist Virginia Cowles, an American who published the book “The Phantom Major” in May 1958, who created Stirling’s reinvention. Several critics were not convinced about Stirling’s claims, which some would later point out contained various deliberate omissions in his accounts and elaborations. Many close to Stirling, like his brother Bill and his mother, chose to remain silent on the topic. The controversies of David Stirling’s SAS career are covered in some depth in “The Phoney Major” and is not the focus here.

Although the book received some criticism by eminent military historians such as Liddell-Hart, none of this mattered as the book captured the imagination and approval of its intended audience, the British public. Either way a legend was created and Stirling’s career in the following decades then took some quite different twists and turns, none stranger that Capricorn Africa and GB75.

Capricorn Africa

Stirling first went into business by establishing two fish and chip shops that allegedly employed former service men, and both ventures were short lived and unsuccessful. Stirling then emigrated to Rhodesia where he chased a variety of business opportunities. He also needed to find his own success story and make a name for himself because he always felt overshadowed by his brother Bill Stirling. To exacerbate matters he initially needed the financial support of his more successful brother. This need for support would persist quietly.

Once he arrived in Africa 1949 Stirling co-founded the Capricorn Africa Society. Its aim was to fight racial discrimination in Africa. This goal and the organizations other goals were overly ambitious. The organization did not get any support from the government at the time and Britain was still clinging to its last colonial possessions and an empire that which was fast becoming untenable. External matters would continually challenge the organization. However, there were internal issues too.

The mission of Capricorn Africa was too grandiose to ever expect success. The organization’s manifesto in 1952 stated that the prime objective was to abolish racial discrimination on all levels. Secondly, to preserve what is best in the culture of all races. Thirdly, establish common patriotism for all races. Fourthly, secure the adoption of a written constitution. These nebulous goals were backed by a claim that “all men whatever race are born equal in dignity.”  These were all commendable, but the organization had no plan or support to achieve this.

There were also doubts on Stirling’s ability to carry this scheme through. Furthermore, there existed a general suspicion by Africans that this was an elaborate plan for the British to maintain its colonial hold in Africa. By 1954 Stirling, once a media wartime favorite, was faced with numerous unfavorable criticisms that his “head was in the clouds” and he was “not the right man for freedom in Africa”. Various newspapers such as The Times published the opinion that the aims of this society were simply a veneer for an “Empire Building Project” which “did not have the best of intentions for Africa.” The plan was big in so much as it wanted to incorporate twenty-five million Africans of Rhodesia, Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika into one national state. It was incredulous. It was grandiose. It was unwelcome by the Africans, and it was too overly complex. It was above all impossible.

Within the organization the members had different ideas on what defined equality and what qualified the ordinary African for enfranchisement. Some in the organization declared quite arrogantly that the African had to be “deemed civilized” before any semblance of equality or the entitlement to vote could even be considered or granted. Obviously, this offensive statement evoked old imperial condescension and immediately derailed any genuine attempts to change Africa’s future not least win any support, if indeed the plans had any genuine buy in from the onset. Whether Stirling truly was on board with the concept, or it was to serve his own vanity we will never know but the whole project quickly failed with Stirling’s resignation as Chairman in 1959. The Organization soon disbanded to no surprise. Stirling would later admit to journalist Gavin Young that his decade that he spent in Rhodesia achieved nothing. In his own words “Capricorn was Utopia. Almost Walter Mitty.” He concluded by admitting, “We were a total failure.” Stirling turned his attention to something else with which he was familiar.

Military Contracting (PMC) and Watchguard International Ltd

Stirling next entered the world of private military contracting or to be more precise he developed the concept itself. He was credited by Christian Baghai as the founder of Private Military Contracting, an industry that that has grown in recent years and is now a billion-dollar business used by all military organizations and governments alike. Ukraine’s current war gives us a recent example with the questionable use of the Russian Wagner Group and the USA has Acadami (formerly Blackwater). Currently this industry is worth now $224 billion with expansion set to double. This industry all started with David Stirling.

Stirling formed other organizations such as KAS International and KAS Enterprises, all of which took advantage and profited from the political upheaval of the post-colonial situation in Africa and the knock-on effect of the Cold War. Military services were now about to become privatized. Africa and the Middle East would be Stirling’s primary focus for his organizations.

His most renowned creation was the company called Watchguard International Ltd. This was formed in 1965 along with fellow director John Woodhouse (also an SAS veteran) and was based out of Sloane Square, London. Watchguard lasted until 1972 when Woodhouse resigned following a disagreement with Stirling. The companies first assignment was in Yemen. At the time Yemen was in the throes of civil war. The task for Watchguard was not so much combative but to observe, report and advise on the condition of the Yemen’s Royalist forces. John Woodhouse was sent by Stirling to tend to this task. Simultaneously, Stirling was also secretly networking with Iranian officials for assignments, as the country was also in a state of turmoil. However, such is the secrecy of this industry the exact details are not known but the salient point is the genus of a new industry that grew far beyond no doubt even David Stirling’s expectations.

Over time Stirling would become involved in all kinds of activities such as brokering arms deals in the Gulf states and training forces in Zambia and Sierra Leone. The specific details behind these operations will never be known with any certainty. Of course, PMC activity attracts various opinions concerning ethical matters and Stirling did not escape that as we will see later.

At one point Stirling’s activities in Yemen 1966 irked members of the British Royal family and earned him the disdain of the SAS who did not welcome the publicity from his activities. This incident took place during a flight from Yemen where Stirling created a furor over the Sultan receiving a second-class seat on a flight to Britain whilst on the same flight Princess Maragaret was present in first class. He termed it a snub without properly establishing the facts and caused an embarrassment in high social circles. It was one of many faux pas he would be notorious for.

.

The Libyan Affair

In 1970 Stirling became involved with a plot to destabilize and remove Libyan dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi (1942-2011) who had just taken power. At the time, the West was not certain if Libya’s leader remaining in power would serve the interests of the Western world. According to later sources, the CIA and MI6 had requested that a group of mercenaries set about the task of removing the Libyan dictator. By using mercenaries, the CIA and MI6 could typically deny all culpability and involvement, at least at a certain level.

According to an account by a Peter McAleese who served in the SAS in the 1960s, twenty mercenaries gathered in a Knightsbridge flat in summer 1970. The plans were presented by Stirling to his chosen men. They were to land on Libyan shores by boat from Italy and make their way to Tripoli. They were then then to carry out an assault on a specific location which was at a prison called “the Hilton.” The objective was the liberation of one hundred and fifty imprisoned political prisoners who, once liberated, would set in motion a chain of events to oust the new leader.

The US subsequently changed its mind after they realized that Gaddafi was just as hostile to the USSR as he was the West, at least that was the “lie of the land” in 1970 - the situation would dramatically change in the 1980s. Rather than risk further instability and potential Soviet influence the USA decided the Libyan dictator should be left alone and the regime should be left to its own devices and ordered the mission be abandoned. The British and MI6 decided otherwise and proceeded with developing the plan with the French. The whole matter was kept quietly concealed.

Stirling allegedly was not so discreet and at Whites gentlemen’s club in London was openly sharing the details of this operation. In December 1970, the British, following Stirling’s indiscretions, were forced to call off the operation, but Stirling proceeded nonetheless. The whole affair was halted by Italian authorities in January 1971. The boat was seized and the men detained. By now Stirling had irked the combined patience of MI6, the CIA and Mossad. Three years later, in May 1973, this debacle was exposed in the Observer newspaper. Stirling did not cover himself in glory, but worse reputational damage was still to come.

His activities in his Private Military enterprises did not attract the approval of the very organization he founded, the SAS. In the 1970s the reputation of that organization reached a low point. Incidents in Northern Ireland had given certain newspapers and the left wing of British politics ample material to accuse the SAS of being government assassins and accusing them of being above accountability, an accusation that was naturally denied. However, Stirling’s preference for hiring ex-SAS personnel and in some cases and sometimes serving officers for his PMC assignments did not help. It merely put his own coveted regiment on a par with hired mercenaries in the public mind much to the chagrin of his former regiment. The regiment was tarnished with a mockery of its own motto “Who Pays, Wins.”

GB75

GB75 was another proposal of David Stirling devised in the summer of 1974. It was a proposal to counter suspected left wing insurrectionist organizations or at least certain sections who genuinely believed that they existed. Britain was becoming subjected to regular trade union strikes and the disruption that ensued was causing alarm. Those with political right-wing tendencies believed that the country was on the brink of insurrection and the Labour Government under Wilson had lost all control. Trade Unions, it seemed, had the country in a vulnerable position.

Stirling was one those who believed that this was the case and GB75 was his response. It caused a stir. Stirling’s plan was simple, the organization was to recruit handpicked likeminded individuals that would be ready to stand by to ensure the continuation of essential services by seizing (in an unspecified manner) and maintain sections of the country’s infrastructure such as the power stations. In some minds the country was on the brink of a form of anarchy. It was truly a bizarre time in British modern history. Of course, nothing of the sort transpired.

The public perception of this organization blew out of all proportion. It was inaccurately reported that the aim of Stirling’s GB75 was to remove the Labour government, which was viewed as a destabilizing presence to the status quo, replace it with a provisional ruling body (unspecified) and undermine the growing power of the Trade Unions. This view, which was leaked to the British newspapers, was a combination of fear and overactive imaginations. Striling was forced to go the press and clarify his position. This can still be found and listened to today. The interview went as follows (word for word):

"Our plan is limited....and this has always been stated to provide Government, to make available to government, whatever type of Government it is... Socialist, or Liberal, or Conservative, or coalition.... with volunteers, trained and capable of running the minimum power required out of the generating stations to keep certain essential basic services going. They would, of course, act under police escort. And we would not, or course, make a move...and some of the papers have deliberately ignored this... until we had been invited to do so by the Government of the day. Now what we propose to do, as I say, is to have enough trained volunteers to cope with sewage disposal...nobody wants that on the streets while they are negotiating with the trade unions…to keep the water supply going...being pumped. And we would hope to help maintain the refrigeration at the major food depots in the country. I do not expect to be able to cope effectively until toward the end of December. I believe that the crunch is expected to come some time in February or March."

This emergency never happened and so GB75 never came to be nor had it any chance of becoming mobilized. The British Conservative Party did not welcome Stirling’s proposals, and this was simply another example of his established track record of embarrassing the British Government. Only a small minority of Conservatives, who happened to be friends of Stirling’s, supported him. Fearing political isolation and further fading of his albeit diminished political currency, Stirling resigned. The organization continued without him until the following year in 1975.

Stirling would involve himself further in other organizations along a similar theme such as TRUEMID (Movement for True Industrial Democracy) and the Better Britain Society that promoted ambitious but nebulous aims such as Trade Union Control and Constitutional changes. All of this was above Stirling’s head and his competency. None of these originations gained any momentum or traction. This cemented Gavin Young’s opinion that Stirling’s ideas “seem a bit dotty” echoing Field Marshall Montgomery’s wartime assessment of Stirling being “mad, quite mad.” Nevertheless, his legend in the common man’s eye still lay intact.

Into retirement

In the final decade before his death in the 1980s David Stirling penned a few forewords in various publications. It was a last effort to keep his legend alive on the back of the successes his former regiment earned in the Iranian Embassy siege in 1980 and the Falklands War two years later. His authority on the subjects began to be questioned and doubted but his legendary status was now fully entrenched and solid in the public eye. Such books included Parachute Padre and Rogue Warrior: The Blair Mayne Legend (to which Stirling’s wording was restrained for fear of diminishing his own precariously shining light).

There were further failed operations with one of his other enterprises, KAS Enterprises. He was tasked in 1987 by Prince Bernard of the Netherlands, also president of the World Wildlife Fund, to investigate and tackle the illegal hunting of rhinoceros horns. It required the skills of such experienced SAS men. After being funded half a million pounds the whole operation failed dismally, leaving various questions on missing funds, equipment and of course the fate of the rhino horns. In 1989 after its sponsor, Prince Bernhard, withdrew support the company folded with a report citing these dubious circumstances. Allegedly Stirling himself lost significant amounts of his own money, closing off yet again another unsuccessful adventure to his career.

Conclusion

The post war era did little to David Stirling’s career or reputation. His failures clearly hurt his ego, and his one compensation was to create himself as a legend. The authenticity of this legendary status has since been challenged, especially in the publication of the book “The Phantom Major.”

He was a complex man. He has been labelled as a hero, legend, narcissist, failure, success, dangerous, mad, and dotty. Anyone can and everyone does have a perspective. Certainly, he was not shy to publicity in conflict with the values of the SAS, his very organization. This clearly irked them as it does today, when former serving soldiers make public revelations.

Success eluded Stirling as the post war decades rolled on. His attempts to re-enter his regiment failed and subsequent socio-political ventures were unsuccessful such as Capricorn Africa. His greatest success in the post war world was the establishment of Watchguard International Ltd. It marked the beginning of Private Military Contracting. Despite the ethical and moral criticisms, he once again pioneered a new way of miliary thinking – The Private Military Contractor Industry. That industry would proceed to grow beyond all expectations long after Stirling’s death and participate in modern warfare. Stirling only witnesses his failures - he did not live long enough to see this industry grow.

Stirling was awarded the Knights Bachelor in 1990 that he could add to his OBE from 1946. He was a complex man whom history holds a bloated version and his achievements. Some hold negative views of him and question the veracity of his accomplishments. None the less his contribution to SAS history prevails.

In the 1980s he struggled to maintain his relevancy by relying on his well-worn self-created legend, a legend that either some doubt or temper according to new revelations. No matter the view or how much or little the role he played, he was part of the genesis of the SAS. Shortly after he was awarded the Knights Bachelor, he sadly passed away with his place in history be it controversial, questionable, or otherwise assured. His life after the war was an interesting one.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Sources

The Phantom Major

David Stirling and the Genesis of Private Military Companies – Christian Baghai May 2023 _ Medium Website Blog

Terry Aspinall Remembers – www.mercenary wars.co.uk

The Black Market for Force - War History Website

Endangered Archives Programme – Capricorn Africa (1952-57) – eap.bl.uk

Capricorn-David Stirling’s Second African Campaign – Richard Hughes – Radcliffe Pres 2003

The Anti-Comintern Pact of 1936 – Was it a Disappointment for Japan?

In 1936, Germany and Japan created the Anti-Comintern Pact agreement. This was an alliance that promised that the two countries would commit themselves to contain the threat of communist expansion presented by the USSR, a country perceived by dictatorships and democracies alike as a major threat. The ensuing propaganda presented Germany and Japan in a flamboyant fashion as a “sword-wielding, winged champion” ready to take on this challenge and step up to the task. It looked formidable, and for Britain and France in particular, at least someone else was providing that bulwark against the USSR rather than themselves.

However, this Pact proved to be all fanfare and nothing more than an empty statement. This fact would become all too apparent by August 1939 when, within three short years, Japan distanced herself from Germany and had agreed to a separate non-aggression alliance with the Soviet Union in April 1941.

What was the story behind this pact to have caused this reversal from these two Axis partners? To explain this from the Japanese perspective, it is necessary to start at the beginning of the twentieth century and consider the events that took place between the Soviet Union and Japan.

Steve Prout explains.

Germany’s Joachim von Ribbentrop signing the Anti-Comintern Pact in November,ber 1936.

The Japanese–Soviet Relations 1900–1939

The Russo-Japanese War

Japan and the USSR shared a troubled relationship ever since the beginning of the 1900s. They both were competing for their own spheres of influence in East Asia. Japan sought Russian recognition for control over the Korean Peninsula, and in return, Japan would recognise Russian influence in Manchuria. The Russians refused Japan’s request, and therefore the two sides could not reach any agreement. The result led to the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–5. The Japanese emerged victorious, leaving Russia decisively beaten and humiliated, thus affecting the balance of power in the Far East. This outcome had ramifications in Europe as well for Russia’s prestige. The imperial powers now viewed Russia’s strength in a weaker light due to her defeat by what the Great Powers viewed as an inferior Asian nation.

Japan fought on the Allied side during the First World War. Her participation in the war was limited to East Asia and not the European theatre, where she swiftly annexed the German overseas territories in the region, such as the Marshall Islands. Comparatively, this was a sideshow compared to the main fighting in Europe and had an insignificant effect on the German war effort. It did, however, give an early indication of Japanese plans to expand their empire into East Asia, but few noticed or cared from the Allied camp at the time as their priority was to defeat Germany and her allies.

After the end of the First World War, whilst Russia was in the grip of revolution, the Japanese then contributed heavily to the Allied intervention forces. They saw this intervention as a chance, and Russia’s vulnerability as an opportunity to permanently occupy and add Siberia to their growing empire.

The Russian War of Intervention 1919–1922

In 1918, Russia arranged a separate peace with the Central Powers at Brest-Litovsk, which meant that her part in the war was over. Peace, however, eluded her troubled nation because she now faced civil war fuelled by the emergence of Lenin and the Bolsheviks. Communism now was the new enemy, now that Germany and her allies were defeated. The Allies swiftly deployed military detachments into Russia to counter and suppress the Bolshevik threat.

At first, Japan sent just a small marine battalion in the spring of 1918 to Vladivostok. The pretext was retaliation for the death of three Japanese civilians caught up in the civil war violence. It was the perfect opportunity to begin control of the area, and they already had additional troops ready for action in neighbouring Korea. The Japanese commitment would increase; at its highest, they provided over seventy thousand soldiers. These troops supported the Russian White Armies under the command of Kerensky, who were also fighting the Bolsheviks. Other troops also aided the Czech Legion led by Kolchak by helping them escape Siberian captivity. The Japanese would then enlist their assistance around Vladivostok to augment their own dominance in the region. Within Allied circles, US Ambassador Roland Morris suspected Japan’s true intentions, but Japan was not making their intentions hard to notice.

Morris noted that “the Japanese presence in the area was excessive compared to other nations”; however, the British alone had over fifty thousand personnel deployed in Russia, so it did not spark widespread concern. The British, on the other hand, unlike Japan, had no other interest than removing communism. Morris also noted that the Japanese “seemed generally to be pursuing a policy to prevent the establishment of any kind of united orderly government in Siberia.” The USA appeared to express the most concern within the Allied alliance. Britain and Japan still had a formal alliance between them, and for Britain and France, Japanese strength was a bonus in the region because it selfishly and indirectly served imperial interests by containing communist influence locally and indirectly serving their own imperial interests in Asia.

US Colonel William B. Donovan in December 1919 also commented that the Japanese had “dreams of militaristic authority” and were “erecting economic barriers in Manchuria and Siberia.” The Japanese did not make any attempt to conceal these ambitions. They declared openly in their own Vladivostok-based newspaper Vladvivo-Nippo that in extending their military involvement further east to the Urals, it would not only help bring the civil war to an end, but in doing so they would “secure their exceptional rights in Siberia and the Far East.” The phrase “exceptional rights” caused concern not just to the Americans but also the Chinese and, of course, the Russians. The latter could not accept the prospect of a long occupation or potential loss of Siberia to Japan. Russia had previously suffered huge territorial losses to her western territories at Brest-Litovsk in 1918 to the former Central Powers and shortly after in the war against Poland.

A certain Captain Yamamoto in 1919 said during the Russian War of Intervention that “the world would be speaking Japanese within ten or fifteen years.” At the time, this was more than likely seen by the Great Powers as an empty boast and was not taken seriously. The Japanese were deadly serious, maybe not about world domination but certainly about domination of East Asia and the Pacific theatre. After the victory of the 1904–5 war, their part in the Great War, and their sizeable participation in the Russian War of Intervention, Japan had without a doubt been left with the impression that she was now a great world power on an equal footing with Great Britain, France, and the USA. They were becoming not only a force to be reckoned with internationally but also a worry for Russia.

In 1922, after a four-year occupation, Japan withdrew from Siberia. The uneasy co-existence between the two powers continued and escalated in the following decade. The Japanese had not given up their intentions of expanding into the East Asian mainland because it was essential to their nation’s survival. It had few natural resources and an expanding population; much like Germany, she sought her own version of lebensraum, or living space. This is supported by a quote recorded early in 1919 where the Japanese openly stated in the Yamato Shimbum newspaper that “Japan has no way out, save that of sending her surplus population to Manchuria and Siberia.” The opportunity that Siberia presented to Japan was now lost, and so they turned their attention to China. However, the Soviet Union also would soon be expressing interest and establishing herself in that region, and the two sides would clash.

The 1930s – Manchuria, the League and fighting in East Asia

Between 1931 and 1939, the Japanese and Soviet forces frequently clashed along the Mongolian border. The tensions were not helped because the remote frontier with Manchuria was uncharted and ambiguous to both sides. The USSR and Japan had their own commercial and political agendas in China. They both intended to exploit the raw materials that were plentiful in the region, and the USSR were acting as advisors to the Chinese Army with their own control over the Chinese Eastern Railway.

Trouble in the region began in 1931 during the Mukden Incident. The Japanese claimed that Chinese nationalists were committing acts of sabotage on the South Manchurian Railway, which Japan controlled. It was discovered to be a spurious claim perpetrated by the Japanese to exert further control of the area as they moved more troops inland and seized further territory to secure their rights.

An investigation was ordered by the League of Nations into the matter in 1932, and the publication of the Lytton Report followed. The report concluded that the Japanese orchestrated the entire affair themselves. It damningly exposed the Japanese motives and the deceitful attempts to frame the Chinese nationalists as the aggressors. It did not make any difference to the Japanese, who were now entrenched in Manchuria and had no plans to leave, but it also placed Japanese forces closer to Soviet forces on the Mongolian border. This is when the instability in the region intensified.

Japan withdrew from the League of Nations in protest after a failed attempt to deflect the truthful findings of the Lytton Report. This action had numerous ramifications, not least for world peace, when Italy and Germany realised that the League was powerless against the more powerful states like themselves. They realised that they could further their own ambitions with relative impunity as they watched the Japanese, now unchecked by the other great powers, pursue an expansionist policy in China. However, in doing so, these actions would soon bring her into conflict with the Soviet Union and further instability to the region arose.

At first, the Soviet Union was eager to avoid war with Japan. In 1929, they did not possess the military capability to conduct any form of protracted war. When Japan invaded Manchuria in 1931 and occupied the Soviet sphere of influence, the Soviet Union was still not strong enough in the East to oppose the Japanese. In order to avoid war, Stalin went so far as to adopt a policy of neutrality as far as Japanese actions in the region were concerned. In addition, the Soviet Union sold its rights to the Chinese Eastern Railway to the Manchukuo government on 23 March 1935, removing any interests they possessed in China. It would all be in vain; meanwhile, Japanese forces were now moving closer to the Mongolian border.

The first reported incident between the Soviet and Japanese forces occurred during January and February 1935. It was, by comparison, a small affair called the Halhamiao Incident, which broke out on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. This would not be the last, as similar events of varying severity erupted on a regular basis. The situation was not helped by the geographical problems, where ownership of frontier boundaries was ambiguous. Consequently, with no resolution or sensible dialogue, the two sides engaged in over one hundred intentional and unintentional territorial clashes.

This first incident was small and involved a small group comprising eleven Manchukuoan soldiers led by a Japanese officer clashing with a similarly sized Mongolian cavalry force. The Manchukuo Army suffered six casualties and two dead, including the Japanese officer, but the Mongolian opposing side incurred no casualties. Although this affray started on a small scale, it quickly escalated, and in retaliation, the Japanese sent a larger force. This comprised two motorized companies supported by a machine gun company that quickly overran the area and occupied it for three weeks.

The Halhamiao Incident would be the start of many confrontations and skirmishes of varying size. According to Japanese claims, from 1935 to 1939, when the last encounter with the USSR ended, there were over one hundred and fifty border engagements that took place fighting the Soviet Union on the Manchurian-Mongolian border. While it is not possible to discuss all of them, two later incidents at Gol Khashan and Khalkin Gol were particularly significant and stand out. More importantly, they are key events in evaluating the effectiveness of Japan’s future alliance with Germany.

The Anti-Comintern Pact – Germany and Japan Align

Hostilities with the Soviet Union became more frequent; being internationally isolated made Japan recognize that she needed an ally. There was, however, an absence of potential suitors. Her relations with Britain and the USA were already strained, not helped by the way Britain and the USA treated Japan as an inferior and unequal Asian power. The USA and Great Britain had previously placed restrictions on the size of the Japanese Navy. One example that irked the Japanese was the fact that they were restricted in how they were allowed to operate in the Pacific by the Washington Conference in 1922. This gave the USA and Great Britain naval dominance on “Japan’s very doorstep.” This was seen as disrespectful when considering that Japan was still technically, at the time, an ally of these two powers. She had been on the Allied side in the First World War and had assisted heavily in a common cause, fighting in Russia during the War of Intervention. Of course, Japan sought to gain from these engagements, but no more so than any of her wartime allies like Britain and France, who ensured that they would receive their territorial gains from the likes of Turkey and Germany.

After leaving the League of Nations, Japan had become an international pariah. She had only one potential suitor for an ally, and that was the newly emerged Nazi Germany. These ties she sought from Germany were borne out of expediency and, to some extent, a common ground. Germany was also falling out of favour with the international community and therefore became the candidate for Japan’s ally. Furthermore, Germany, like Japan, also had no love for the Soviet Union; therefore, there was common ground on this matter too.

Statistics demonstrate that these battles with the USSR were by no means insignificant. By the time of the final engagement in 1939, these combined clashes between the Soviet Union and Japan amounted to over thirty-three thousand Soviet and Mongolian casualties, three hundred and fifty Soviet tanks, and over two hundred Soviet aircraft destroyed. The Japanese would also suffer casualties of over thirty thousand losses, but fewer in tanks and aircraft, numbering forty-three and one hundred and sixty-two, respectively. Japan’s need for an ally against the Soviets was becoming more urgent. An opportunity presented itself. A resurrected, militaristic, anti-communist Germany was the perfect partner—at least the Japanese thought at the time.

In November 1936 in Berlin, following a month of negotiations and discussions, the two countries announced the arrival of the Anti-Comintern Pact. Its rhetoric made no attempt to disguise the fact that this was aimed purposefully at containing the Soviet Union. The propaganda was presented in true grandiose totalitarian style. It represented the alliance as a solitary sword-wielding, winged champion that would save Europe from the ravages of Bolshevism. Examples of the scare-mongering tactics and justification the pact used included communist involvement in the Civil War in Spain and the political unrest attributed to left-wing destabilising tactics in France. There was, interestingly, no reference to the Soviet action against Japan in East Asia. In 1937, Italy joined; Spain in 1939 (more likely as revenge for Soviet involvement in the Spanish Civil War) followed, along with Hungary. Although membership grew, it would prove a disappointment to the Japanese. The pact was never properly put into practice (although some could convincingly argue Operation Barbarossa was that very act), and time would prove what little substance it contained.

Soviet Victory in East Asia and the Neutrality Pact with the Soviet Union

In the two years following the signing of the pact, the Japanese no doubt saw the alliance with Germany as a major disappointment. The Germans took no active part in coming to the aid of the Japanese during their altercations with the Soviet Union after 1936. In fact, within three years of the formal signing of the pact, the Germans forged the Nazi-Soviet Pact. The implications of that enabled the Soviets to expand westward into Poland in 1939 and the Baltic States in 1940—a clear contradiction of the pact’s intentions. The Japanese would endure two final and decisive defeats before making peace with the USSR again without any German support.

The Battle of Khasan in July 1938 was the first of these confrontations, where seven thousand Japanese troops clashed against over twenty thousand Soviet troops. The Japanese viewed the Soviet reinforcement of this area as an incursion into territory they perceived as demarcated to themselves, as agreed in the Treaty of Peking with the USSR. The fact that the area was unclearly charted and ambiguous made it difficult to ascertain which side controlled which area, thus exacerbating the situation and causing most of the border disputes and misunderstandings. The Soviets suffered four thousand killed and injured, and the Japanese fifteen hundred from their Kwantung Army from Manchukuo. Japanese forces were defeated, and the Soviet Union re-occupied the area. Germany looked on as her ally continued to engage Soviet forces.

In 1939, at Khalkhin Gol, the Japanese were defeated once again. The two sides were at war for two months, from July to August 1939. Interestingly, in those two months, a Soviet officer named Zhukov (who would later gain prominence) led numerically superior Soviet forces who overcame the Japanese after suffering initial losses themselves. The Japanese would suffer a combination of seventeen thousand dead and wounded compared to ten thousand dead Soviet soldiers. In September, an armistice was declared. This would be the last of the Japanese and Soviet engagements until 1945.

In August 1939, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact was announced to a surprised international community, aligning Germany and the Soviet Union. This invalidated the pact they shared with Japan by choosing to sign a deal with the USSR that enabled their expansion westwards, which began with their occupation of Poland and the Baltic states. Both Germany and the USSR (for now at least) had conveniently set aside their differences, forgotten the venomous invectives they had previously exchanged, and made no reference to the Anti-Comintern Pact. Japan, realizing that her ally’s position had changed, now began to distance herself from Germany and signed the Neutrality Pact of 1941 with the USSR. Both members of the pact had made peace, at separate times, with the very state they originally sought to contain. Germany and Japan would soon both set upon starting their own separate wars.

The pact was inoperable by Germany due to the geographical distance between Germany and Japan, exacerbated by her reduced naval capacity to support her ally. The Germans had no interest in East Asia other than the Japanese military being available to drain British, French, and later American forces during the war. Germany’s aims were clearly expressed early in Hitler’s book Mein Kampf, and that was Lebensraum, or living space, at the expense of the USSR.

Another Unlikely Potential Ally

There are other interesting, and little-known, aspects to this story. Hitler's first choice of an anti-Soviet ally was not Japan; it was Great Britain, who also had little love for communism. Earlier in 1935, the Anglo-German Naval Agreement was the first attempt for the Germans to reach out to the British. The Japanese, at this point, viewed this with suspicion, as this would endorse British naval supremacy imposed by the Treaty of Washington, thus threatening her aspirations of dominance in the Pacific.

Conclusion

The pact revealed itself to be no more than a paper treaty as far as Japan was concerned. German resources were used to assist General Franco in battling communist forces backed by the USSR during the civil war in Spain. Japan no doubt was irked by this as she struggled alone in East Asia, but then equally, Japan did not intervene in Spain.

There appeared to be very little substance and only rhetoric, and if no other evidence were available to present, then this can be proved where both parties reversed their anti-Soviet attitudes (at least on the surface) to the Anti-Comintern Pact by arranging separate departures from the pact in 1939 by Germany and Japan in 1941. Japan was the only German ally not to participate in Operation Barbarossa.

What served the Germans also equally served the Japanese. As Germany was secretly using the Japanese in East Asia to distract and contain the USSR, Japan was doing likewise to Germany in Europe. That was not just a tactic used by the totalitarian powers either because their democratic rivals, Britain and France, were in turn also tacitly allowing Germany to serve as the bulwark against communist plans in Europe and, no doubt, in a similar fashion with Japan in East Asia.

As clouds of war approached, Germany and Japan took their own approaches in their relationship with the USSR, which were complete policy reversals. The Japanese Neutrality Pact and the Nazi-Soviet Pact allowed time to form a temporary alliance, which, in that time, enabled the USSR to not only expand her borders westward but also bring peace to the East Asian theatre. The Japanese could now turn to the Pacific and realize her ambitions. This had a devastating effect for the Allies, as the Japanese were now free to attack the European colonies and then challenge the USA. However, the pact would soon be put to deadly effect because, in June 1941, Operation Barbarossa commenced but without the support of Japan.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

William Shirer - Rise and Fall of The Third Reich

AJP Taylor - Origins of the Second World War

Goldman, Stuart (2012). Nomonhan, 1939: The Red Army's Victory that Shaped World War II. Naval Institute Press

A Shared Enmity: Germany, Japan, and the Creation of the Tripartite Pact - Jason Dawsey, PhD

Frank, Richard B. Tower of Skulls: A History of the Asia-Pacific War, July 1937-May 1942. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2020

The Modern Greek State: 1975–1996 – Three Elephants, Two Tigers and a Lioness

On March 25, 2021, the Modern Greek State celebrated the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence, which ultimately led to its establishment. It is thus an excellent opportunity to reconsider some of the main events of Greek history over these 200 years and how they shaped the character of modern Greece.

This series of articles on the history of modern Greece started when the country was celebrating the 200th anniversary of the War of Independence. This article starts by looking at what happened after the end of dictatorship, and takes us through the changing 1980s and 1990s. Thomas P. Papageorgiou explains.

You can read part 1 on ‘a bad start’ 1827-1862 here, part 2 on ‘bankruptcy and defeat’ 1863-1897 here, part 3 on ‘glory days’ 1898-1913 here, part 4 on ‘Greeks divided’ 1914-22 here, part 5 on the issues of clientelism here, part 6 on World War2 and a new divide here, and part 7 on the road to dictatorship and retreat here.

Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou with United States President Bill Clinton in April 1994.

The fall of the dictatorship in Greece in 1974 (Papageorgiou, 2024) coincided with the restoration of democracy in the whole of the European south. Salazar’s dictatorship in Portugal, established in 1932-1933, and Franko’s dictatorship in Spain, established in 1939, came to an end with a counter coup in 1974 that led to free elections in 1976, in the first case, and Franco’s death in 1975 in the second. In all three countries the armed forces would now submit to the political establishment, ending a long tradition of involvement in politics. The Church would also lose much of its prestige because of its identification with the military regimes. Their people were influenced from the success of the European west and north that combined financial prosperity with parliamentarism, which was also consolidated in Greece, Portugal and Spain with their entry in the European Economic Community in the 1980s. (Close, 2006, pp. 219-221)    

I Part of the European Economic Community

The first free elections after the coup d’etat of 1967 took place in November 1974. Konstantinos Karamanlis, leader of the national unity government formed after the fall of the junta a few months earlier, had meanwhile transformed the former National Radical Union into a new party under the name New Democracy (ND) (Close, 2006, p. 236) representing the biggest part of the conservatives to this day. He won the elections and a few days later he called for a referendum on whether the junta’s decision to abolish constitutional monarchy would be retained or the king would be allowed to return to Greece. 69.2% of the voters decided for a Presidential Republic that also remains to this day. (Wikipedia, 2023)

Apart from parting with the king, Karamanlis found himself in a rather peculiar position also in the economy. The private interests establishment that for many years benefited from state subsidies and protectionism proved inadequate to cope with the consequences of the oils crises of 1973 and 1978. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 29) Thus, in spite of its conservative nature, Karamanlis’ government had to step in and started nationalizing private companies. It also had to renegotiate or even cancel deals signed by junta officials with terms highly unfavourable for the state. (Eleftheratos, 2015, pp. 313-314) (Rizas, 2008, pp. 493-494) (Close, 2006, pp. 248-249) In fact, the demand for more freedom and representation, after the fall of the junta, indicated that renegotiation and, where needed, cancelation of established norms in the public life was also needed at that time, much to the dislike of a conservative government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 30)

A possible way out of all these seemed to be the assumption of full membership in the European Economic Community (EEC). Karamanlis was pursuing it already from the 1960s (Papageorgiou, 2024) and in 1979 he made it happen. Thus, soon after the fall of the junta, of the four power pillars that defined the post-civil war period, (Papageorgiou, 2024) the army and the palace were completely removed from the political scenery of the country, the role of the Americans had to be redefined after accession to the EEC and only that of parliamentarism remained untouched and in fact reinforced. (Close, 2006, p. 226)

In the following, we will see how the political parties managed the sweeping demand for change from the beginning of 1980s. At that time, Karamanlis assumed the rather ceremonial role of the President of the Republic, (Close, 2006, p. 225) but real power was now in the hands of Andreas Papandreou. His Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PAnelinio SOsialistiko Kinima – PASOK) won the national elections in autumn 1981.  

II Change

The beginning

So, the political change came. And it brought with it an increase of 35% to salaries, that were further to be automatically adjusted according to the price index. Pension increases and tax exemptions were also established. Karamanlis had already made the Communist Party legal again, (Close, 2006, p. 223) but in the PASOK era political refugees were allowed to return and pensions were handed out to members of the (also Left) resistance during WWII. (Close, 2006, p. 224) A national healthcare system was set up. (Close, 2006, pp. 250, 251-252) Nationalization of private companies continued and more than a 100 once dominant enterprises active, among others, in mining metallurgy, shipbuilding and petrochemicals came under the Business Restructuring Organization. These and the public sector were utilized so that thousands of people could find a job. Indeed, large sections of the population literally switched their status in those early years of PASOK, rapidly climbing the ladder of social stratification and gaining income, power, and authority. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 32 - 35)

Too much, too quickly and with no real plan. The spirit of clientelism, ever present in the political and social life of modern Greece, made sure that hiring was based on personal or political relations without evaluation. (Close, 2006, p. 242) This immobilized the Administration, destroyed any concept of hierarchy, eroded values such as those of duty and productivity, made the state apparatus synonymous to that of the political party and  favoured to the maximum degree tendencies of graft and corruption. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 35) (Close, 2006, p. 250)

Furthermore, all the above policies were based on borrowed money and EEC resources. (Close, 2006, pp. 260, 269)They contributed to the deindustrialization of the country (Close, 2006, pp. 264, 265, 273-275) and as the agricultural subsidies also, instead of being used for the modernization of agriculture, were turned into apartments in the urban centres and luxury vehicles, (Close, 2006, p. 266) Brussels had already started to feel uncomfortable and characterize Greece as a bad example of a new member state. The Americans were also prejudiced against Papandreou because of his opening to the Arab world, his participation in the Non-Aligned Movement and his anti-American rhetoric with references to the removal of the American bases from Greece, which he never implemented, but with which he constantly exercised pressure to the superpower. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 44)

For the Americans another issue was terrorism. During the early years after the fall of the junta, the discussions of armed struggle were revived mainly among members of left-wing organizations and groups. The infamous terrorist organization ‘17th of November’ (17N) was formed during this time and intensified its activity in the mid-1980s hitting American and western targets, businessmen, right-wing politicians, judges, policemen and publishers of traditional conservative newspapers that were now intensifying the criticism against PASOK. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 44) (Close, 2006, pp. 234-235)

The Security Services and the Americans were thus prone to investigate conspiracy theories that linked terrorism with PASOK as well as the official and extra-parliamentary Left. For those who spent time at the University those years, however, there was the certainty that the faces of terrorism, those who carried out the bloody acts, could only have come out of the student movement. There was the certainty that these were common, ordinary people. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 24) This partly explains also the longevity of groups like 17N. Another reason was that after the fall of the junta governments relied less to the police and the security forces and more to material benefits for their longevity. (Close, 2006, p. 229) The Greek police after 1974 were paralyzed by a lack of resources, an absence of professionalism and a low level of competence. In the prevailing anti-authoritarian atmosphere, it did not even have the public support that it needed. (Close, 2006, p. 235)

The turn 

For the common people though, what mattered most were the benefits they enjoyed under Papandreou’s government. Thus, the latter won triumphally the elections of June 1985. Nevertheless, during that summer the country’s foreign exchange reserves had already fallen unbelievably low, deficits and public debt had ballooned, inflation was high and persistent, the loss of competitiveness great and the inadequacy of productive investments evident. EEC officials were also expressing their displeasure for the course of the Greek economy.  The time for major revisions had come. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 52-53)

The turn was to be carried out by Costas Simitis (Wikipedia, 2024), who assumed the position of Minister of National Economy. Along with a group of technocratic advisors, Simitis presented a three-year stabilization program, which included a devaluation of the drachma, a wage freeze in the public and private sectors, hiring, borrowing, spending and price controls, restructuring of public enterprises, and, most importantly, initiatives and measures to free the economy and markets from government intervention, combined with the liberalization of the financial sector and the capital market. The implementation of the program was bound by a European emergency loan, which designated the European Commission as an auditor of the Greek economic course. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 55-57) (Close, 2006, p. 244)

The program shocked PASOK supporters and brought great turmoil within it, as it meant a complete revision of the until then physiognomy of the populist movement. (Close, 2006, p. 245) It run with difficulties for a couple of years starting the opening to the market economy, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 63) laying the foundations for the rebirth of the stock market and promoting plans to restructure the whole public sector (Karakousis, 2006, p. 65), but Andreas Papandreou eventually denounced it from the parliament floor on 25 November 1987. Simitis resigned the next day. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 74)   

Lifestyle, shadow economy and scandals

Indeed, the formerly unprivileged who in the early years of PASOK gained space and incomes were not willing to return to their previous situation. They were getting used to a new way of life, influenced also by lifestyle magazines, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 59-60)    based on a pattern, which required owning a house, a country house, cars, travel, vacations and a lot of expenses for the children. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 104) As money in the public sector, where as described above the clientelist state accommodated many of its supporters, were not enough, they turned to multiple employment to support it. The bank clerk and the tax official were employed in the afternoon as accountants in the private sector, the schoolteacher gave private lessons and so on. This did not only have implications on the integrity of the public servants regarding the balance of interests between their dual occupations. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 106) The extra salaries were not declared anywhere.   

Thus, the new way of life was not supported by borrowed state money only. The private sector followed suit and calculations during the implementation of the Value Added Tax (VAT) in 1987 recorded that the shadow (black) economy amounted to 40% of GDP. A rate extremely large and able to distort any economic policy effort, as a large part of economic activities remained out of control, operated by their own rules and formed their own levels of profitability and incomes, which, to a certain extent, explain the inexhaustible endurance of the citizens of the country, despite the continuous pressure with economic measures and regulations to this day. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 70) (Close, 2006, p. 259)

PASOK also sought to continue the tradition of intertwining business interests with state power. (Papageorgiou, 2024)Micro-entrepreneurs, like the Kouris brothers, offered services and support already from the early years of PASOK in power through publications such as the populist newspaper Avriani, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 36-37) but the most famous case was that of George Koskotas. With many university degrees, later proven to be fake, he started his carrier as accountant at the Bank of Crete. He will progress, become a chief accountant, and one morning he will appear to the owner of the bank with a takeover proposal. The trick was that he used the bank’s own money for the takeover, without anyone noticing. Koskotas moved energetically after that and wanted to play the role of PASOK’s banker. As phenomena of arrogance and corruption had already made their appearance from the first years of the government (see above), Koskotas found fertile ground for his activities. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 60-61)  

Nevertheless, Koskotas’ aggressive policies, including attempts to expand in the banking and media sectors as well as in football, where he bought the country’s probably most popular team, Olympiakos Piraeus, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 79-80)eventually attracted the attention of The Bank of Greece’s legal counsel regarding the origin of the money and the overall management of the Bank of Crete. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 83) It was finally revealed in February 1989 that the government’s vice president Menios Koutsogiorgas attempted to hinder the investigation by law, after a bribe of 2 million dollars. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 100) (Close, 2006, p. 245)       

The situation for PASOK continued to worsen as during this period the press published evidence for additional scandals in the procurement of military equipment as well as for the surveillance of the telephones of Leftist officials as well as that of Konstantinos Karamanlis, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 81) (Close, 2006, pp. 245-246) who in the meantime Papandreou had ensured that he was replaced in the Presidency of the Republic by judge Christos Sargetakis. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 52)The newspaper reports caused the intervention of the judiciary while the opposition also hardened its stance. Significant strongholds of the opposition action at that time were the three largest municipalities of the country, Athens, Piraeus, and Thessaloniki, that New Democracy had won in the municipal elections of October 1986. A basic instrument was the free radio that the three conservative mayors, M. Evert, A. Andrianopoulos and S.Kouvelas launched in May 1987 against the state monopoly until then. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 71-72)

The fall

Papandreou was at a very tough spot. Physically, he was ill and was rushed to London in August 1988 where he remained for almost two months and underwent heart surgery. Personally, he found himself in a turmoil as his affair with a former stewardess of Olympic Airways, Dimitra Liani, became publicly known. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 84) Politically, the scandals led many PASOK officials to resign or distance themselves from the party and triggered scenarios of succession in its leadership. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 92-96) (Close, 2006, p. 246) Furthermore, during the judicial investigations into the scandals, 17N escalated its action against judges, which rekindled the rumours about PASOK’s ties to terrorism. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 98-99)

Despite all this, Papandreou fought hard to turn the tide against him. Before the elections of June 1989 he used the standard trick, we have often seen in this series, of changing the electoral law to make it difficult for the Right to come to power. Moreover, in an outburst of populism during a pre-election rally in Athens, he will openly urge Finance Minister D. Tsovolas to ‘give everything’, meaning benefits to the electorate to vote for PASOK. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 107) (Close, 2006, p. 246) And he succeeded. New Democracy won, but its 44,25% of the votes was not enough to give its leader Konstantinos Mitsotakis the absolute majority in the parliament, but only 145 of the 300 seats. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 113)

III Co-government of Right and Left

It was obvious that Mitsotakis had to deal harder blows against PASOK to seize power. At the same time the leadership of the Left saw in PASOK’s destruction the opportunity to expand its electorate audience. Thus, the memories of the civil war and the junta were put aside and the unthinkable happened: a co-government supported by the Right and the Left. (Close, 2006, p. 247) Mitsotakis’ son-in-law, Pavlos Bakoyiannis, played a catalytic role as mediator, using the connections he developed with many Leftist officials during the junta years in Germany, where all had taken refuge. At the head of the government, formed in July 1989, was Tzanis Tzanetakis, o former officer of the Navy, and its goal was ‘Katharsis’. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 115-116)

Indeed, by September, Andreas Papandreou and other PASOK officials, including the former ministers Koutsogiorgas and Tsovolas, were refereed by the Parliament to the Special Court for the Koskotas scandal and the wiretapping (see above). Another former minister, Nikos Athanasopoulos, was send to court for the ‘Corn Scandal’, accused of misleading EEC officials by presenting Yugoslavian corn as Greek to collect higher subsidies. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 120-121, 130)(Close, 2006, p. 246)

Nevertheless, the ordinary voters of the Left were once again not reconciled to the games of their leadership (Karakousis, 2006, p. 116) In fact, the youth of the Communist Party openly expressed its disagreement with the Tzanetakis’ government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 128) To make things worse, Papandreou’s new admission to the hospital with respiratory problems at the beginning of the summer had created a wave of sympathy that reinforced the dilemmas of the Left. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 114) Thus, New Democracy’s proposal for yet another commission of inquiry to look into possible scandals in the procurement of weapons systems was not accepted by the coalition of Left parties. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 131) At the same time though, 17N reappeared and murdered Pavlos Bakoyiannis on the way to his office the day before the Parliament decided to send Papandreou to the Special Court for the Koskotas scandal. This reignited the conspiracy theories regarding PASOK’s connection to terrorism. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 128, 130)

Coexistence of Right and Left in the Tzanetakis’ government was thus becoming uncomfortable. Nevertheless, the latter seemed to have achieved its main political objective, ‘Katharsis’, by sending PASOK officials to court. It did not do much else, except for allowing the establishment of private television stations breaking another state monopoly, after that of radio broadcast (see above). The new development brought with it kitsch, subculture, the keyhole screen, a spectacle of second-rate, intellectual poverty and degradation of everything. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 122-127) Furthermore, the different perspectives of Right and Left combined with benefits generously handed out by the Finance Minister Antonis Samaras (Right) and the Minister of the Interior Nikos Konstantopoulos (Left), to the delight of the electorate, worsened public finances and brought the country to the brink of yet another fiscal crisis. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 118-119) It was time for another round of elections.

IV The Right Comes to Power

The elections took place on the 5th of November 1989 and New Democracy increased its percentage of the votes to 46.2%. Nevertheless, this was again not enough to bring Mitsotakis to power. New Democracy elected only 148 out of 300 parliament members. PASOK was once again proved very resilient increasing its power to 40,7% of the votes, while the Left coalition lost 2% receiving 11% of the votes. Obviously, its plan to substitute PASOK through the participation to Tzanetakis’ government did not work well. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 136) (Close, 2006, pp. 247-248)

In view of the critical condition of the economy the solution of an ecumenical government finally prevailed under the leadership of the then 90 years old former Governor of the Bank of Greece Xenophon Zolotas. The period of indifference was over, and the political establishment, at that juncture, understood that it could not play with the economy. It was convinced that the crisis conditions had to be controlled at any cost. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 140) It was also centrally agreed that the only way forward for Greece was Europe: Greece should claim its inclusion in the new system of the single currency, which was then being planned, but it was clear that it would be the European answer to the new form that the world would take after the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 144) (Close, 2006, pp. 287-288)

Nevertheless, Mitsotakis was becoming impatient. After all, his party found itself in an ecumenical government together with PASOK, whose leaders were prosecuted from Right and Left just a few days before. Indeed, Papandreou was recovering quickly politically, also with interventions like that of France’s president François Mitterrand, who invited him to Paris already before the November elections and thus took him out of the Greek isolation showing that he maintained an international base and was not finished as many would like him to be. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 133) As Zolotas’ freedom for action was limited by the need to reconcile the Right, Center and Left elements of the ecumenical government and he had to resort to desperate measures, like borrowing with an interest rate greater than 27%, in order to meet the cash needs of the state, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 139-140) Mitsotakis stressed the need for absolute majority in the Parliament and a one party government to meet the country’s needs. Another international intervention helped him to this end. It was a letter from the President of the European Commission Jacques Delors that was publicized by Mitsotakis and conveyed to the Greek society the need to obtain a decisive government, capable of handling the economic affairs in a clear manner. Thus, another round of elections was scheduled for the 9th of April 1990. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 157-158)(Close, 2006, p. 361)

New Democracy’s 46.88% of the votes gave 150 seats in the parliament, again one less of the minimum needed for it to rule. The missing vote came with the defection to New Democracy of the only representative elected with Democratic Renewal (Dimokratiki Ananeosi – DIANA). The latter was a party founded by Konstantinos Stefanopoulos, a former New Democracy member and then internal party rival of Mitsotakis. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 161)

New Democracy’s accent to power at the beginning of the 1990s coincided with the long retreat of the interventionist state from the commanding heights of the economy accelerated in the previous decade with a conservative counterattack spearheaded by Ronald Reagan in the US and Margaret Thatcher in the UK. (Allawi, 2024, p. 131) The collapse of the Soviet Union was considered the most striking verification of this process. Thus, privatizations were at the core of the Right’s liberal agenda. Nevertheless, the clientelist state was ever present (Karakousis, 2006, p. 173) and privatizations were not viewed by the government as a development tool for the economy, but as a mechanism of wealth and state assets distribution to friends and acquaintances. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 182-183)

Furthermore, privatizations were faced with strong opposition from the employees of the enterprises involved. The same was true for the pension, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 167-168) tax (Karakousis, 2006, p. 166) and education reforms (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 175-177) that the government tried to introduce. By 1992 the treaty of Maastricht with the Euro convergence criteria (Wikipedia, 2024), following Greece’s decision to be part of the European Union and the common currency zone (see above), hardened the position of the government (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 212-215). This brought it into conflict with the society (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 219-221) that was not going to easily give up the privileges obtained during the PASOK years described previously. In fact, the overall climate was very tense and involved extreme incidents like the murder of the high school teacher Nikos Temponeras during clashes at a school in Patras (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 176-177) and the death of former minister Koutsogiorgas that suffered a stroke during the trial for the Koskotas scandal. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 185-187) 17N also reappeared attempting unsuccessfully to kill the businessman Vardis Vardinogiannis (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 177-178) and the finance minister Giannis Palaiokrassas. In the second case though, a civilian, the young Thanos Axarlian, who happened to be passing by the area of the attack was killed. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 221-222) (Close, 2006, pp. 362-363)

As if these were not enough, ‘Katharsis’ was also turning into a fiasco for Mitsotakis. Although some former PASOK ministers, like the above-mentioned Athanasopoulos, served prison sentences, (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 183-185) its leader Andreas Papandreou was declared not guilty (with 6 votes against 5). (Karakousis, 2006, p. 197) The old Konstantinos Karamanlis, who was again elected President of the Republic, after Mitsotakis’ ascend to power, (Karakousis, 2006, p. 163) had warned that one ‘does not send a prime minister to court, but simply home’. Mitsotakis ignored him and the court verdict came to reinforce Papandreou’s (and PASOK’s) feeling that he could dominate again. (Close, 2006, p. 350)

New Democracy’s fall came from the field of foreign affairs though. Although, after the fall of the Soviet Union the major international incident of the time was the first Iraq war – in the coverage of which the dominance of television over all other media became obvious for the first time- (Karakousis, 2006, p. 172) Germany’s recognition of the independence of  Croatia and Slovenia in late 1991 triggered the process of Yugoslavia’s disintegration. One of the emerging states in former Yugoslavia’s south, bordering to Greece, then claimed for itself the name ‘Macedonia’ touching upon the national feelings of the Greek people, who were not willing to give up the heritage of Alexander the Great, ruler of ancient Macedonia, to the Slavs without a fight. Mitsotakis’ government was literally caught sleeping. It had made no preparation to deal with the possibility of recognition of a Macedonian state on Greece’s northern borders and the disturbance that such a thing would cause inside the country. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 190 - 191) (Close, 2006, pp. 405-406)     

Indeed, demonstrations, mostly in Thessaloniki with more than one million participants, hampered efforts to find a compromise solution by using a composite name prepared by the European Union (Karakousis, 2006, p. 196) (Close, 2006, p. 406) while there were internal party reactions as well that led to the dismissal of the at that time Minister of Foreign Affairs Antonis Samaras from the government. The reason was his differentiation from the views of Mitsotakis and Karamanlis at a meeting of the political parties’ leaders under the President, in April 1992, to discuss national policy on the name issue. By autumn 1993 Samaras had formed his own party (Political Spring – Politiki Anixi) and several of new Democracy’s members of Parliament followed him bringing down Mitsotakis’ government. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 237) (Close, 2006, p. 408)

V Andreas Papandreou Returns to Power

Parliamentary elections were held on 10th of October 1993 and PASOK took 46% of the votes corresponding to 170 seats in the parliament. But Papandreou now knew that he could not continue the policy of benefits to the people he exercised in the past. The economy had to meet the Maastricht convergence criteria, if Greece was to remain part of the European Union including the adoption of the common currency (Euro). (Close, 2006, p. 363) This was not easy at all with inflation at 15%, double digit interest rates, public deficits reaching 15% of the GDP, the widespread shadow economy and the corresponding tax evasion. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 263)   

Thus, brave policies were necessary and, in view of the intense pressure from the society for financial aid of any type, conflicts with numerous groups of citizens. Nevertheless, the latter were at the same time convinced that PASOK would do the job at the lowest possible cost, without the atrocities of Mitsotakis and the heavy feeling of social analgesia the accompanied him. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 248) (Close, 2006, p. 364) Furthermore, the element of external imposition made things easier politically as it allowed the government officials to invoke Brussels and through this invocation to legitimize measures and policies that were in conflict with society. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 263) (Close, 2006, p. 364) At the same time though, Andreas Papandreou knew that the acceptance of the convergence process with Europe would be accompanied by a significant package of European Union funds. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 247) The idea was simple. The European funds would be directed to large scale public works and through them any development and income deficit caused be the fiscal adjustment would be covered. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 249) (Close, 2006, p. 283)

Thus, as prescribed in the treaty of Maastricht, at the beginning of 1994 already, the Greek state had to give up the so called ‘monetary financing’ and come out competitively to the market to raise financial resources. Indeed, before 1994, several mechanisms constituted this so called ‘monetary financing’ that allowed the state to raise funds with small or at least controllable cost. For example, at the beginning of each year, the Bank of Greece provided an advance payment of 10% on the increase of the state budget expenditure with a symbolic interest rate of 1.5%. Furthermore, it obliged banks to place 40% of their deposits on interest-bearing Treasury bills, whereas in times of crisis the central bank bought government securities, often to a large extent. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 254-255)

If this was not enough, the government could always turn to the so-called bondholder class offering two to three-year government bonds with high interest rates exceeding 20% per year (see also the previous section). This way, a mood of laziness and idleness was transmitted to society, as an available savings capital was sufficient to offer high profits and large incomes. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 245)   

In the three years 1994-96 all this will change. The state will acquire a reliable Treasury service and gradually be freed from its dependence on the bondholder class. Interest rates will fall, and the banking system will find itself with freed up resources and new opportunities to grow and develop new financial tools. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 256)

In 1994, a new law also attempted to limit the political parties’ power for appointments in the public sector. It introduced the rule of one recruitment for every five departures and mandated both the establishment of the Supreme Personnel Selection Board as an independent body responsible for recruitment and the establishment of rules and procedures so that these are invariable. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 269)

In 1995, a new tax law tried to address the issue of tax evasion. The so called ‘objective criteria’ for the taxation of small and medium enterprises and freelancers were established. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 267) (Close, 2006, p. 354) Parameters like the kind of activity, area of operation, operational costs and others were used to define a minimum level of tax for the legal or physical entity in question. When the entity declared an income corresponding to a tax level lower than this minimum, then either the minimum had to be paid, or the entity would be subject to extensive tax scrutiny. In fact, measures to enhance tax revenues were put in place from the very first days of this new term of PASOK increasing indirect taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, taking measures to crack down on smuggling and putting pressure on traders to return the value added tax, incorporated by PASOK already back in 1987 following directives of the EEC. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 70, 246)

Nevertheless, these attempts do not mean that clientelism was suddenly over and that the political parties were over their fear of the political cost. For example, construction and the public works mentioned earlier as expression of hope, as a mechanism of development and progress will become hotbeds of corruption, scandals and money waste, dragging politics with them. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 254)

In fact, Papandreou’s government acrobated between the old habits and the need for modernization. Things got worse as the latter’s health deteriorated once more in the summer of 1995 leaving plenty of space for a group of people close to his former mistress and by this time wife and secretary, Dimitra Liani, to run the game. A typical example of this period is the former Olympic Airways stewardess’ resistance to the consolidation of the company, which had accumulated debts of 600 billion drachmas, because of the political cost. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 265) Other of Liani’s doings included the purchase of a villa in Ekali, the most prestigious neighbourhood of Athens, under economically uncertain conditions and an entourage of astrologists and priests, who brought miraculous talismans with them in the hope that the patient Papandreou would regain his health. This was a third world government structure that infuriated PASOK’s executives that were now discussing openly Papandreou’s succession. (Karakousis, 2006, pp. 259, 261)

This eventually came in January 1996, when Papandreou resigned from office. The inter party elections named Costas Simitis as the new president of PASOK and prime minister, who will make Modernization his flag. (Karakousis, 2006, p. 277) Papandreou died in June.

VI Conclusions

In this series of articles on the history of modern Greece reference has been made to the work of Acemoglu and Robinson (Acemoglu & Robinson, 2013) and it has been pointed out that the country is suffering from non-inclusive political and economic institutions. Within this framework, some additional characteristics, obvious in the present part of the series, should not go unnoticed: 1) An over-sized public sector and bureaucracy, as seen in the clientelism approach of serving the political parties’ clients/voters with jobs. 2) Economic statism, as seen in the handling of nationalized/state owned companies and attempts to boost the economy through public works. 3) Corruption, as seen in the political/economic scandals described above.

Special reference should also be made to: 4) tax evasion, as seen in the size of the shadow economy, resulting in 5) over taxation, as seen in the establishment of the ‘objective criteria’.  

And finally, 6) populism, as seen in Papandreou’s ‘give everything’ cry, before the elections of June 1989.     

Dimitrios Lakasas proposes that the Greek economy today in undermined by three elephants (bureaucracy, statism and corruption), five tigers (tax evasion, over taxation, high insurance contributions for employees and businesses, high cost of money and unserviced loans) and a lioness (populism) . (Lakasas, 2021, p. 289) The three elephants, two of the tigers and the lioness are clearly seen already in the period studied in this article.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

Acemoglu, D., & Robinson, J. A. (2013). Why Nations Fail. London: Profile Books ltd.

Allawi, A. A. (2024). Rich World, Poor World: The Strugle to Escape Poverty. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.

Close, D. (2006). Greece since 1945: Politics, Economy and Society. Thessaloniki: Thyrathen (in Greek, available also in English by Routledge).

Eleftheratos, D. (2015). Diddlers in Khaki, Economic 'miracles' and victims of the junta. Athens: Topos Eds. (in Greek).

Karakousis, A. (2006). Hovering Country. From the society of need to the society of desire (1975 - 2005). Athens: Hestia Bookstore (in Greek).

Lakasas, D. (2021). Human 4.0. For a Wise Management of the 4th Industrial Revolution . Athens: Klidarithmos.

Papageorgiou, T. P. (2024, April 20). History is Now Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.historyisnowmagazine.com/blog/2024/4/20/the-modern-greek-state-19501974-the-road-to-dictatorship-and-retreat

Rizas, S. (2008). Greek Politics after the Civil War. Parliamentaryism and Dictatorship. Athens: Kastaniotis (in Greek).

Wikipedia. (2023). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1974_Greek_republic_referendum

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Costas_Simitis

Wikipedia. (2024). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro_convergence_criteria

The Small Town in the American Northeast with an Unfortunate Past

Here, Michael Leibrandt argues that the northeast area of the United States  is quite old – and has some fascinating stories. He looks at the story of Centralia, Pennsylvania.

A part of the Centralia mine fire as it was after being exposed during an excavation in 1969. Available here.

The northeast of the United States is old.  I’m not trying to create a mid-life crisis here — I’m talking about being historic. Although our nation is still considered relatively young compared to the rest of the world — we’ve got some definite historic architecture.

We’ve also got some rural areas that are downright eerie. Some of our fields have the occasional, well placed, 18th century weather-worn-and-wooden barns. Some of our cracked cement highways are traveled only infrequently. And our high-elevation mountains offer the perfect cover to conceal a castle worthy of Nosferatu himself.

With unmistakable parallels to the setting of the video game Silent Hill and some sixty miles northeast of Pennsylvania’s capitol of Harrisburg is the town of Centralia. At its height — Centralia’s population was about 3,000 in 1890 — but unlike other towns — something seemed loom over this mining town. 

Like many Pennsylvania communities — Centralia was incorporated right after the American Civil War in 1866 as a mining borough — its citizens and miners employed by the local Locust Mountain Coal and Iron Company — and the mine itself having opened in 1862.

The start

Centralia’s story begins when native Americans would sell their land around what would become the town to European Agents around 1749. In 1793 — Robert Morris who was not only signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776 but also was a hero in the Revolutionary War— acquired land in the valley around what would become the town. In 1868 — Alexander Rae who founded the town itself at the end of the Civil War — was brutally murdered by the Molly Maguires while en-route between Centralia and Mount Carmel. According to legend — the first Roman Catholic Priest to live in Centralia (Father Daniel Ignatius McDermott) was assaulted by several members of the Molly Maguires in 1869 and subsequently cursed the land around the town and proclaimed that nothing but the Church would eventually remain in Centralia. He ended up very close to being right.

In June of 1948 — just three years after the end of World War II — United Airlines Flight 624 traveling between San Diego and New York crashed into a mountain between the Pennsylvania towns of Aristes and Centralia. The plane went into descent before crashing. Residents of Centralia helped to bury the victims in St. Ignatius Cemetery.

Fire

But the event that would ultimately doom Centralia happened around Memorial Day of 1962 — when a crew doing a controlled burn of a landfill around Centralia did not extinguish the blaze and the fire seeped into an old mine shaft that was not properly sealed. Over the years — millions of dollars were spent by the federal government in attempts to extinguish the fire but every attempt found it to be much larger than originally thought or ran out of funds.

Over the years as snow melted quickly from the warm ground and smoke oozed from the rusted vents around the town — concerns grew about Centralia. In 1979 — then Mayor John Coddington was forced to close his gas station when fuel in the tanks began to boil underground. In 1981 — a twelve-year-old boy nearly died when he fell into a 100-foot sinkhole before being pulled out by his cousin. In 1993 — Pennsylvania bypassed route 61 — the main thoroughfare into town due to fire by the mine.

After millions were invested to extinguish the fire, Governor Bob Casey would claim eminent domain in 1992 which condemned all the borough’s structures. In 2009 — then Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell began evictions for the residents who remained. In 2002 — Centralia’s Postal Code was removed. Today — the Municipal Building doesn’t even bear Centralia’s name — the remnants of stone walkways indicate where homes used to be. The nearby town of Brynesville was completely vacated — today remaining only by a Shrine at the side of the road and an old garage.

Now the horror of what happened in Centralia has become historic. The remaining residents settled their lawsuit in 2013 — receiving $218,000 in as payment for their homes and the right to stay in their houses for the rest of their lives. After the residents are deceased —many of the houses constructed with those multiple-chimney looking support buttresses are demolished. When the last five residents are no longer with us as of the 2020 census — the town of Centralia — shrouded in a backdrop of steam — will be gone forever.

Michael Thomas Leibrandt lives and works in Abington Township, PA.

Chicago’s Prohibition Era North Side Wives

Being the wife of a wanted criminal in the 1920s was equal parts alluring and terrifying. You were constantly in danger, or at least your spouse was in danger of being shot on the street or “taken for a ride.” If you chose this life you were probably one of three kinds of woman. Someone who really had no clue what the man they loved did, chose to see what the man they loved did and pretended not to know about it or knew what they did and embraced it. For the most part women who married the bootleggers of prohibition turned a blind eye to their husband’s escapades for one reason or another. It took a special kind of personality, one that, it might be argued wasn’t that different from those that they were partners in life.

Erin Finlen explains.

Images to click on before you start:

George Moran and Lucille: https://images.app.goo.gl/nTCYpeTnHW1Qt6bHA

Cecelia Drucci: https://images.app.goo.gl/agLdrHV5DAwHnTpX6

Hymie Weiss and Josephine Simard: https://images.app.goo.gl/XD61BpZUuxECbdXq7

Dean O'Banion and Viola: https://images.app.goo.gl/WKR137gBQypWFiRD9

Viola O’Banion

Viola O’Banion was born Viola Kaniff in Chicago, Illinois on March 27,1901. When she was school age she went to boarding or finishing school in Iowa. She was home on her Christmas break in December of 1920 and she and some girlfriends went to cafe on the North Side, where she caught the eye of Dean O’Banion. Viola could be described as the female of version of her husband. She had dark blond hair and blue eyes and an infectious attitude and penchant for trouble. She radiated a joy for life. Dean was instantly in love and the two were married in February of 1921.

There is a real possibility that Viola had no idea her husband was in the bootlegging business. She even told a reporter who came to visit O’Banion when he was under house arrest pending the trial for the murder of John Duffy that there was no way he could have done it, the police just didn’t like him.

The two vacationed together on the infamous trip where Dean is credited with finding the Tommy Gun and ordering some to be brought to Chicago, but there is no reason to suggest that she was involved with his criminal activities in anyway. When Dean was murdered she claimed that the only reason he ever carried a gun was for protection in the dangerous city, something Dean could have told her and she probably believed, it was a plausible reason in the city where money controlled the cops and the money was controlled by the gangsters. For better or worse the pair were a good match and both loved each other dearly. Viola would never be quite the same after his death.

That’s not to say that she was lost her mischievous streak by any means. In 1926, she married a man on a dare only to discover he was already married and promptly divorce him. In 1929, she was arrested for driving over 66 mph through a residential neighborhood and using the sidewalks as well, an activity that her late husband had also engaged in. Then, in 1934 she watched as her sister jumped off a bridge. When her sister was rescued she accompanied her to the county hospital. They refused to say why her sister was in the water and Mrs. O’Banion Carter, as the papers called her, answered with, “I don’t like the police and we were just celebrating a wedding.” A dislike and distrust of policeman and a joyful outlook on life made her the perfect and possibly blind eyed wife to Dean O’Banion and his gangland kingdom.

Josephine Simard

For the purposes of this article I am going to call Josephine the fiancé of Hymie Weiss, splitting her version of events and what can be proven cleanly down the middle. Marie Josephine Simard was, like Dean and Viola, a bubbly outgoing young woman who was born on October 23, 1902 in Massachusetts. She joined the Ziegfeld Follies in New York City, a comedy troupe of chorus girls, who were considered risqué at the time, and in the fall of 1925, the tour was visiting Chicago where she met Earl “Hymie” Weiss. It’s probable that the vivacious personality of Simard was what drew him to her, she brought out the good side of the otherwise angry, violent, and serious man, a much needed light after the death of his best friend the year before.

There is a lot of speculation about the relationship that the pair actually had. Josephine said that she spent the happiest days of her life to that point with Weiss, that even though he was a bootlegger he enjoyed quiet nights at home with her and that if you didn’t know who he was you would never guess. At no point did she hide that she knew what he did or who he was, instead she said it didn’t matter because she loved him. Their friends all said that they were very happy together and a picture of the two in Miami, Florida taken between the winter of 1925 and fall 1926 shows an extremely happy couple. They were reported to have heated arguments but only because, as Rose Keefe says in her book, The Man Who Got Away, they were such different personalities. The famous scene in the 1931 film, The Public Enemy, where James Cagney shoves a grape fruit in Mae West’s face supposedly came from an incident where Weiss shoved an omelet in Josephine’s face because she was talking too much early in the morning.

According to Josephine, the pair were so in love that they eloped in Florida in the winter of 1925, but she was never able to provide a marriage certificate, saying that Weiss had a priest brought to their room. Stating that she was his widow, she insisted that she had a right to his estate when he died. His mother and the executor of his will, Mary Weiss was not having it, going so far as to have her son in law, James Philip Monahan go get the car that Weiss had bought for her. The pair faced off in probate court, no small feat for the Follies Girl, since all signs point to Mary Weiss being a fierce woman who didn’t back down from a fight. The case was eventually dismissed. It is worth noting that Weiss was meticulous about his will. It makes sense seeing as he had terminal cancer. If the marriage was legally binding it’s doubtful that he would have neglected to add her to it.

She never hid who she had married. Her second husband, Samuel Marx, remembered her as crying a lot when they met due to losing Weiss. For Simard it was either love or money that kept her with Weiss, not a notion that he wasn’t the bootlegging kingpin that he was. Most people at the time said it was the money, but from her heartfelt statement after his death, it’s clear she loved him dearly.

Cecilia Drucci

The wife of Vincent Drucci is actually harder to track than her husband. In fact, she is downright impossible to find any factual information on. There is no record of their marriage until she says at his funeral that they gave him a swell send off and yet, if you were to think of the kind of woman Drucci were to marry, it would be Cecilia.

There isn’t much know about her, besides that she was blond and feisty. There is an anecdote that sees her threatening a dinner guest with a butchers knife. When a dressmaker was telling people that Drucci had robbed her store, he showed up with an unknown blond woman and told her to teach the woman a lesson. The woman turned the shop over and Drucci herded the customers to the backroom before the pair fled in a taxi. There is a chance that this woman was Cecilia. Although, blond doesn’t tell us much. While his friends were faithful to their partners once they found them, Drucci was not and was reputed to have a different blond on his arm every night.

When Drucci was buried his wife said “We sure gave him a swell send off,” and then disappeared without a trace. There isn’t much to tell about her but Cecelia Drucci exemplifies the woman who worked alongside her husband in the Chicago Underworld.

Lucille Moran

George Moran’s wife is not Cecilia Drucci nor is she Viola O’Banion. However, neither does she quite fit the same mold as Josephine Simard. She wasn’t a high strung, quick tempered moll, a naive young lady who had no idea what her husband did and she also wasn’t as willing to pretend that Moran didn’t have a criminal record that he was actively adding to during their marriage. She loved and supported her husband and knew what he was to the Chicago Underworld, it was less important to her though than the fact that he was a good husband and a great father to her child.

Born in 1899, Lucille was a recently divorced mother of one when she met George, in 1923. He was instantly smitten with her according to their love story and, while she was at first worried that he wouldn’t accept her son, Moran was just as infatuated with him. The boy spoke French, which Moran had grown up speaking and helped him learn English.

Though he seems to have been an ideal partner there was no hiding what he did for a living, especially when he was arrested on suspicion of attempting to assassinate Johnny Torrio. After that he moved to a hotel and when Weiss was assassinated in 1926, he was arrested there after he left the funeral without telling anyone and rumors abounded as to his future plans. Lucille was supportive, loving and there for every step of her husband’s life, even picking him up when he was released on bail or watching in court. Then, in 1929, the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre happened. She had to wait for news that he was alive and then he fled to Canada, leaving her and her son at the hotel, to be watched over by his underlings. When he returned, she tried to remain just as strong as she had been but after another trial in 1930, Moran was advised to leave Illinois all together and she had had enough. She decided that she couldn’t live like that anymore and served him divorce papers.

And they all lived…

Well, not happily ever after. The life of the women who called a gangster her husband was high stress and fraught with danger, whether they accepted it or not. Of the four women discussed only one didn’t see her marriage end in tragedy and it was the scare of doing so that made her finally pull the trigger on her divorce (so to speak). Viola, Josephine, Cecilia and Lucille were also, strangely, all perfect fits for the men they married, at least from a historical perspective. Viola and Dean, fun loving partners in life with hot tempers and a disrespect for the law. Josephine and Earl, volatile, quick tempered people who balanced each other out and brought out the best in each other. Cecilia and Vincent, who were so alike as to be almost uncanny. George and Lucille, each there for each other when they were needed, level headed and perseverant. Four different couples and four different but intriguing female figures of the 1920s.

The site has been offering a wide variety of high-quality, free history content since 2012. If you’d like to say ‘thank you’ and help us with site running costs, please consider donating 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.

My Al Capone Museum. (n.d.). https://myalcaponemuseum.com/

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

American Isolationism is Back Again - A Historical View

David Hamilton’s forthcoming book The Enigmatic Aviator: Charles Lindbergh Revisited  finds earlier parallels with current events and looks at the ever-changing verdict on Lindbergh.

Here, the author considers American isolationism in the context of his new book.

Charles Lindbergh shown receiving the Distinguished Flying Cross from President Calvin Coolidge in June 1927.

The American Founding Fathers counseled that the nation should ‘avoid foreign entanglements’, and President Trump's recent hesitation in support of Ukraine brings back memories of earlier similar debates. In the 1930s, the mood in Congress and the country was that American involvement in World War I had been a mistake and had not only failed to make the world ‘safe for democracy,’ but too many lives had been lost or damaged. But by 1940, President Roosevelt started to try to convince America to get involved in the new war in Europe. Public opinion was divided, and although there was majority support for giving help of some kind to beleaguered Britain, the polls were against putting ‘boots on the ground’. Leading the opposition to such deeper involvement was the America First Committee (AFC), the most significant grassroots movement ever in America, and they preferred the term ‘anti-intervention’, which did not suggest total withdrawal from the rest of the world. The AFC had the most support in the Midwest, while FDR and his hawks in the cabinet had the backing of the anglophile East Coast. The AFC had bipartisan political support and was joined by writers and historians. Eventually, their star speaker at the regular nationwide rallies was the American aviator hero Charles Lindbergh (1902-1974). After his famous solo flight to Paris from New York in 1927, he had retained a remarkable mystique since he coupled his success in the world of commercial aviation with a policy of avoiding the still-intrusive press, particularly the tabloids, by using the European royalty’s strategy of ‘never complain never explain.’ He traveled widely in Britain, France, Germany, and Russia and proudly showed their military planes; it was his confidential reports via the Berlin American embassy back to G2 intelligence in Washington on the Luftwaffe strength that eventually convinced President Roosevelt in 1938 to order a rapid expansion of the American Air Corps. From 1939, Lindbergh added his voice to the anti-intervention movement, starting with historically based, closely argued radio broadcasts and then speeches at the large AFC rallies later. His emergence was doubly uncomfortable for FDR. He not only feared Lindbergh’s contribution to the debate but knew that his close connection to the Republican Party (including marrying Mexican ambassador Dwight Morrow’s daughter) meant he could be a formable populist political opponent should he run for president, as many had urged. In response, FDR and his inner cabinet, aided by compliant congressmen and friendly columnists, mounted an unpleasant campaign against Lindbergh, and, rarely debating the issues he raised, they preferred an ad hominemattack. His travels in Germany and interest in the Luftwaffe made him vulnerable, and the jibes included but were not limited to, claiming he was a Nazi, a fifth columnist, an antisemite, a quisling, and even, mysteriously, a fellow traveler.

World War Two

It is often said that Lindbergh and the AFC lost the intervention argument to FDR, but instead, Pearl Harbor brought abrupt closure to the still evenly balanced debate. Thereafter, during the War, Lindbergh worked in the commercial aviation sector and then flew 50 distinguished missions with the Marines in the Pacific. After FDR’s death, the unpleasantness of the intervention debate was admitted and regretted (‘there was a war going on’), and some private apologies reached Lindbergh. Even the FBI was contrite. FDR had brought them in to investigate Lindbergh, even using illegal wiretaps. Still, when J. Edgar Hoover closed their huge file on him, he added a summary saying that ‘none of the earlier allegations had any substance.’

Lindbergh was welcomed back into the post-war military world. As a Cold War warrior, he worked with the atomic bomb air squadrons and served on crucial ballistic missile planning committees. From the mid-1950s, he successfully took up many conservation issues. Now a national icon again, but a reclusive one, his book on the Paris flight and the book sold well. From Truman’s administration onwards, he was in favor of the White House, and the Kennedys sought the Lindbergh’s company, invitations which the couple occasionally accepted. Now, on the White House’s social A-list, Nixon also puts him on important conservation committees. When he died in 1974, President Ford expressed national sympathy. Later, Reagan’s addresses to young people often invoked Lindbergh as a role model.

Lindbergh disparaged

But by the end of the century, something changed, and his place in history became uncertain. This was not the result of new scholarly work or an adverse biography. All the post-war literature had been favorable to him, including Berg’s thorough Pulitzer Prize-winning biography of 1998, which cleared him of any Nazi leanings or antisemitism.[1] The damage to Lindbergh instead came from historical fiction. The basis of Philip Roth’s best-selling novel The Plot Against America 2004 was the well-worn ‘what if’ fictional trope that Hitler won the European war. Lindbergh, elected as US president, aligns with him and acts against the Jews. Roth's usual disclaimer was that his story was not to be taken seriously, but it was. Historical fiction can be entertaining if the sales are low and the author obscure, but the inventions can be dangerous in the hands of a distinguished author. An HBO television series of the same name based on the book followed in 2020, and it often felt like a documentary. Serious-minded reviewers of the television series took the opportunity to reflect widely on fascism and antisemitism, with Lindbergh still featured as a central figure. The mood at the time was ‘wonkish,’ looking again at figures of the past and seeking feet of clay or swollen heads, or both. When others sought any justification for Roth’s allegations, they returned and found the smears and insults directed at Lindbergh during the intervention debate. The old 1940-1941 jibes were revisited, and, yielding to presentism, to the dreary list was added the charge of ‘white supremacist,’ which at the time had escaped even Lindbergh’s most vocal opponents. Evidence for all the old labels was lacking, and to prove them, corners were cut even by serious historians, leading to a regrettable number of mangled or false quotations. The most vivid tampering with the historical record was misusing a newspaper picture taken at an AFC rally in 1941. It shows Lindbergh and the platform party with arms raised, and the caption at the time noted that they were loyally saluting the flag. The gesture at that time was the so-called Bellamy salute which was soon officially discouraged and changed in 1942 to the present hand-on-heart version because of its similarity to the Nazi salute.  Washington’s Smithsonian Institution was now revisiting Lindbergh, and although they had proudly used Lindbergh’s plane Spirit of St Louis as their star exhibit since 1928, they had now deserted him. An article in their Smithsonian Magazine, after denigrating the AFC, described Lindbergh as ‘patently a bigot’ and used the image suggesting a Nazi salute.[2] The Minnesota Historical Society, also with long-standing links to the Lindbergh heritage, also turned to him and answered inquiries about Lindbergh by directing them mainly to the Roth novel and the television program based on it. They also recommended a shrill new book on Lindbergh subtitled ‘America’s Most Infamous Pilot.’. Lindbergh had not been ‘infamous’ until 2004.

The 100th anniversary of Lindbergh's classic flight will be with us soon in 2027. The damage done by Roth’s mischievous historical fiction should be met instead with good evidence-based history, restoring the story of this talented man.

David Hamilton is a retired Scottish transplant surgeon. His interest in Lindbergh came from the aviator’s laboratory work as a volunteer in Nobel Prize-winner transplant surgeon Carrel’s laboratory in New York.[3]  His forthcoming book is The Enigmatic Aviator: Charles Lindbergh.

[1] A. Scott Berg, Lindbergh (New York, 1998).

[2] Meilan Solly ‘The True History Behind ‘The Plot Against America’’

Smithsonian Magazine, 16 March 2020.

[3]   David Hamilton, The First Transplant Surgeon (World Scientific, 2017).

Audrey Hepburn in World War Two

One of the most devastating conflicts in history, the Second World War, touched the lives of millions, its impact also played a huge role in the life of Oscar winning actress, and beloved style icon, Audrey Hepburn. Audrey’s early life was spent in Holland in the midst of the Nazi Occupation where she witnessed the best and worst of humanity, and developed the ideals that would influence her later life.

Erin Bienvenu explains.

Audrey Hepburn in 1952. Available here.

Audrey was born in Brussels, Belgium, on May 4 1929, to an English father and Dutch mother. Her mother, Ella van Heemstra, was from an aristocratic family, and already had two sons from a previous marriage, Alexander and Ian. She had met Joseph in the Dutch East Indies. Through a genealogy study, she believed her husband was a descendant of James Hepburn, the third husband of Mary Queen of Scots. Excited by this royal connection Ella insisted the family adopt the name ‘Hepburn-Ruston.’

When Audrey was six her father walked out on his family, an event that would haunt her for the rest of her life. He returned to England, where Audrey was also sent to school. Despite their close proximity Joseph never visited his young daughter and the lonely Audrey immersed herself in the world of ballet. It enriched her life and she was determined to become a prima ballerina.

War Begins

Audrey’s life was uprooted once again when the Nazi’s invaded Poland, and Britain declared war. Ella believed her daughter would be safer in Holland, which had a history of neutrality, and genuinely thought that Hitler would respect the countries stance.  Audrey was driven to the airport by her father, it was to be the last time she would see him until she was an adult.

Little Audrey had largely forgotten how to speak Dutch during her time away, and she found school difficult, again dance became her escape. She lived with her mother and brothers in Arnhem, where they were close to extended family.

All hopes of safety were dashed when the Nazis invaded the Netherlands in May 1940. At first, Audrey remembered, life seemed to go on as normal. The soldiers behaved politely in an attempt to win over the Dutch people. Audrey continued to go to school, though her lessons increasingly became focussed on the war and Nazism. That same year Audrey enrolled in the local dance school, where her teachers were impressed with her passion and gracefulness.

Despite their initial conciliatory behaviour, the Nazis soon revealed their true colours and life for the citizens of Arnhem began to change. Food was rationed, and day to day life became increasingly dangerous. Audrey’s brother Alexander was determined not to be forced into work by the Germans and he went into hiding, Ian however was not as lucky. To his family’s immense distress, he was rounded up and forced to work in a Berlin munitions factory.

Audrey was also a witness, on multiple occasions, to the local Jewish population being herded onto cattle cars at the train station-their destination then unknown. The horror of these scenes became a recurring theme in her nightmares, she was horrified at the way the Nazis treated people. She saw the Nazis shooting young men in the streets, the violence becoming a constant in people’s lives.

Then her beloved Uncle Otto was arrested as a reprisal for an underground attack on a German train. Otto was held hostage in the hopes the real perpetrators would come forward.  They did not, and he and four other men, were executed some weeks later.
Adding to her distress, Audrey’s parents had a complicated relationship with the Nazis. Like many in their social circle both Joseph and Ella had initially been attracted to the ideas of fascism, they even met Hitler in 1935. But as the war went on, Ella’s beliefs began to change, she had seen too much cruelty and suffering. Joseph meanwhile spent the war years imprisoned in England for his fascist sympathies.

Helping the Resistance

Distraught by what had happened to Otto, Ella and Audrey went to live with his wife, Miesje, Ella’s sister, and their father in the town of Velp, just outside of Arnhem. Audrey held a special place in her heart for her grandfather, with whom she spent many hours doing crossword puzzles, he became the father figure she had so longed for.

It was also in Velp that Audrey began doing volunteer work for local doctor, Hendrik Visser t’Hooft, a man with close ties to the resistance. Through the doctor Audrey and her mother became involved in events known as ‘black evenings’, concerts organised to raise money for the resistance. In private homes, sometimes her own, Audrey danced for a select audience with the windows blackened and doors guarded so that no Nazi could look in. It was a family affair; Ella made her daughters costumes and Audrey choreographed her own routines. It was a welcome, though risky, distraction from the events going on outside. Audrey was to remember fondly how, “The best audience I ever had made not a single sound at the end of my performance.”

This was not the only way Audrey helped the resistance. At least once she delivered copies of the underground newspaper, Oranjekrant. She hid copies in her socks and shoes and then cycled off to deliver them. On another occasion the doctor sent her into the woods near Velp with food and a message to a downed allied airman. No doubt Audrey’s fluency in English made her valuable in this role. On her way home however, she ran into a German police patrol. Thinking quickly and remaining calm, Audrey began picking wildflowers which she offered to the men. Seeing such a young, innocent girl, they sent her on her way without a second thought.

As the war continued food became an ever-increasing problem, and in order to supplement their meagre rations many were forced to forage in the countryside for additional supplies. The van Heemstras ate nettles, grass and made flour from tulips, but it was never enough and Audrey was soon suffering from the effects of malnutrition.

Another problem arose when she turned fifteen. She was required to register, in order to continue dancing, as a member of the Dans Kultuurkamer, an institution created by the Nazis in order to control the arts in Holland. Audrey wouldn’t consider joining such an organisation and this coupled with her poor health led her to temporarily give up her dance lessons. But dance was vital to Audrey’s well-being so she began teaching others instead, offering small private lessons where she could pass on her knowledge and enthusiasm.

Operation Market Garden

In September 1944 the allies launched Operation Market Garden – what was supposed to be the beginning of the successful liberation of the Netherlands. They landed near Arnhem and in the fierce fighting that followed the town was all but destroyed. From her home in Velp, Audrey could hear the almost continuous sound of gunfire and explosions. The Germans ordered the complete evacuation of Arnhem, and many of the displaced made their way to nearby Velp. The van Heemstras, who also had an unwelcome Wehrmacht radio operator working in their attic, opened their home to about forty refugees. The scenes all around invoked a strong response in the compassionate Audrey. She later said, “It was human misery at its starkest.” She was eager to help, offering dance lessons to the anxious citizens of Arnhem in an effort to distract them from the horror outside. She also continued to help Dr. Visser t’Hooft with the endless stream of wounded who came pouring in. Soon even local schools were converted into make shift hospitals, but conditions were desperate.

During this time Audrey’s family also hid a British paratrooper in their cellar. If discovered they would all have paid with their lives, but for Audrey the situation was also exciting. The paratrooper was a kind of knight in shining armour, he represented liberation and freedom to her. It’s not known how long he remained with the family before the resistance could spirit him away, but eventually the Nazis ordered all the refugees from their temporary homes.

Surviving

When Operation Market Garden did not succeed, the Dutch were forced to endure what became known as the ‘hunger winter.’ Disease and starvation were rife and Audrey developed jaundice. Then in March 1945 she was rounded up on the street with several other girls, destined to work in the understaffed German military kitchens. Thankfully Audrey had the presence of mind to run off when the soldiers had their backs turned. She made it home and hid in the cellar until it was safe to come back out.

Not long after the allies again began to close in on the Germans and Arnhem was once again under siege. The van Heemstras spent much of their time in the safety of their cellar, occasionally resurfacing to assess the damage to their home and to try and gain any news of the invasion. They lived as best they could, never quite sure what each day would bring, and then, finally, after weeks of fighting the constant barrage of noise stopped.

Hearing voices Audrey and her family cautiously emerged from their hiding place. At their front door they discovered a group of English soldiers, Audrey was over joyed. She recalled, “freedom has a bouquet, a perfume all its own – the smell of English tobacco and petrol.” The soldiers were equally delighted to have liberated an English girl! The war was finally over.

Audrey was just sixteen years old, malnourished and suffering from jaundice, asthma, edema and anemia – but she was alive, and that was what mattered most to her. As was her immediate family, her two brothers had also survived the war.

Audrey resumed her ballet studies, which took her to Amsterdam and then London, and in the end to a career as an actress. However, she never forgot her war years, they shaped her as a person and would lead to the role she most valued, helping underprivileged children in war torn countries as an ambassador for UNICEF.

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

References

Diamond, Jessica Z & Erwin, Ellen (2006), The Audrey Hepburn Treasures: Pictures and Mementos from a Life of Style and Purpose. New York: Atria Books

Dotti, Luca (2015), Audrey at Home: Memories of My Mother’s Kitchen. New York: Harper Design

Hepburn Ferrer, Sean (2003), Audrey Hepburn: An Elegant Spirit. New York: Atria Books

Matzen, Robert (2019), Dutch Girl: Audrey Hepburn and World War II. Pittsburgh: GoodKnight Books

Paris, Barry (1996), Audrey Hepburn. New York: Berkley Books

What was the ‘Stab-in-the-Back’ Myth that Tormented Inter-War Germany?

From the moment Germany sought an armistice in November 1918, total disbelief amongst the populace ensued at how the Imperial Reich could have been defeated. For many, the answer lay outside of military reality and was instead deeply rooted in conspiracy: that at the decisive hour, the German army had been betrayed at home, with the betrayal having been led by Jews and socialists. The myth would prove impossible for the fledgling democratic republic to shake off, and the Nazis would subsequently make it part of their official history. How did it emerge and why did it prove so persuasive?

James Russell explains.

A 1924 cartoon showing the leaders Philipp Scheidemann and Matthias Erzberger as stabbing the German army in the back. Available here.

The Roots of the Stab-in-the-Back

The ‘stab-in-the-back’ myth can be first traced to a growing wartime notion that Germany’s war effort was being weakened by strikers and shirkers. These arguments were not unique to Germany: Allied cartoons, for example, often accused strikers of weakening the nation’s war effort.

However, in Germany these began to take overtly political and racialist undertones, often encouraged by the wartime government. As the last German offensive of the war descended into failure, its collapse was blamed on strikes, denying the soldiers of what was required in their moment of need. Supposedly treasonous elements within German society were blamed, primarily Jews and socialists.

The key to understanding how the myth took hold is in the wartime nation’s widespread narrative- that Germany was fighting a just war, and that it was winning. German propaganda, under the military dictatorship of Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenburg, repeatedly hammered home these messages.

The lack of wartime enemy occupation or the populace’s experience of the war’s front lines supported these beliefs. The vast majority of fighting on the Western front took place in France and Belgium- only reaffirming to the people the false belief that Germany could not be losing.

With such a perception of Germany’s apparent strength, the scene was set for the conspiracy to proliferate when news of defeat emerged. The first official declaration utilising the ‘stab’ metaphor probably occurred on 2nd November 1918 when a member of the Progressive People’s Party announced to the German parliament:

“As long as the front holds, we damned well have the duty to hold out in the homeland. We would have to be ashamed of ourselves in front of our children and grandchildren if we attacked the battle front from the rear and gave it a dagger-stab.” (1)

The German Defeat

The news that Germany was suing for an armistice on 11 November 1918 shattered the nation’s existing assumptions. Given the existing narratives, many believed that Germany could not have been defeated militarily. For many, the only explanation for defeat was that, inspired by revolts at home, the newly empowered socialist government had committed treason by unnecessarily suing for peace.

Indeed, it was an elaborate plan by Ludendorff and Hindenburg to pin the blame on the new democratic government. Without making any official declaration regarding defeat themselves, and then ceding the responsibility to sue for peace to the new republican government, they successfully pinned much of the blame away from themselves and on to the democratic politicians.

Ludendorff claimed that Germany’s strikes constituted ‘a sin against the man at the front’ and an act of ‘high treason against the country’. They were the ‘work of agitators’ who had infatuated and misled the working class, both of whom were the culprits of the German defeat. (2) These comments were entirely hypocritical – made despite having privately pressed both the Kaiser and politicians for an armistice given Germany’s imminent military collapse.

Meanwhile, whilst testifying before a parliamentary committee investigating the causes of the German defeat, Hindenburg remarked: “An English general said with justice: ‘The German army was stabbed in the back.’ No guilt applies to the good core of the army.” (3) Given the enormous prestige won by both Hindenburg and Ludendorff in the wartime struggle, especially the former, their testimonies lent powerful weight to the myth.

The situation was not helped by the republic’s first President and leader of the Social Democrats, Friederich Ebert. In public recognition of soldierly effort and sacrifice rather than any conspiratorial suggestion, his declaration from the Brandenburg Gate to returning soldiers that no enemy had vanquished them added greater legitimacy to the myth’s claim.

Historians unanimously agree that, faced with a dramatic shortage of supplies, the flooding of US soldiers and materiel into the Allied ranks, a collapsing home front, and with the possibility of an Allied march through Austria, Germany was in a position where defeat was inevitable. Furthermore, the responsibility for the collapse of morale on the home front rested squarely on the German government, who prioritized the needs of the front line at the expense of civilian well-being.

The Myth that Never Dissipated

Throughout its existence, the Weimar Republic witnessed an unhealthy deployment of the ‘stab-in-the-back’ – a myth which challenged the very foundations of the state. Matthias Erzberger, head of the German delegation which signed the armistice in November 1918, would pay for such a signing with his life. He was assassinated in 1921, a death welcomed by many. Many right-wing groups refused to recognise anything other than the total complicity of all democratic politicians in the German humiliation. This was the case even when these politicians vehemently protested the perceived severity of the Versailles Treaty.

Adolf Hitler heavily utilised the myth with his unremitting denunciation of those ‘November Criminals’ who had sued for an armistice in November 1918. Such castigations became a constant feature of Nazi propaganda, with their accusations of ‘high treason against the country’ being particularly virulent in its antisemitism. The Jews had ‘cunningly dodged death on the plea of being engaged in business’ and it was this ‘carefully preserved scum’ that had sued for peace at the first chance presented. (4)

Unlike the events in the Russian Empire in 1917, the revolution in Germany’s political landscape over the course of 1918 and 1919 was partial. The key party in deciding Germany’s future, the Social Democrats, forged a compromise between their ideals whilst maintaining many continuities from the old regime. Hence Germany’s courts, army and educational system underwent little change despite Germany’s new republican setup. These institutions, still populated by many individuals loyal to the old regime, empowered the myth’s proliferation. When Hitler faced charges of treason for launching a coup in 1923, the Munich court he faced was lenient to say the least. It allowed him an uninterrupted three-hour tirade to defend his actions and expound the illegitimacy of the Republic. Despite being found guilty of treason, Hitler was nonetheless imprisoned in pleasant conditions for only a year. (5)

One of the most destructive implications of the myth transpired in the Second World War: Hitler declared in 1942, “the Germany of former times laid down its arms at a quarter to twelve. On principle I have never quit before five minutes after twelve.” (6) Unlike the First World War, Hitler’s Germany would not surrender until the bitter end, with all the death, ruin and misery resulting therefrom.

What role did the Socialists and Jews actually have in the First World War?

Contrary to prevalent assumptions and prejudices, the German-Jewish population was overrepresented in the army, rather than ‘shirking’ as was consistently argued by antisemites during and after the war. Many Jewish Germans saw it as an opportunity to once and for all demonstrate their allegiance to the nation and eliminate all remaining traces of antisemitism. The authorities in 1916, subscribing to the shirking argument, ordered a census of Jews in the army. The results indicated Jewish overrepresentation rather than underrepresentation, but its results were never released to the public. This concealing of the truth only fuelled antisemitic conspiracy.

Meanwhile, German socialists found themselves in an awkward position throughout the war. It’s outbreak in 1914 divided them, culminating in a fractious split later in the war. Yet for the most part, German socialists remained loyal to the nation’s war effort, as part of a wider German political truce. Naturally, the political leadership of the Social Democrats attempted to balance the more radical elements of Germany’s workers against the demands of the state for war contribution.

Unfortunately, Germany’s strikes of January 1918 strikes signified a particularly divisive episode, with major ramifications for the post-war scene. By mediating between the strikers and the state, the Social Democrats were blamed by the more radical left-wing parties as unnecessarily prolonging the war, and on the other hand, blamed by the right-wing for denying the resources needed by German soldiers at the 11th hour. In 1924, President Ebert would be found technically guilty of treason by the German courts for his role in the mediation. It is, however, worth noting that Germany lost far fewer total days to strikes than Britain did during the war.

The stab-in-the-back myth remains a powerful reminder that Germany’s first experience of democracy had had a fundamentally unhealthy backdrop throughout its existence. It also warns of the dangers of unfounded claims in politics – and the importance for any democracy to thoroughly combat their falsehoods.

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

Sources:

(1)   Ernst Muller, Aus Bayerns schwersten Tagen (Berlin, 1924), p.27.

(2)   Erich Ludendorff, My War Memories, 1914-1918, vol. 1 (London, 1919), p.334.

(3)   German History in Documents and Images, Paul von Hindenburg's Testimony before the Parliamentary Investigatory Committee ["The Stab in the Back"] (18 November 1919). Accessed 19 March 2025. https://ghdi.ghidc.org/sub_document.cfm?document_id=3829

(4)   Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf (Boston, 1943), p.521.

(5)   The Manchester Guardian, 27 February 1924, 7, ‘Ludendorff Trial Opens: "A Friendly Atmosphere." Hitler denounces Marxism and Berlin’s Timidity.’

(6)   Jewish Virtual Library, Adolf Hitler: Speech on the 19th Anniversary of the “Beer Hall Putsch” (November 8, 1942). Accessed 19 March 2025.

How do Movie Depictions of World War 2 Negatively Alter American Memory?

As the conclusion of World War II approaches its 80th anniversary, the memories of this historic event are at risk of fading into darkness. As the number of surviving veterans from the war diminishes, the responsibility of preserving their history falls to the next generations.

Here, Dallas Dores considers this in the context of film depictions of World War II.

John Wayne in the 1962 World War II film The Longest Day.

Historians the world over work diligently to protect the legacies of World War II from being forgotten, but they are not the only ones. Entertainment media such as film and television production has also sought to preserve the memory of World War II through a more visual process. Movies and television series in America have captured the attention of younger generations who could not otherwise have ‘experienced’ the events of World War II. While these films and series may serve as a means of preserving the historical legacy of World War II, they are not a reliable source of historical accuracy. Movies and television shows, no matter how educational they may attempt to be, are designed for entertainment. As such, these modern depictions of World War II will often substitute much of their historical accuracy for attention catching action or even ulterior agendas, such as national patriotism. Such depictions can even fall on the wrong side of the fine line between fact and fiction for the sake of public reception. This favoritism of entertainment over education has dangerous consequences for the modern day public memory of World War II. As such films and series become increasingly popular, much of the American public, unfamiliar or otherwise disconnected with the generation of the 1940’s, is at risk of accepting these false film narratives of the war as facts, leading to a fictionalized, homogenized interpretation of World War II.

Motivations

The greater acceptance of film interpretation over historical research of the war traces back to the growing popularity of such films. It is no secret that war films, particularly World War II films, have a large and enthusiastic audience in the 21st century, especially in the United States. The modern day film is able to engage with the viewer and bring them subconsciously into the action being depicted in typically more powerful ways than the average textbook. As Anton Kaes discusses in his article History and Film, historical films are able to play with certain aspects of the story being told and translate it in a present tense, giving the viewer a stronger connection with the events unfolding before them. This ability to reshape history, however, is where the primary concern with such historical films begins. Although a film may be more ‘engaging’ than a basic textbook, the historical accuracy of a film is at far greater risk of corruption. As Richard Godfrey observes in his work Visual Consumption, historical films in the US, particularly those concerned with World War II, are rarely without ulterior motives. Many of these films strive to affirm a desired national identity, one that invokes a militaristic patriotism, by elevating the role of the United States above its more accurate standing, while simultaneously minimizing the more negative aspects of the past. Historical films concerning the war, particularly from the American perspective, oftentimes seek to create their own interpretations of the war rather than present the original story, with all its flaws and mistakes. This is also done with the theory that American audiences do not want to see the negatives of their nation’s past, only the positives. As Barry Schwartz puts it in his article Memory as a Cultural System, “We cannot be oriented by a past in which we fail to see ourselves”. This logic plays a critical role in the development of the historical film narrative. If a filmmaker wants their viewer to identify with the main character of their movie, they remove as many flaws associated with that character as possible, or at the very least give the character a sense of redemption for past mistakes. Thus begins the creation of the distorted memory. As films gain greater attention over books, the average viewer begins to accept what is depicted on the screen as fact. Although there are films that clearly represent fiction, others leave the viewer questioning reality vs imagination.

Semi-authentic stories

With entertainment taking priority over education, these films oftentimes take liberties in their unique interpretations of historical events. This can take both a simple form such as a semi-authentic story based on true events, or a more extreme form where the film becomes more fictional than historical. The Quentin Tarantino film Inglourious Basterds is a prime example of the latter. The film’s director himself made it clear that this film is a work of fiction, with the events and characters therein being created out of pure imagination. A film such as this would not be looked to for historical accuracy or information. On the opposite side of the coin is Steven Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, arguably one of the most historically accurate World War II films. The film has been hailed as one of the most authentic depictions of the American soldier’s experience in World War II put into film. This authentic feel contributed to the film’s popularity, and as Lester Friedman discusses in Citizen Spielberg (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago), it is also the cause of the film's memory distortion. The popularity of the film carried over far beyond simple entertainment, as viewers of the film began to confuse the event of the movie with real life. A number of accounts from the Omaha Beach memorial in France tell of tourists needing to be told that there is no grave for Captain John Miller, the fictional main character of the film. Although there were incidents during World War II where multiple brothers served and died in the war, the story of Private James Ryan is fictional. Even though the film is a work of fiction, it is viewed by many as fact. As John Whiteclay Chambers explains, “the public memory of war…has been created less from a remembered past than from a manufactured past”. As the collective memory of World War II becomes shaped by film rather than account, it is also distorted and altered in a way that does not clearly distinguish fact from fiction.

Women

Not only is the film narrative of World War II inaccurate, it is also incomplete. The stereotypical World War II film in America, which in turn is connected with the stereotypical American narrative of the war, features stoic, Caucasian male soldiers on the frontlines of battle. This image contributes to many of the national identities filmmakers and studios attempt to emphasize in such films. However, in elevating certain images and narratives, others are either diminished or even left out. The story of American women is rarely depicted in World War II films, and when it is, as Victoria Tutino examines, it does not tell the entire story. Tutino agrees that “Society needs these films in order to understand the context of the wartime era”, however, she warns that “society must be wary as this medium only explores one side of women’s multi-dimensional roles”. The role of American women during the war is often limited in its film depiction, either to that of a field nurse or a patriotic homefront worker. The life and times of Rossie the Riveterby Connie Field attempts to overcome this underrepresentation by revealing the untold story of women workers. In creating this film, Fields collected the accounts of 700 American women who worked during the war and presented five main speakers on screen, two Caucasian and three African American, all from different backgrounds. The purpose of Field’s work was to challenge the notion that American women joined the workforce solely out of patriotism, as depicted in many films, and reveal their true desires for economic gain in a male driven workplace. Although this film attempts to fill in the incomplete narrative of women’s role during the war, it still falls into the same trap of trying to convince the audience that this is the complete story. While 700 individual accounts is certainly a substantial source of information, it is only a small portion of the larger image of millions of women who entered the working and military forces, all from different backgrounds and for different purposes. While attempting to correct the shortcomings of many films, The life and times of Rossie the Riveter falls into the same trench of trying to create its own narrative.

African American soldiers

Just as with women in World War II, the legacy of African American soldiers is severely underrepresented in film history. Just as with women, countless African Americans served in the US military during the war and fought for their nation. While this piece of history is remembered in text, it is all but forgotten in film, with the overwhelming majority of American World War II films focusing primarily, if not entirely on the more commonly seen Caucasian soldier. This once again falls under the umbrella of a national identity, one that chooses to overlook past mistakes rather than accept them. Though some films have in recent years attempted to shed a stronger light on the African American soldier, they should not be taken without caution. Just as with the narrative of women, Clement Alexander Pricequestions if “moving images of black soldiers enhance an understanding of the black experience in war, or do they, like so many written documents, reflect a circumscribed view”. The film can only encompass so much of history accurately before it becomes infected by the imagined narrative. In 2008, director Spike Lee released Miracle at St. Anna  (Touchstone Pictures, 2008), a film which he had hoped would draw some much needed attention to the experiences of African Americans during the war. The film addressed racial situations that many African Americans faced on the homefront, presenting a subject matter which other similar films typically shy away from. However, the film’s realism does not last and the all too common element of fiction distorts the narrative. Near the end of the film, a scene takes place in which a commanding German Officer takes pity on one of the main African American characters, handing him a pistol and offering words of encouragement to him in English. A situation such as this, in which a ranking officer of the Nazi military would not only spare but arm an enemy soldier, let alone one of non-Caucasian descent, is completely inconceivable from a historical standpoint. As such, the audience is left questioning whether or not the film’s context should be taken literally or metaphorically, as fact or fiction. This creates a paradox in which accepting the film as fact leads to the belief of false narratives, but interpreting the film as fiction distorts the true realities as exaggerations. In either case, the film’s credibility as a reliable source of historical memory is tarnished.

Conclusion

As World War II continues to be the subject of modern popular culture, the memory of its past becomes further entangled in a web of distortion. The use of film and television as a source for memory is increasing, and as such its factual evidence is replaced by imagined narrative. As the generation of the 1940’s rapidly diminishes, their memories are left in the hands of those who use and warp it for ulterior purposes. The desire to promote a national agenda over less-than-comfortable details creates an altered narrative of the past, one that magnifies only small portions of the war and replaces the rest with imagination. As filmmakers take their own liberties in substituting certain aspects of history with more media-adjacent interpretations, the public memory of these events is changed and distorted into an imagined fiction. These films place entertainment over education, leaving viewers wondering how these films should be interpreted and oftentimes fail to discern between fact and fiction. Furthermore, as the presented narratives of films are accepted, the excluded facts are forgotten. The true experiences of individuals such as women and African Americans are more often than not either misinterpreted and altered or completely left out of the greater image, leaving these aspects of the past to be lost in history. The use of film over text as historical reference is a dangerous path, one that homogenizes the public memory into a synthetic image so detached from reality that the true memory of the past is all but erased.

References

Lester Friedman, Citizen Spielberg, (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, Chicago)

Richard Godfrey, Simon Lilley, Visual consumption, collective memory and the representation of war, (Consumption Markets & Culture, Taylor and Francis Online, 2009), Visual consumption, collective memory and the representation of war: Consumption Markets & Culture: Vol 12 , No 4 - Get Access (tandfonline.com)

Anton Kaes, History and Film: Public Memory in the Age of Electronic Dissemination, (History and Memory 2, no. 1, 1990), History and Film: Public Memory in the Age of Electronic Dissemination on JSTOR (asu.edu)

Spike Lee, Miracle at St. Anna, (Walt Disney Studios, 2008).

Barry Schwartz, “Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II.”, (American Sociological Review, 1996) Memory as a Cultural System: Abraham Lincoln in World War II on JSTOR (asu.edu)

Steven Spielberg, Saving Private Ryan, (Dreamworks Pictures, 1998).

Victoria Tutino, Stay at Home, Soldiers: An Analysis of British and American Women on the Homefront during World War II and the Effects on Their Memory Through Film, (Of Life and History, College of the Holy Cross, 2019), Stay at Home, Soldiers

John Whiteclay Chambers, David Culbert, World War II, Film, and History, (Oxford University Press, 1996), ProQuest Ebook Central - Reader (asu.edu)

America’s Path to Polarization: A Short History

Most Americans are disgusted by politics. Asked in 2023 for one word to describe politics, they responded, “divisive,” “corrupt,” “polarized.” For many, polarization is the root of the problem. Writers lament polarization’s dysfunctional consequences, and a national organization devoted to bridging the partisan divide is flourishing.

Yet the 2024 election only deepened polarization. Despite a divisive, topsy turvy campaign, the polls changed little throughout 2024, and the results were within the margin of error. Most voters were locked in, and few changed their minds.

Many assume that our current predicament goes back to the 1960s. After all, the ‘60s was decade of dissent and division. It generated bitter conflict over foreign policy, race, women’s rights, sexuality, and a host of highly charged moral issues that would dominate American politics for the next half century.

Author Don Nieman’s recent book The Path to Paralysis: How American Politics Became Nasty, Dysfunctional, and a Threat to the Republic, challenges that assumption. Partisanship may be endemic, but polarization is a recent development.

Jefferson attacked as an Infidel, available here.

How Partisanship and Polarization Differ

There is a big difference between partisan conflict and polarization. American politics has always been contentious. That’s the nature of democratic politics in a country as big, diverse, and dynamic as the U.S. A positive vision may inspire, but negative campaigning and appeals to fear mobilize voters. Federalists charged that Jefferson was a godless Jacobin. Andrew Jackson’s managers alleged that John Quincy Adams had served as a pimp for the Russian Czar. LBJ suggested that Goldwater would unleash nuclear war. George H.W. Bush used Willie Horton to appeal to White fear of Black men.

However, there is much more to polarized politics than bitter partisanship and negative campaigning. Politics become polarized when support for the two major parties is  closely divided and upwards of 90% of voters have decided which side they support. When voters get their news from sources that reinforce their prejudices and can’t agree on basic facts.  When wild, baseless conspiracy theories become widely accepted and fear and loathing of the oppositionmotivates voters more than support for their party’s position on the issues. When politicians favor political theater that thrills their base over making the compromises necessary to govern.

In 1968, the U.S. was bitterly divided over race and the Vietnam War. Richard Nixon and George Wallace waged divisive presidential campaigns that appealed to fear and promised law and order. It was the opening salvo in a succession of culture wars that would define American politics for the next half century and counting.

Yet the country wasn’t polarized. Ticket-splitting was common. States routinely sent Democrats to the U.S. Senate while casting their electoral votes for Republican presidential candidates. And vice versa. Most states were in play in presidential elections and swung back and forth between red and blue control. Some Republicans were moderate and some Democrats conservative. Politicians knew they had to reach the middle, valued compromise, and got things done.

Richard Nixon used racially coded language to appeal to White Southerners, but he became the architect of affirmative action.

Ronald Reagan was the face of conservative resurgence, but he cut a deal with Democrats to raise taxes, reduce deficits, and save Social Security (a program he hated).

President Ronald Reagan with Thomas "Tip" O'Neil.

George H.W. Bush worked with Democrats to strengthen environmental regulations. He incorporated cap-and-trade policies championed by Democratic senator Al Gore into the Clean Air Act of 1991. He also recognized the threat of climate change and signed the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change—the precursor to the Kyoto, Copenhagen, and Paris Climate Agreements.

After surviving scurrilous attacks from the right, Bill Clinton joined his nemesis Newt Gingrich to forge a grand compromise on Social Security that was only derailed by Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky and subsequent impeachment. 

George W. Bush worked closely with Senator Ted Kennedy to pass sweeping education reform that combined the accountability Republicans demanded with a massive infusion of federal support for schools that served poor children.

The Tipping Point

Partisanship hardened into polarization following Barack Obama’s election in 2008, when seven long-developing trends converged in a perfect storm.

US President Barack Obama taking his Oath of Office.

First, massive changes that transformed the media began in the 1980s. Cable TV and talk radio, then the internet and social media ensured that more and more Americans got their news from sources that confirmed their biases. News outlets proliferated. Many were fact free, spreading lies and wild conspiracies. Debates became hotter because Americans couldn’t agree on basic facts much less the best solutions to problems.

Second, the transition from an industrial to a service economy, coupled with trickle-down economic policy, led to a sharp increase in income inequality. After 1980, the top 10% did very well, the top 1% better, and the top .1% enjoyed wealth that put the Robber Barons to shame. But middle and working-class Americans struggled. That left many angry, alienated, and suspicious. The 2008 recession and the bank bailouts that followed stoked their anger.

Third, the Republican Party became more conservative as it made big gains in the South in the mid-1990s and after. By 2008, well over half of Republicans in the House and Senate came from the South—long the most conservative region of the U.S. The Democratic Party shifted modestly leftward while the GOP took a hard right turn. With moderate Republicans and conservative Democrats endangered species, those most inclined to compromise were missing in action.

Fourth, beginning in the late 1960s, immigration surged. By 2020, immigrants constituted 15% of the population, a proportion not seen since the 1910s. Approximately 11 million had entered the country illegally. Many White Americans worried that they were losing their country. The election of a Black president in 2008 reinforced that fear. In 2011, polling revealed that a majority of Republicans believed the baseless birther conspiracy that alleged that Obama hadn’t been born in the U.S. (and therefore wasn’t qualified to serve). It was a sure sign of growing anger, alienation, distrust, and willingness to believe the worst about the enemy.

Fifth, the Great Recession of 2008 damaged the Republican brand, and Obama’s convincing victory rattled Republican leaders. They feared a political realignment that would make Democrats the dominant party for a generation. They decided to dig in, oppose everything Obama proposed, refuse to compromise, create gridlock, and make the Democrats look ineffective.

Sixth, gerrymandering created safe congressional districts. By the early 2000s, few seats in the House were competitive. Republican incumbents had more to fear from the right flank of their own party than from Democrats. Moving toward the center to compromise with Democrats was unnecessary to sway undecided voters in the general election, and it might invite a conservative challenge in primaries.

Finally, and fatally, the GOP embraced populism. The party that had traditionally appealed to fiscal conservatives, the college educated, and the country club set found that by appealing to discontented rural and working-class Whites without a college education they won new recruits. Sarah Palin offered a glimpse of the power of populism in 2008, and the Tea Party Revolt of 2010 confirmed that it worked as Republicans re-took the House.

Populism brought new recruits to the party. Many were angry, hostile to establishment politicians they believed had sold them out, and got their news from outlets that traded in conspiracy theories. They didn’t want civil debate or politicians who compromised. They wanted leaders who would fight. Plenty of politicians—including many with Ivy League credentials—eagerly obliged.

After the 2010 mid-term elections, politics were polarized. Government regularly faced shutdowns and even default. What little the federal government accomplished was done through executive order.

Mainstream Republicans led by alumni of the George W. Bush administration sought to pull the party back after Mitt Romney’s loss in 2012. They produced a major report—the Growth and Opportunity Project—that insisted the party broaden its appeal to the young, people of color, and immigrants. It demanded a return to the center.

That didn’t happen. Donald Trump understood how the Republican Party and American politics had changed. Appeals to moderates and undecided voters had become less important in a polarized polity. There were too few of them. Mobilizing his base with a polarizing, populist campaign full of invective, exaggeration, lies, and racist and sexist language worked. It disgusted many Republicans, but Trump’s success and threats of retribution by his base against those who bucked him brought them around

Trump captured the Republican nomination, won the White House in 2016, and ultimately made the Republican Party his own. Even after two impeachments, unsteady leadership during a global pandemic, incitement of an attempted coup on January 6, 2021, and conviction of a felony, Trump’s base never wavered. They supported him as he waltzed to the Republican nomination and won re-election on November 5, 2024.

Where Do We Go from Here?

Since 2016, the U.S. has experienced three presidential and two mid-term elections. The margins of victory have been tight, and power in Washington has shifted between the two major parties. The result has been wild swings in policy exemplified by withdrawing, then re-entering, and once again withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement. Congress is gridlocked, and executive orders have taken the place of legislation to address critical issues. American politics remains polarized, to the disgust of most voters, even as they refuse to budge from their commitment to one side of the great divide.

Those hoping for a way out of divisiveness and gridlock might look to history. From the 1840s to the early 1860s, conflict over slavery created bitter animosity and stalemate that led to civil war. The war ended slavery and realigned American politics, producing two decades of Republican hegemony. The end of Reconstruction, industrialization, and the agrarian crisis of the 1880s and 1890s once again left the two major parties closely divided with control in Washington shifting frequently. Political conflict was bitter and gridlock the order of the day. The election of 1896 broke the logjam and ushered in over 30 years of Republican dominance.

Only a fool would predict how or when or current impasse might end. If history is our guide, the most likely scenario is a crisis that scrambles political loyalties and permits one of the parties to achieve dominance. We can only hope that it’s more like the crisis of the 1890s than the cataclysm of the 1850s.

Author Don Nieman’s recent book is The Path to Paralysis: How American Politics Became Nasty, Dysfunctional, and a Threat to the Republic. Available here: Amazon US