Simply D-day – Image of the week

Our image of the week is from D-Day.

June 6 1944 was the day of the famous D-Day landings. They were of course the start of the Western assault that would help to topple Hitler. And in commemoration of the 70th anniversary on Friday, our image of the week is of those landings.

The image above shows British troops landing on the beach in Normandy, France on June 6, 1944. It somehow captures the drama of the day – troops dashing about and moving on to the beach amid a scene of seemingly organized chaos. The image is from the MOD and is available here.

Now, please share the image by clicking one of the buttons below!

The last air deaths in World War II - Bombing the Eagle’s Nest

In this article Mary Miles tells us the story of Berchtesgaden, the Allied attempt to bomb a site rumored to house Hitler towards the end of World War II. This was also the raid that had the last RAF Bomber Command losses in the war.

April 25, 1945 is a historic day in Royal Air Force (RAF) history. It marks the last big raid in Bomber Command’s Europe offensive. Around 355 bomber crews were sent to flatten a small area of Berchtesgaden. This was the area surrounding Hitler’s holiday home, the Eagles Nest at Obersalzberg. This last bomber raid of the European war was a joint operation with the US 8th Army Airforce who provided an 88-98 Mustang fighter escort. The four bomber crew who died on this operation were the last of the 55,573 losses of RAF Bomber Command. This article concentrates on just three of the 22 squadrons that took part in Operation Berchtesgaden.

Wilf DeMarco's crew (619 Squadron).

Strike Hard, Strike Sure

Intelligence had been received that a light aircraft had taken off from Berlin. It was believed that this plane could have been carrying Hitler to his mountain retreat so he would be away from the rapidly advancing Soviet Army. Eisenhower evidently knew Hitler was still in Berlin but aircrews believed they had a chance of killing him due to what was told to them during the briefing. It is unknown who was aboard the aircraft that left Berlin that night, as Berchtesgaden was also the last major SS barracks still manned and the powers that be considered that a Nazi Partisan army could be set up there - although it was only a few fanatics who considered this last redoubt a real possibility. The final piece in the strategic thinking of this raid was that it would show the German High Command that until there was an unconditional surrender the RAF would continue business as usual.

Ziemi Mazowieckiej (Land of Masovia)

300 Polish squadron took part, with many of their aircrew seeing the raid as a last revenge on the Nazis. The Allied pact with Soviet Russia meant that for a lot of Poles the end of the war was not going to have a good outcome. This last raid was their chance to personally hit back at Hitler. The annexing of their country was the catalyst that had sent Europe into war. A large proportion of the Polish population had either been killed or sent into labor camps, while Warsaw was almost flattened by bombing and suffered a death toll of some 40,000. The stain of six Nazi death camps, including Treblinka and Auschwitz, in their country was one that nearly all Poles rightly found repugnant. So even if it was the slimmest of slim hopes, they took the idea that they could kill Hitler and ruin his personal retreat to heart, with a certain amount of understandable vengeance spurring them on. Fourteen Lancasters from this squadron took part in the operation and all returned.

Strike and Return

460 Squadron Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) found they had 20 of their crews taking part in this raid on ANZAC day. The majority of the squadron waited for the return of their 20 Lancasters before holding their ANZAC day parade. These 20 aircraft had taken off at around 5AM and joined up with the other aircraft over 300 Lancasters and sixteen Mosquito pathfinders. Anti-aircraft fire managed to down planes out of this large formation, one of which was 460 squadron’s Lancaster NX585 AR-M. This was piloted by Flying Officer Henry “Lofty” Payne. His Navigator had a close call; he was called away from his seat and returned to find a gaping flak hole in it. If Sergeant Colin Fraser had not had moved he would have died. AR-M was heavily hit by flak; the bomb bay door and an engine were blown away.

After that flak hit, Payne at first believed it was possible to glide the plane to American lines just 40 miles north but with one engine gone and two on fire when the fourth engine blew he gave the order to bail out. As he kept control of the plane five of his six crew mates bailed out but he was shocked to see his rear gunner make his way to the cockpit. The spare parachute had not been packed and the gunner's parachute was ruined. They then attempted a crash landing; fortunately this was successful, meaning that the crew of AR-M all survived.  News of the loss of Lancaster AR-M may have subdued any celebrations of this ANZAC day raid on a target strongly symbolic of Nazism though. But as news of the crew’s bravery and their survival was soon to reach 460’s base at Binbrook – happening as it did on the 30 year anniversary of the ANZAC Gallipoli landings of the First World War - it was symbolic to this brave Australian squadron who had flown over 6,000 sorties.

Ad Altiora (To Higher Things)

The six Lancasters from 619 Squadron, based at RAF Strubby, were tasked with running interference for the raid. This meant doing circuits of the target area to attract any flak. Although the flak was not extreme at this late stage of the war, this was still a dangerous task and Lancaster LM756 PG-F (for Freddy) was a casualty. Firstly the Navigator Norman Johnson, in a position that echoed his fellow navigator on AR-M, was killed. Then F for Freddy started to seriously lose altitude and it is likely it had engine fires. The Canadian pilot Wilf DeMarco of Timmins Bay, Ontario did an amazing job of managing to keep the heavy bomber steady so that three of the crew, Jack Speers (Wireless Operator), Freddy Cole (Flight Engineer), and Arthur Sharman (Bomb Aimer), were able to bail out and that the crash did not cause any civilian deaths. The crash site of F for Freddy is near Adnet in Austria. This group of hamlets is just a 25-minute drive from Berchtesgaden in a modern car. The locals scavenged the wreckage for scrap metal as the Nazi regime had left them with very little; because of this many pieces of F for Freddy have survived to this day. The four aircrew who died, Wilf DeMarco (Pilot), Norman Johnson (Navigator), Gordon Walker (Air Gunner), and Edward Norman (Air Gunner), were the last deaths suffered by RAF Bomber Command. The four crew mates are buried side by side in Klagenfurt War Cemetery, Austria.

On the 70th Anniversary of the raid, the people of Adnet, Austria are unveiling a memorial to the crew of PG-F for Freddy. This memorial will be erected due to the hard work of Bürgermeister Wolfgang Auer, Mayor of Adnet, Kevin Ruane MBE, and David Young. For more information please visit http://619lancasteradnet.weebly.com/. Charlie Angus, the Member of Parliament for Timmins Bay, has arranged for a Canadian commemoration the same day.

Per Ardva ad Astra (Through Adversity to the Stars)

After the war, governments from all sides shunned the Bomber Crews, but this last raid shows the courage these young men, whose average age was 21, had. Every man in Bomber Command was a volunteer; they were not conscripted. At one time during the war the average ‘life span’ for a crew was two weeks and for the rear gunners it was less. Between Dunkirk and D-day they were the Allies’ only conventional way of striking at Germany. So to Wilf DeMarco and his crew and the 55,569 other air crew that were lost over the course of the war, we owe a huge debt.

Now, why not read Mary’s previous article on the role of women in World War II? Click here.

References

http://619lancasteradnet.weebly.com/

http://www.polishsquadronsremembered.com/300/Berchtesgaden.html

http://www.raf.mod.uk/history/bombercmdsquadrons.cfm

https://www.awm.gov.au/wartime/61/berchtesgaden/

Family Squabbles and the Outbreak of World War I

Rebecca Fachner starts a series of articles on World War I by considering how close family ties between many European rulers may have contributed to the outbreak of war – like a family squabble on a grandiose scale.

This summer marks the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of World War I, and over the next few months there will be plenty of articles and books that deal with the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, the diplomatic machinations between the various countries after the Archduke’s death, and the outbreak of hostilities a few weeks later. One of the most interesting aspects of the beginning of the war is how most of the major powers seemed completely prepared for war, but stunned that war broke out so quickly. It is then, worth considering the political situation before the war to understand why the situation fell apart in the way it did, with the speed that it did.

Queen Victoria in 1887. Her relatives were closely connected prior to World War I.

Many people have compared World War I to a bar fight; there is even an internet graphic floating around that imagines the entire war as if the countries involved were drunks fighting at a bar rather than nations. If the war itself was a bar fight, the political situation leading up to the war is best characterized as a family squabble. Part of the reason that a comparison to a family makes sense is that the European political landscape at that time was in some ways like that of a large family. King George V of Great Britain was a grandson of Queen Victoria, first cousin of Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany through his father and the Kaiser’s mother. He was also first cousins with the Tsarina of Russia, Empress Alexandra, herself a granddaughter of Victoria. To make family dinners even more complicated, George was also a first cousin of Alexandra’s husband, Tsar Nicholas II of Russia; their mothers were sisters. His own sister was married to King Haakon of Norway, whose brother was King Christian X of Denmark, both of whom were cousins of both George and Nicholas. George and Wilhelm also had cousins in the royal houses of Greece, Romania and Spain. Confused yet? Well, almost every European royal family was related to almost every other European royal family, and untangling the branches of the family tree is a complicated endeavor, to say the least.

In an age when Europe was dominated by kingdoms and emperors, minor family disagreements became a huge problem. We all have family members that we don’t like too much for whatever reason, that’s the nature of families. But it is one thing if you don’t like your annoying cousin Nick or don’t trust cousin Bill, but when you all run countries, your dislike becomes both political and very important. Suddenly, the fact that you don’t trust your cousin has major policy implications for your government’s relationship with him and his government. This is not to suggest that pre-war alliances were purely based on family discord, or that the world lost millions of lives because of family drama. Two of the major players in the story were not linked to this large family: France because it no longer had a monarchy and Austria-Hungary because its rulers weren’t closely entwined in Queen Victoria’s royal circle. Since the war actually started between Serbia and Austria-Hungary, the non-family political situation was clearly very important too.

Why war broke out

As almost all histories tell us, World War I was the product of entangling alliances between the various powers, and their inability to stop the chain of events from overtaking them in the wake of the Archduke’s assassination. That is true; however, the crucial piece is not the entangling alliances, but the inability of each country in Europe to stop the train wreck as it was happening. The manifest weakness of many of the hereditary rulers of Europe was lethally exposed in 1914, along with their lack of diplomatic skills, their poor management style and general incompetence.

It is impossible to say whether better and more skilled (i.e. merit based) rulers would have been able to stave off a war, but it does seem clear that letting nations behave like a dysfunctional family is not the way to international harmony. Unfortunately it took an awful lot of lives to convince world leaders that international conferences shouldn’t look quite so much like a family reunion. One of the most enduring legacies of the war is that it ultimately toppled a number of the monarchies in Europe, perhaps because the conflict exposed the problems of hereditary rulers to such an extreme extent. Hereditary rule is like rolling the dice with your leadership, sometimes you roll a Peter the Great or Frederick the Great; at other times you roll a Nicholas II or Kaiser Wilhelm. Taking that kind of chance might have been a good idea at some point in history, but in an age of warfare on a massive scale and increasingly deadly weaponry, the major powers needed more skilled diplomats to manage international affairs, not to mention better military commanders.

Did you enjoy the article?

As always, your feedback is welcome. If you have the time to leave a comment below, we’d really like to hear what you thought about the article.

The importance of an African American Exhibit at the 1900 World’s Fair

Ben Parten takes us back to the 1900 World’s Fair and considers how W.E.B. Du Bois made attempts to overcome the Color Line and continued prejudice against African Americans through a breakthrough exhibition.

Exhibit of American Negroes at the Paris Exposition. Photographer unknown. Photograph undated, in Review of Reviews, vol. 22.

As the world turned its back on the nineteenth century and entered the twentieth, civil rights activist W.E.B. Du Bois assessed the social state of American society looking forward. In his famous book The Souls of Black Folk, he prophetically claimed, "For the problem of the twentieth century is the problem of the color line." In the latter half of the nineteenth century, Du Bois emerged as the intellectual voice of the race uplift movement­, which sought to advance the social status of African Americans. Prior to his “color line” statement, Du Bois foresaw challenges approaching the black community and attempted to redirect the perceptions of African Americans on the world’s biggest stage: the 1900 World’s Fair in Paris. Though primarily thought of as an exposition to showcase industrial and technological feats, Du Bois saw the World’s Fair as an arena where “the problem of the color line” could be denigrated by expressing the intellectual acumen and social progress of African Americans. If Du Bois and his team could effectively demonstrate to their European peers that the African American community was a thriving and active component of American society, it would be a step in the direction of racial tolerance at home and abroad.

Though Du Bois is conventionally identified with the Exhibit of American Negroes, the exhibit was initially organized by Thomas Calloway. After petitioning then President William McKinley for the necessary funds to conduct the project, he enlisted Du Bois and Daniel Murray - an assistant at the Library of Congress - to gather the appropriate materials. From these collected materials, Du Bois and Murray hoped to convey four different aspects of the African American community: their history, their present state, their education, and their literature. Accordingly, they assembled a large collection of patents from African American inventors and a bibliography of over 1,400 pamphlets and books written by African American writers. Most notable of these writers was the popular poet Paul Lawrence Dunbar. The group even constructed charts that mapped out the demographic status of African Americans within America and in comparison to Europe. Du Bois specifically points out in “The American Negro at Paris” that “there are nearly half as many Negroes in the United States as Spaniards in Spain” and illiteracy of African American children is “less than that of Russia and only equal to that of Hungary.”

Yet, the most intriguing component of the exhibit was its compilation of photographs. Du Bois and Murray compiled over five hundred photographs highlighting the social progress of African Americans since emancipation. In order to highlight social advancement, these pictures often portrayed families, clubs, or single individuals dressed in nice clothes and sporting stylish accessories equal to those of whites. The pictures also conveyed the importance African Americans placed on education. Photos of whole graduating classes at the major African American colleges like Fisk and Howard were taken along with photos of younger students attending grammar school. Photographs were even taken of African American middle class working conditions and places of worship to show just how far African Americans had progressed since their days of servitude.

African Americans, mostly women, sorting tobacco at the T.B. Williams Tobacco Co., Richmond, Virginia

Interior of 'Negro' store, Buffalo, N.Y.

Aside from highlighting social advancement, these pictures also demeaned the disparaging notion that African Americans were less than human. In fact, the pictures proved to a European audience that African Americans were as equally human as whites by showing African Americans participating in the same types of human experiences as whites. Not only were African Americans capable of engaging in these experiences, but they had the abilities to thrive in the same modern society as white Americans. Du Bois and Murray masterfully used pictures, literature, and patents to illustrate to the Europeans that the days where an African American did not even possess his or her own body were over; they now possessed the self-ownership and proper education to actively take part in a larger global community.

During the fair, the exhibit was practically snubbed by the other American exhibitionists, and the mainstream news outlets generally ignored it. It was even relegated to a location separate from the main United States exhibit. Though dismissed by the American exhibitionists, the Exhibition of American Negros was extremely popular amongst the patrons of the fair. Europeans gawked at the amazing images and were astonished at the oeuvre of literature displayed. Even some American patrons came away impressed. One anonymous American writer called it the “most authentic evidence of the literary output of the race” and another called it “a prophetic of what may be expected.” In sum, the project was a success. Du Bois and his team were able to take an exhibit that Du Bois referred to as “an honest straightforward exhibit of a small nation of people, picturing their life and development without apology or gloss” and use it as a tool to quicken the march toward African American equality.

You can read an article related to African American Emancipation and the struggle for equality in the June 2014 issue of History is Now Magazine, our latest issue. You can even read it for free today if you take up a no-obligation trial now.

Click here for information on the iOS/Apple edition

Click here for information on the Android edition

References

Anonymous. "Negro Authorship." Publications of the Southern History Association, 4:4. 1900 (July): 295-296.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vdQRAAAAYAAJ&as_brr=1&pg=PA295#v=onepage&q=murray&f=false

Anonymous. "The Negro in Literature." Literary Digest, v.21, n.5 (August 4, 1900): 130

http://books.google.com/books?id=_03QAAAAMAAJ&printsec=titlepage&source=gbs_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

Du Bois, W.E. Burghardt. 1900. "The American Negro at Paris." The American Monthly Review of Reviews, vol.XXII, no.5 (November): pp.575-577.

http://books.google.com/books?id=hTIIg_nfB3YC&pg=PA575&as_brr=1#v=onepage&q&f=false

Du Bois, W. E. B. The Souls of Black Folk. New York: Penguin, 1989. Print.

Gnovis, Vol. 6 (Georgetown University's journal of Communication, Culture and Technology
www.gnovisjournal.org/files/Shannon-Grevious-Finding-One-s-Place.pdf

Image Sources

Library of Congress original pictures - http://www.loc.gov/pictures/search/?st=grid&co=anedub

Library of Congress blog - http://blogs.loc.gov/loc/2014/04/collection-connections-twelve-years-a-slave/

FDR, Truman and Eisenhower in World War I

Steve Strathmann considers what the three presidents most closely associated with World War II did during  that other great war of the twentieth century – World War I.

In 1917, Woodrow Wilson led the United States as it entered the First World War. In his speech to Congress asking for a declaration of war, Wilson presented Germany’s submarine warfare as the primary reason to go to war, but he also stated a greater goal:

The world must be made safe for democracy. Its peace must be planted upon the tested foundations of political liberty. We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make. We are but one of the champions of the rights of mankind. We shall be satisfied when those rights have been made as secure as the faith and the freedom of nations can make them.

The two men who held the office before him supported the nation’s entry into the war. Theodore Roosevelt, a veteran of the Spanish-American War, asked to personally raise a division of troops to be sent to Europe. Wilson met with Roosevelt and politely declined the offer, explaining that the ranks would be instead filled through a draft. Another strike against Roosevelt going to Europe was his poor overall health; he would barely outlive the conflict, passing away on January 6, 1919.

William Howard Taft spoke publicly in support of the war. On June 13, 1917, he repeated Wilson’s “war for democracy” theme, declaring “...Now we have stepped to the forefront of nations, and they look to us.” Taft would be tapped by President Wilson to chair the National War Labor Board, a panel set up to handle labor/management disputes during the war.

While other future presidents would make contributions to the war effort (especially Herbert Hoover, whose work during and after the war would make him internationally famous), what did the three presidents most identified with the Second World War do in 1917? As we shall see, these three men all served their nation’s military in different ways.

The Assistant Secretary

FDR, with Secretary Daniels and the Prince of Wales, in Annapolis, 1919.

While the war raged overseas, Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Theodore’s cousin) was a member of the Wilson administration serving as the Assistant Secretary of the Navy. At the start of war, Roosevelt publicly called for an increase in the size of the US Navy by 18,000 men. This got him into trouble with Wilson and Navy Secretary Josephus Daniels, who were trying to maintain a state of neutrality. Roosevelt had to recant his statement, and learned not to step on his superiors’ toes.

By July of 1915, the administration was coming into line with Roosevelt’s beliefs on naval expansion. Increased action in the Atlantic Ocean, including the sinking of the Lusitania, convinced Wilson that the military needed to be updated and enlarged to improve the nation’s defenses. Daniels and FDR presented a plan calling for the construction of 176 new ships, including ten battleships. This was approved by the president and Congress.

Even with these preparations, the US Navy was relatively small when war was declared. This had changed by the end of the war, when the force had expanded to almost a million sailors on over 2,000 vessels. Roosevelt had a hand in this, proving to be so good at gathering military supplies that he had to be asked to share the navy’s material gains with the army.

According to biographer Jean Edward Smith, FDR’s greatest wartime work was the creation of a North Sea antisubmarine chain of mines. While the initial plan was not Roosevelt’s, his promotion of the idea and the technology to accomplish it was what led to it being implemented. The chain wasn’t installed until the summer of 1918 and it was never fully tested, but estimates of German U-boats destroyed by the mines range from four to as many as twenty-three.

Above all, Franklin Roosevelt wanted to serve in the military during the war. He knew how his cousin’s military exploits helped with his political career and wanted to follow in his footsteps. Theodore Roosevelt even encouraged Franklin to enlist. Unfortunately for FDR, his talents working for the administration meant that Wilson and Daniels would never let him leave his post.

Roosevelt did eventually make it to the Western Front, but not as a soldier. In the summer of 1918, he was sent as part of a Senate committee to inspect the situation in Europe. He insisted on going to the French battlefields, including Verdun and Belleau Wood, and came within one mile of the German front lines. Little did he know, his future vice president was serving in an artillery unit not too far away.

Captain Harry

Harry S. Truman in France, 1918.

Harry S. Truman volunteered when war was declared, and the former Missouri Guard member was elected an officer in the artillery formations being organized in the Kansas City/Independence region. After training in Oklahoma, the units sailed for France, arriving on April 13, 1918.

On July 11, Truman took over command of Battery D. The battery had had issues with their previous commanders, but Truman soon earned their respect. Indeed, according to author Robert Ferrell, these soldiers would in the future be Truman’s political base, willing to do anything to support the man they called “Captain Harry.”

Truman’s battery saw action in the Vosges Mountains, Meuse-Argonnes and Verdun. Before Meuse-Argonnes, the captain marched his battery for twenty-two nights to reach their destination. During the two weeks there, Truman’s men sometimes fired their guns so often that, according to the battery’s chief mechanic, “...they’d pour a bucket of water down the muzzle and it’d come out of the breach just a-steaming, you know.”

Verdun was a particularly grizzly posting. The area where the unit was stationed was part of the 1916 battlefield, so every shell that landed around the battery would churn up graves from the previous action. Truman would describe waking up in the morning and finding skulls lying nearby. The battery would serve at Verdun until the end of the war.

While Truman was learning to become a leader of men under fire, one of his future generals was fresh out of West Point, desperate to join in the action, but continually thwarted in his attempts.

Ike

Dwight D. Eisenhower, with tank, in Fort Meade.

Dwight D. Eisenhower graduated from West Point in 1915, sixty-first in a class of 164. Despite his wishes to be posted in the Philippines, he ended up in Texas. When the United States entered the war, Eisenhower was appointed regimental supply officer of the new 57th Regiment.

Unfortunately for the ambitious Ike, he proved to be an excellent training officer and was turned down every time he requested a transfer to Europe. Like Roosevelt, he was too valuable to let go. He was soon transferred to Fort Meade to help organize the 301st Tank Battalion, one of the United States’ first tank units. He was supposed to leave for France with the 301st as its commander, but at the last minute was told that he would remain behind (once again) to set up a training base, Camp Colt, to be located on the old Gettysburg battlefield in Pennsylvania.

Eisenhower did a fantastic job setting up Camp Colt, which soon held more than 10,000 men training on the site of Pickett’s Charge. Due to a lack of tanks, they would use guns mounted on flatbed trucks to practice firing at targets while in motion. Finally all was going well and Eisenhower was scheduled to leave for Europe with the next group of recruits, but the war ended just as they were preparing to leave.

War to End All Wars?

As the war ended, these three men probably thought what most others did: this war was the last of its kind to be fought. Eisenhower would remain in the army. Truman would return to Missouri and try his hand in business. Roosevelt would continue in politics, running for vice president on the unsuccessful 1920 Democratic ticket. Little did these three men know that they were destined to meet in just over a couple of decades, fighting the next world war.

If you enjoyed this article, tell the world. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below!

References

Aboukhadijeh, Feross. "U.S. Entry into WWI" StudyNotes.org. StudyNotes, Inc., Published November 17, 2012. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Duffy, Michael, ed. “Primary Documents- U.S. Declaration of War with Germany, 2 April 1917.” FirstWorldWar.com. Published August 22, 2009. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Duffy, Michael, ed. “Primary Documents- William Howard Taft on America’s Decision to go to War, 13 June 1917.” FirstWorldWar.com. Published August 22, 2009. Accessed May 16, 2014.

Ferrell, Robert H. Harry S. Truman: a life. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press, 1994.

Korda, Michael. Ike: An American Hero. New York: Harper, 2007.

Smith, Jean Edward. FDR. New York: Random House, 2007.

Photos

http://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/npc2007000705/resource/ (FDR, with Secretary Daniels and the Prince of Wales, in Annapolis, 1919)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Harry_S._Truman_WW_I.jpg (Harry S. Truman in France, 1918)

http://www.ftmeade.army.mil/museum/Eisenhower_with_Tank.jpg (Dwight D. Eisenhower, with tank, in Fort Meade)

The History of the Last Meal – A final compassionate act or an undeserved reward?

In this article, Robert Walsh writes about the history of the last meal for those condemned to death. He considers its Christian roots and looks at how it has been carried out in different states. Finally, we look at some of the more unusual last meal requests.

Study media reports of executions, recent or decades-old, and you’ll probably find mention of the prisoner’s last meal. Most prisoners spend their entire sentences eating whatever the prison kitchen provides and have no choice. Condemned inmates are traditionally allowed to choose their final meal though. Before British reporters were barred from witnessing hangings in the early twentieth century their reports usually mentioned whether a prisoner enjoyed their final breakfast. Today, American reporters often mention what prisoners have for their last meal, although prison authorities often call it a ‘special meal’, deferring to the prisoner’s feelings about their upcoming death.

The Last Supper. Leonardo da Vinci. Late fifteenth century.

The last meal is usually a tradition, not a rule. No law automatically entitles prisoners to anything other than standard prison meals so it’s a privilege, not a right. It’s also far more significant than being merely a kind gesture. It’s an important part of the execution ritual and has been for centuries. Barring last-minute legal action a prisoner’s last meal is usually their last chance to control anything that happens in their final hours. Modern executions are usually conducted according to strict timetables and rigid rules with minimal deviation there from. In the US, a prisoner might wait over twenty years between sentencing and execution so their last freedom of choice can be very important to them.

RELIGIOUS SIGNIFICANCE

Execution is a grim ritual. The last meal is a part of that ritual and a ritual in itself. In medieval Europe it had religious significance dating back to when religion played a far greater role in daily life than it does today. A mental image of Christ’s Last Supper is often referenced as a parallel to a modern-day convict choosing their final menu. It also symbolizes a prisoner making peace with their executioners, breaking bread with them in the same way that Christ invited Judas Iscariot to the Last Supper. In modern-day Louisiana, a strongly-religious Southern state, Warden Burl Cain routinely invites condemned prisoners to eat their last meal with him and invited guests, offering the condemned Christian fellowship. Cain still supervises the execution, but he extends the invitation regardless. Naturally, the inmate isn’t obliged to accept.

Religion aside, superstition once played its part. In medieval Europe many believed that well-fed prisoners could be executed without fear of their returning as ghosts. The quality of the final meal was also believed to influence the likelihood of their doing so. If the food and drink were of the best quality it was believed that prisoners would be less likely to haunt their executioners. If the meals were poor, many believed prisoners would return as malevolent spirits bent on tormenting those involved in their deaths.

THE MEAL IN DIFFERENT STATES AND TIMES

What prisoners are permitted varies according to their location. In Texas, the last meal was introduced in 1924, the same year that Texas replaced the gallows with the electric chair and the State took over executions from individual counties. With one single Death Row located at Huntsville, the State of Texas centralized and standardized custody of condemned inmates which included granting them a last meal. Today, the Texas Department of Criminal Justice no longer allows last meals. Condemned inmates get the standard meal before execution. Other US States have widely-differing policies. Florida is comparatively generous, allowing a budget of $40. Oklahoma budgets only $15.

New York performed its last execution in 1963 (the state abolished capital punishment in the early 1970s) but was especially generous to its condemned. An inmate at Sing Sing Prison’s notorious ‘Death House’ could order both a last dinner and last supper. For example, murderer Henry Flakes was executed on May 19, 1960; his dinner consisted of barbecue chicken with sauce, French fries, salad, bread rolls, butter, strawberry shortcake with whipped cream, 4 packs of cigarettes, coffee, milk and sugar. Supper was equally generous: lobster, salad, butter and bread rolls, ice cream, a box of chocolate candy, four cigars, two glasses of cola, coffee, milk and sugar. Unlike many prisons today, Sing Sing’s condemned could include tobacco products like snuff, cigars, chewing tobacco and cigarettes. In 1930s Indiana, the State Prison at Michigan City was equally generous with last meal requests. Like Burl Cain today, on May 31, 1938 Deputy Warden Lorenz Schmuhl dined with murderer John Dee Smith at sundown and electrocuted him just after midnight.

Prisoners have often been offered alcohol just before execution, while prisoners facing firing squads have long been offered the traditional last cigarette. Both are partly a compassionate gesture, but also calm an inmate’s nerves in their final moments and make them more co-operative. In 1925 Patrick Murphy was executed at Sing Sing having pleaded with Warden Lewis Lawes for one final drink. In 1925 Prohibition was in force throughout the US so whiskey was forbidden for every citizen, incarcerated or otherwise. Lawes, a firm opponent of capital punishment and well-known to enjoy a pre-dinner Scotch throughout Prohibition, made a compassionate-yet-illegal decision. He broke both prison rules and Federal law, slipping Murphy a small bottle of bourbon an hour before his execution. Murphy took the bottle, looked at Lawes (who loathed executions) and died having returned the bottle to Lawes saying, “You look like you need it more than I do, Warden.”

British hangman John Ellis often recommended prisoners were offered a cup of brandy minutes before their execution. At California’s San Quentin Prison inmates were once allowed a little whiskey immediately before they entered the gas chamber. Nowadays American prisons allow no alcohol of any kind and, unlike 1960s New York, few prisons allow tobacco products as part of a prisoner’s final meal. When the state of Utah used the firing squad, prisoners were allowed a last cigarette but were escorted into the exercise yard to smoke it. Under Utah state law, smoking indoors in public buildings (including prisons) is forbidden because it’s a health hazard.

MORE UNUSUAL RITUALS

There are other lesser-known rituals associated with the last meal. Between 1924 and 1964 Texas electrocuted 361 inmates at Huntsville. As part of their last meal Texan inmates often ordered as many portions of dessert as there were condemned inmates. If a prisoner wanted ice cream and there were five other condemned inmates on Death Row, then the prisoner would ask for six portions of ice cream so that no condemned inmate endured an execution night without a parting gift to raise their spirits. In New York, a number of Sing Sing’s condemned either shared their last meal with another inmate (as Francis ‘Two Gun’ Crowley shared his with John Resko in 1931) or split their meal with all the other condemned (as did Raymond Fernandez, hours before his execution in 1951). Like the last meal itself, sharing food was a tradition rather than a right, but it often kept inmates more settled when one of them was about to die.

It’s not unusual for a prisoner’s final choice to reveal something about them. Some decline a last meal to demonstrate contempt for prison authorities or simply because fear has left them unable to face food. Others opt for old favorites, food they probably haven’t had since their arrest, perhaps as a consolation and reminder of happier times. Some order huge meals, some order small ones, some order food they’ve never tried before out of curiosity. A few inmates make choices that seem bizarre to others, but make sense to them such as Victor Feguer, hanged in 1963. Feguer requested a single olive, asking that the olive pit be placed in his shirt pocket before he was buried. A strange request unless you know an olive pit is a symbol of rebirth. New York’s last execution was of Eddie Lee Mays on August 15, 1963. Mays wanted no food or drink, only a packet of cigarettes and a box of matches. Matches were forbidden for condemned inmates so Mays received his cigarettes, but had to ask guards to light them for him. At San Quentin, one Jewish inmate ordered an elaborate kosher meal then requested his first ham sandwich. San Quentin inmate Wilson De la Roi turned his final meal into a joke. When asked for his choice he requested a packet of indigestion tablets. Asked why, he chuckled, remarking that he might have gas on his stomach.

All in all, the last meal is many things to many people. To some it’s a kind gesture that should be retained as a final compassionate act. To others it’s an unnecessary offer that the prisoners don’t deserve. To prisoners themselves it can be a gesture of defiance, a chance for one final joke, a last chance to try something new, something to look forward to as the clock ticks down or simply not worth bothering with. It’s certainly far more than simply ordering from a menu.

You can find out more about the death penalty in our podcast on prisoner’s final words. Click here to listen.

Finally, if you found the article interesting, tell others. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking on one of the buttons below.

References

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15040658

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/comfort-foods-last-meal_n_1839009.html

http://murderpedia.org/male.M/m1/martin-leslie-dale.htm

http://www.kevinroderick.com/gas.html

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/a-man-who-knew-about-the-electric-chair/

Condemned: Inside the Sing Sing Death House, Scott Christianson, NYU Press, 2001, Page 137.

Ibid, Page 166.

Murder One: They Went To The Death Chamber, Mike James, True Crime Library, 1999, Pages 3-16.

Have a Seat, Please, Don Reid, Texas Review Press, 2001, Pages 1-16.

Dead Man Walking, Sister Helen Prejean, Harper-Collins, 1996, Pages 110-112.

Diary Of A Hangman, John Ellis, True Crime Library, 1996, Page 21.

Death Row Chaplain, Byron Eshelman, Signet Books, 1972, Pages 30-31.

Ronald Reagan’s Anti-Communist Enemy – The June issue of History is Now Magazine

Ronald Reagan is well known for being an arch anti-communist. Indeed, many consider his administration to be the most anti-communist of all Cold War American governments. In the new issue of History is Now Magazine we look at relations between Reagan and a regime that was also strongly anti-communist – but, in a fascinating twist, one that Reagan’s administration opposed.

 The new issue of History is Now magazine is out now.

To find out more, take up a free trial of the magazine for up to 2 months and download your free copy of our interactive digital magazine for iPad, iPhone and Android today!

Click here for information on iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on Android

Here is what our editor has to say…

You know, while undertaking the early edits of the magazine this month, I felt truly privileged at being the first person who was able to read such marvelous articles. I just hope that after reading this month’s magazine, you agree that the articles are extremely interesting. Here is what we have in the magazine…

We start with an article on Ronald Reagan and right-wing Chilean Dictator Augusto Pinochet. It is often thought that Ronald Reagan, an arch anti-communist, would support any leader who opposed communism. But, as this article shows, Reagan did at times value other ideals above that of opposing communism. Secondly, we take a look at the topic of crime and insanity in Victorian Britain. An author of a recently published book about a dark crime in 1850s London tells us about how attitudes towards criminal insanity changed – or didn’t change – in conservative nineteenth century Britain. Thirdly, there is a piece on slavery in America. The article considers slave rebellions and Southern slaveholder paranoia, as well as how songs and poetry were important in the struggle for slaves to be freed – and in the postbellum years.

In what can only be described as our most varied issue yet, we then look at the story of Shap ’ng Tsai, a Chinese pirate who sailed on the high seas in the years after the British defeated China in the First Opium War. Following that is a piece on the Mississippi Bubble. Last month we set the scene for the Bubble, and this month we tell the dramatic story of how fortunes were made, before the whole of France came crashing back to earth with an all mighty thump. Finally, we’re going outside of our usual period of focus by taking a look at the history of castles in Scotland – and how changes in castle design evolved in to the modern age. And as ever, we have included videos and a podcast in the magazine. This month’s podcast is on the Spanish Civil War.

Click here for information on iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on Android

All that is left to say is that I hope you enjoy reading our digital magazine.

Click on one of the links below to enjoy the magazine today for free…

Click here for information on iPad/iPhone | Click here for information on Android

George Levrier-Jones

Animals at War? Pet Mascots

Bill Edwards-Bodmer considers ship mascots and fascinating photos of animals at war in this image-packed article.

US Marine feeding a two-week-old kitten whose mother had been killed during a battle in Korea, circa 1953. The Marine named the kitten “Miss Hap.”

Capturing a moment of extraordinary compassion and tenderness during the violence and bloodshed of the Korean War, the above well-known image demonstrates the remarkable relationship that often existed between animals, and the soldiers and sailors who wage war. Besides the millions of horses who served in cavalry units throughout history, military units and navy ships often adopted animals as mascots. Sailors and marines in particular have a long history of sharing their cramped lives aboard ships with animals.

Cats were one common animal. Mariners in ancient Egypt were known to keep cats aboard their vessels for the vital service the felines provided: ridding the ships of rats and mice that would otherwise eat and destroy provisions, cargo and other supplies and spread disease. Sailors throughout history also believed cats brought good luck, as well as amusement during long voyages. They also adopted cats from the foreign ports they visited.

Sailors on USS Nahant playing with two cats, circa 1898.

Two US Navy pilots playing with a cat while serving in the Pacific during World War II.

Dogs also have a long history of serving at sea. On ships, especially naval vessels, dogs were kept to provide much needed companionship and to boost moral during long, monotonous journeys. Naval crews adopted these dogs as the ship’s mascot. Countless images exist of sailors proudly posing with their ship’s mascot, so showing the positive effect that dogs had. 

Crew of USS Hunchback during the American Civil War. The crewman to the left of the man holding a newspaper is with a small dog.

Sailor with “Mike,” mascot of USS New York, circa 1899.

“Salty,” the mascot of a Coast Guard destroyer escort, circa 1943.

“Blackout,” the mascot of a Coast Guard LCI, circa 1944.

US Marine private takes a nap with his division’s mascot while on Okinawa, 1945.

“Sinbad,” mascot on Coast Guard cutter Campbell, circa 1944.

Besides dogs and cats, more unusual and exotic animals were often adopted as mascots. These animals were usually given as gifts to visiting ships at ports by local officials. This was notably seen on the ships of the famous Great White Fleet of the United States Navy during its world cruise of 1907-1909. The mighty battleships of the US fleet received everything from kangaroos to eagles to bears. Some animals didn’t work out so well: monkeys given to sailors on one of the ships escaped their enclosures and made a home among the smokestacks, biting anyone who tried to catch them (source: steelnavy.org).

Sailors with a goat mascot during the Great White Fleet world cruise, circa 1907-1908.

Pig mascot of USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

Eagle presented to USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Seattle, Washington presented a bear cub to USS Missouri when that ship visited in 1908 as part of the Great White Fleet world cruise.

Feeding a bear mascot on board the USS Connecticut during the Great White Fleet cruise, circa 1908.

The citizens of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia presented USS Connecticut with a kangaroo when that ship visited in 1908 during the Great White Fleet’s world cruise.

Lieutenant John E. Lewis with a kangaroo on board USS Connecticut, circa 1908.

These images provide a light-hearted view of past life in the United States Navy and Marine Corps, and show the special bond that could exist between animals and the sailors and marines who cared for them.

If you enjoyed the article, tell the world! Like it, tweet about it, or share it by pressing one of the buttons below…

For more images please see the Naval Historical Center here or the US Naval Institute here

References

Naval History and Heritage Command - http://www.history.navy.mil/photos/events/ev-1900s/gwf07-09/gwf-sb4.htm

US Naval Institute - http://www.usni.org/news-and-features/dogs-and-the-sea-services

John F Kennedy and the Tsar - The parallel lives of two fatherless boys

Helen Saker-Parsons considers the fascinating similarities between the sons of two very important men who were killed in tragic circumstances – John F Kennedy and Tsar Michael II of Russia.

George and John: two men, born fifty years apart into families famed for their power as well as their curses. As young boys, both saw their fathers and their uncles murdered, these personal tragedies having global implications. Neither boy lived to middle age, both killed by a sense of adventure and not an assassin’s bullet. When John Kennedy Junior published his magazine he titled it ‘George’ after Washington: the first President of the United States. He was probably unaware of the existence of another George – Mikhailovich - also known as Count Brasov, with whom his life had strong parallels.

George Mikhailovich as a young boy.

John Kennedy Junior was only two years old, on November 22, 1963, when the world saw his father shot on their television screens. His father held the highest profile of all world leaders as President of the United States. His public death was a contrast to the secretive nature in which George’s father met his demise, although theoretically he too held the potential to lead one of the most powerful countries of the time. It was June 1918, when George was seven years old and his country was in the midst of a Civil War. Three months earlier the Tsar of Russia had abdicated on behalf of himself and his son and nominated his younger brother, George’s father, Grand Duke Michael Alexandrovich as his successor. Although Michael had refused the role unless it could be ratified by an elected assembly, as long as a Romanov heir existed they could be a threat to the Reds. He was thus taken from his place of exile, a hotel room in Perm, by four Bolsheviks and driven by horse-drawn carriage to the forest with his personal friend and secretary, Brian Johnson, on the pretext of catching a train from a remote railway crossing to a safer place of hiding. George’s father was allegedly shot at point blank range with his arms outstretched to his friend. Forty-five years later and the Communists were to be blamed for the murder of John Junior’s father: his killer, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a Marxist, ex US marine having defected to the Soviet Union (there are several other several theories regarding Kennedy’s death though).

A very young John Junior.

MEMORIALS

But whereas the image of John, the toddler in the miniature duffel coat standing and saluting his father’s coffin at Arlington cemetery on his third birthday is etched in memories, George was not to know of his father’s death for some time, rumors being put about that he had escaped from his house arrest in Perm and was planning a counter-revolution. Attempts by his mother to find out the truth saw her arrested and imprisoned. A few weeks after her arrest, Natalia pretended she had developed tuberculosis and was moved to a nursing home from which she escaped. Despite determined efforts and countless rumors of sightings Natalia was forced to have her husband declared dead in July 1924. An eternal flame marks JFK’s place of burial; for Michael Alexandrovich, a plain cross was erected in the woods almost eighty years after his death, in 1996, on the spot where his body was once thought to lay - a local boy at the time having allegedly seen the corpse and marked the spot by carving an M and an A onto a nearby tree.

John Kennedy Junior was brought up with the world’s pity; George Mikhailovich relied on other nations for his survival. In spring 1918 the Danish Embassy arranged for his passage to Germany. Accompanied by his nanny, Miss Margaret Neame, who posed as the wife of an Austrian officer with George as her son, they travelled with false passports - in the name of Silldorff - on a train carrying prisoners-of-war being repatriated back to Germany. A Danish officer, Captain Sorensen, assisted them, since neither spoke German. George's mother and half-sister Natalia were smuggled out of Russia to Kiev, in German-controlled Ukraine, by the Germans. As soon as the war ended the Royal Navy then evacuated the two women to England where they were joined by George and Miss Neame in a rented house in Wadhurst, Sussex, just after Easter 1919.

It was not only the death of their fathers which both boys endured, but also the murder of their uncles. Senator Bobby Kennedy, JFK’s brother, was assassinated on June 6, 1968, in a Los Angeles hotel. Although the act was initially blamed on a lone Palestinian assassin, Sirhan Sirhan, it too has been subject to decades of debate and conspiracy theories. The reasons were more straightforward for the execution of George’s uncle, Tsar Nicholas II; a month after his brother’s murder, he was shot alongside his wife and children by a Bolshevik firing squad in a basement room in a prison in Yekaterinburg.

With power and money often comes decadence. Both boys were born into families famed for their lifestyles. For the women this was reflected in their love of glamour and thirst for romance. Kennedy’s mother, Jackie, took on her late husband’s mantle for ill-advised affairs and high-living, with dubious connections and associations. Brasov’s half-sister too acquired a taste for disastrous relationships. While Jackie was linked with the Russian ballet dancer Rudolf Nureyev, several Hollywood actors and went on to marry Aristotle Onassis (a man sometimes cited in the death of Bobby Kennedy), George’s half-sister ‘Tata’ eloped from school to marry the actor John Gielgud’s older brother Val, and then went on to two more marriages.

TRAGEDY

For the men their access to money encouraged a sense of adventure and a love of speed. Both were to die in the summer month of July doing what they enjoyed. John Junior was almost twice the age of George but still less than forty. He was piloting a plane en route to a family wedding with his wife, Carolyn Bessette, when as an inexperienced flyer he apparently lost control in the poor weather conditions. George had inherited his father’s love of speed and automobiles. Whilst at school in England he bought a Norton motorbike that he then took with him to France when joining his mother in her adoptive country after 1927. In 1928, the Dowager Empress Marie died and George inherited one-third of his grandmother’s estate. He bought a Chrysler sports car. In July 1931, having finished his final examinations at the Sorbonne, he set off on a road trip to the south of France with a nineteen-year-old Dutch friend, Edgar Moneanaar, promising his mother to be home for his twenty-first birthday. The car skidded near Sens and they crashed into a tree. Moneanaar was killed. With both thighs broken and severe internal injuries, George was taken to hospital but died without recovering consciousness the following morning.

For some it was not fatalism but fate that killed these two young men: those who believe in the truth of the family curse - though the origins of these curses are disputed. For the Romanovs, Rasputin is often blamed. In a letter Rasputin predicted his own death within the year stating that if he was killed by peasants the tsars would continue to reign for generations to come, but if it was at the hands of the aristocrats then the tsar and his family would be dead within two years. Embittered mothers feature in theories behind the curses for both families. The Kennedy curse allegedly originates from the ‘ol’ country’ when as wealthy farmers in Ireland their ancestors were visited by a desperate starving mother during the famine of 1846. When she was turned away the mother swore on her dying child's life that a curse would henceforth visit the Kennedy family. It started quickly: the Kennedys were evicted from their farm after a rent revolt. Some say the Romanovs were cursed by the mother of a young boy drowned in the Moscow River by soldiers of Tsar Michael I, the first of the Romanov dynasty. In her grief she cursed the new Tsar who went on to lose four of his sons during childhood.

And then there are the Jewish conspiracy theories. The Russian pogroms and a history of anti-Semitic Tsarist behavior are well-documented. Some cite a Jewish conspiracy for the Kennedy misfortunes too. JFK’s father, Joseph, allegedly told a rabbi and his students to stop their prayers while they were on a passenger ship together. Angry, the rabbi cursed him and claimed that his descendants would suffer great misfortune. In another version, it was a Jewish father who placed the curse on Joseph after he refused to help his sons escape from a concentration camp. In yet one more account of the curse, it was an entire Jewish village that cursed Kennedy after they discovered he was dealing weapons to the Nazis.

GREAT POTENTIAL?

But what the boys also share is their unfulfilled potential: had both men lived it is possible they would have reached great heights. Kennedy’s political ambitions have been recorded. He saw his magazine ‘George’ as a tool to express his points of view. Brasov himself may have been accepted as the legitimate heir to the Russian throne. In his father’s manifesto of March 3, 1917 he writes of the need for a constitutional monarchy in Russia showing his acceptance of the need for change. It is possible that the rights of succession could have been changed too, acknowledging the irrelevance of a morganatic marriage and pushing forward George as his rightful successor. Indeed many of the exiled Russian émigrés living in Paris in the 1920s preferred him as the legitimate heir. Although history remains fascinated by the families of these young men, both are overshadowed by events that surround their more high profile relatives. But I can’t help contemplating how things might have been different if their own lives had not been cut tragically short.

Helen Saker-Parsons is the author of a book about an Allied soldier who is captured and held prisoner in Italy during World War II. The book, A Captive Life, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

If you enjoyed this article, let the world know. Tweet about it, like it, or share it by clicking one of the buttons below.

The Face Of Anne Frank and the Holocaust

Samantha Jones presents a very personal view of the Holocaust and discusses the tragic story of Anne Frank.

My best friend and I have a strong interest in the Holocaust. Nothing macabre or flippant, but we cannot rid this disbelief that something like that could happen. For my friend`s Creative Arts Major work she focused upon survivors of the death camps, interviewing migrants at the Jewish Museum in Sydney. Aside from this, when I was much younger my mother surprised me with a trip to Amsterdam just to visit Anne Frank’s house, and on another trip while my friend and I were visiting Dachau, we heard on the radio that Miep Gies had passed away. Needless to say, we felt a small personal connection to the event, as ignorant as that may be. 

Anne Frank in 1942.

At the time, for us 18-year-old girls, Anne Frank was the face of the Holocaust. Her writing, so innocent and beautiful, was what we strived for and it mesmerized our minds throughout our adolescence. We were barely able to stomach the tragedy behind her story, always staring in disbelief at our own lives and our similarity in age. One day at the Jewish Museum, we met a survivor who shared barracks with Anne Frank at the Bergen Belsen concentration camp. Naturally, we were amazed that we were standing in front of someone who knew her. I mean imagine. The lady named Helen, calmly laughed and then said through her thick Austrian accent, “Yes girls, but there were others…”

For those of you who don’t know, Anne Frank and her family were Jews who hid from the Nazi persecution in Amsterdam. From 1942 to 1944 the Franks, with another family of three and a family friend, hid in an attic belonging to Anne’s father, Otto. For two years, the hiders never left the attic, never stepped outside, never felt fresh sunlight or breathed crisp air, instead watching the barbaric chaos unfold upon the streets they looked helplessly down on. Family and work friends, including Miep Gies, supplied the hiders with the things they needed; however someone found out and the hiders were arrested.

Anne entered the ‘Secret Annex’ when she was thirteen and began writing a diary during her confinement. When she was fifteen, Anne was taken with her family and sent to the Bergen Belsen concentration camp, where she eventually died with her sister Margot.

Out of the eight hiders, only Anne’s father Otto survived, returning from Auschwitz to the lonely attic and Anne’s diary. Otto Frank published the diary in 1947, and Anne Frank: The Diary of A Young Girl was eventually published in over 60 languages. Now the attic has been transformed into a museum, where tourists can go inside to see where the Franks hid, Margot and Anne’s growth marks on the wall, Anne’s bedroom and the diary itself, which surprisingly resembles a scrapbook. If you get anything out of this article, let it be this. Just go and read the diary.

A SYMBOL

Despite Anne’s diary becoming a piece of classic literature, she has also become one of the most notable faces that represent the millions upon millions of lives lost under Nazi persecution. Miep Gies, the secretary who denied she was a hero, resembles the perspective of Helen, the Austrian survivor in the Jewish museum. Anne was a remarkable writer certainly, but still an ordinary girl. What about the faces that have been forgotten? What about everyone else?

The idea of Anne Frank and Miep Gies being so ‘ordinary’, can be taken as a positive or negative. Ordinary people can change the world everyday. As Gies teaches us: “But even an ordinary secretary or a housewife or a teenager can, within their own small ways, turn on a small light in a dark room.” When we all see the world falling apart, we need inspiration like this to keep going. To stop and really think long and hard about every face, every family, every marriage, every child that had their lives robbed, we would not be able to get through the day. So maybe it is easier for us to idolize one face instead of millions. But as those that were there remind us, to forget others can be as dangerous and devastating as the tragedy itself.

History is biased and picky. It remembers what the writers of history want to remember, and remembering Anne Frank is no different. I mean no disrespect to her legacy by any means, she has inspired me in so many ways I cannot name them all. But does this come at a cost? I think we need to educate ourselves, listen to stories and dig deeper to fully understand something from the past. Otherwise, our understanding, and the idea of justice and truth is distorted, much like the events we study in the first place. Anne Frank leaves an amazing legacy. But as my Austrian teacher tells me, there were others too.

You can read an article related to Alice Herz-Somme, an incredible Holocaust survivor, by clicking here.

Finally, if you’d like others to know about this article, share it, tweet about it or like it by clicking on one of the buttons below.