A Secret US Cold War Facility in Greenland: Operation Iceworm

During the Cold War both the Americans and Soviets set up secret facilities all over the world in order to give them an advantage over the other side. One of the most ambitious was Operation Iceworm (or Project Iceworm), an American attempt to set-up a major base in frozen Greenland with many nuclear missiles that could reach the USSR. K.R.T Quirion explains.

The PM-2A nuclear power plant. From 1960 until 1963, the electricity was provided by this portable nuclear reactor, known as PM-2A.

In 1959, Army surveyors began preparing for a new U.S. military station to be built on the Greenland icecap. It would come to be called Camp Century. The official statement claimed that it would be an experiment in constructing military facilities on the icecap. The Army would test various construction techniques under Arctic conditions, explore practical problems with a semi-mobile nuclear reactor, and support scientific experiments.

Publicly, Camp Century claimed to show how ordinary Americans could live and work in a remote location, and a veritable first-step in determining whether a viable moon colony could ever be maintained. Tunneling began in 1959 and went on for three years. Eventually, the underground facility would house sleeping quarters, laboratories, offices, a barbershop, laundry, library, and warm showers for 225 soldiers. The entire base was powered by a nuclear reactor that had been shipped in to provide electricity.[1]

Despite the public claim that Camp Century was nothing more than a “nuclear-powered Arctic research center,” the truth was more reminiscent of a James Bond film.[2]In 1997 the Danish Institute of International Affairs published a report titled Grønland under den kolde krig(Greenland during the Cold War), in which the contents of a newly declassified U.S. document were discussed.[3] This report outlined the existence of a top-secret plan by the U.S. Army to construct a massive nuclear missile facility under the Greenland Icecap. During the early 1960s, the Danish government had no idea that this strategic base was being constructed underneath their own sovereign soil. Plans for this base were kept secret from the Danes because at the time the Danish government supported the popular “no to nuclear weapons in Denmark” movement.[4] But, to those in the know, Camp Century was the home of “Operation Iceworm.”

Nuclear Facility Plans

In the early years of the Cold War, NATO relied almost entirely on the U.S. strategic nuclear arsenal to deter Warsaw Pact aggression. By the mid-1950s, the U.S. was struggling to meet the ever-escalating demands of its global war against the Soviet Union. NATO allies were demanding that the U.S. deploy nuclear forces in sufficient number and range to credibly deter a Soviet attack. In a 1960 report entitled the Strategic Value of the Greenland Icecap, the U.S. Army Engineer Studies Center described a plan to deploy 600 Mid-Range Ballistic Missiles (MRBMs) across 52,000 square miles of Greenland’s frozen ice sheet.[5]

The new two-stage “Iceman” missiles that army planners envisioned for “Operation Iceworm” had a range of 3,300 nautical miles. From its strategic location within the Arctic Circle, Camp Century and its retinue could cover 80% of all relevant Soviet targets.[6]Furthermore, because of its design and harsh climate, the base would be nearly invisible and penetrable only by ground forces or the most massive of thermonuclear assaults. Finally, as a safeguard, the missiles would be moved every few hours via a subterranean railway among 2,100 different launch sites and controlled by sixty launch control centers (LCCs) embedded in hardened bunkers.[7]

Accommodating the “Iceman” missiles and the 11,000-strong defense and support team needed to maintain them would require a massive expansion of Camp Century’s livable facilities. The Army calculated the price tag of “Operation Iceworm” as around $2.37 billion. Construction of the strategic facilities began as soon as tunneling started in 1959. 

Challenges

Despite initial success, the lynch pin of the entire facility, the subterranean railway that would transport the “Iceman” missiles, was found to be infeasible. After construction began it was found that the tunnel walls, made only of ice and snow, were in continual flux due to the natural shifting of the icecap. This constant movement caused the tunnels and trenches to narrow as their walls deformed, bulged, and settled. In some instances the tunnels collapsed entirely. These complications created a danger for Camp Century’s nuclear arsenal and made transportation on the missile train impossible.[8]Even the nuclear reactor, which provided electricity to the Camp, was in constant danger from the ice shifting. By the summer of 1962 the ceiling of the reactor room had dropped five feet and had to be lifted to avoid fatal contact with the reactor. Collapsing continued and the Army was forced to deactivate and remove the reaction chamber of the nuclear generator.[9]

Due to these complications, and a fierce inter-service rivalry for control of strategic nuclear assets, “Operation Iceworm” was abandoned in 1963 having never received any of its nuclear ordnance. Camp Century remained operational for a few more years as a summer research facility until it too was decommissioned in 1967. When the Army final left, minimal deconstruction and removal was conducted. Along with the facilities and transportation infrastructure, 200,000 liters of diesel fuel as well as other chemical, biological, and radiological wastes were left under the ice. [10]The Army abandoned Camp Century hoping that the remaining memory of “Operation Iceworm” would be “preserved for eternity” under the perpetual snowfall of the Greenland Icecap.[11]

Let us know what you think of Operation Iceworm below.

Now, you can read K.R.T Quirion’s recently published series on telegraphy in the US Civil War here.

[1]Petersen, Nikolaj, “The Iceman That Never Came,” Scandinavian Journal of History 33, No. 1 (2008): 75–98, https://doi.org/10.1080/03468750701449554, 78.

[2]Ibid., 75.

[3]Niiler, Eric, “When the Pentagon Dug Secret Cold War Ice Tunnels to Hide Nukes,” History.com, A&E Television Networks, March 27, 2019, https://www.history.com/news/project-iceworm-cold-war-nuclear-weapons-greenland.

[4]Nielsen, Kristian Hvidtfelt, and Henry Nielsen, Aarhus University, Centre for Science Studies, and Aarhus University, “How the US Built a Mysterious Military Camp under the Greenland Ice Sheet,” SNORDIC-FRONT, December 19, 2017. https://sciencenordic.com/denmark-forskerzonen-history/how-the-us-built-a-mysterious-military-camp-under-the-greenland-ice-sheet/1451993.

[5]Petersen, “The Iceman That Never Came,” 79.

[6]Ibid.

[7]Weiss, Erick D., “Cold War Under The Ice: The Army’s Bid for a Long-Range Nuclear Role, 1959-1963,” Journal of Cold War Studies, Vol. 3, No. 3, (Fall, 2001): 31-58, doi:10.1162/152039701750419501, 41.

[8]Niiler, “When the Pentagon Dug Secret Cold War Ice Tunnels to Hide Nukes.”

[9]Colgan, William, Horst Machguth, Mike Macferrin, Jeff D. Colgan, Dirk Can As, and Joseph A. Macgregor, “The Abandoned Ice Sheet Base at Camp Century, Greenland, in a Warming Climate,” Geophysical Research Letters

 43, No. 15 (April 2016): 8091-96, https://doi.org/10.1002/2016g1069688, 8091.

[10]Ibid., 8092.

[11]Ibid., 8091.

The Creation of a Modern Tsar: How Vladimir Putin Established Political Domination in Russia

Vladimir Putin has presided over Russia for more than twenty years. Here, Brenden Woldman returns to the site (a previous article from him on why the USSR collapsed is here) and in this extensive and thought-provoking piece, considers how Vladimir Putin came to dominate Russian politics. He considers how Putin has exploited terrorism, destabilized democracy, controlled the media, and arrested and even killed opposition.

Vladimir Putin in 1998, when he was Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) Director. Source: RIA Novosti archive, image #100306, http://visualrian.ru/ru/site/gallery/#100306 Digital / Цифра, available here.

Who decides the leaders of a country? The answer, according to those who live in the west, is simple: the people. Citizens have the inalienable right to decide who will lead their country through a fair, legal, and democratic process. This western belief in the voting process for representative government is a pillar for a successful democratic society. But what if a country falsely claims to be democratic? Who decides, then, the leaders of a country that pretends to be a country that is founded on democratic and republican principles? In the case of modern Russia, it is current President Vladimir Putin. 

In Russia, President Putin has an iron clasp grip on all aspects of Russian society, including the country’s political institutions. Director General of NTV media company Yevgeniy Kiselyev gives the most succinct way of understanding Putin’s control of Russia. Kiselyev believes that, “The president has different ideas to ours about what the state is and what its interests are. I think Putin is trying to imitate Louis XIV, who said ‘the state is me.’ Putin... made it clear that what he means by strengthening the state is strengthening his personal power.”[1]In short, Putin is the state and the state is Putin. This firm ideology that the former KGB agent has is a vital reason why he has undisputed power in Russia. However, it must be known that Putin’s current anaconda-like suffocation of Russia did not occur over night. 

When Boris Yeltsin became the first President of the Russian Federation and the face of the post-Soviet era after the fall of the U.S.S.R., he was greeted with much enthusiasm and support throughout Russia. Though beloved, the honeymoon phase between Yeltsin and the Russian people would not last. As the 1990s progressed, Yeltsin’s popularity would falter due to his inability to establish the new democratic Russian state as a major economic or political power. Also, the President’s warm, welcoming, and almost subservient attitude toward the west caused many Russians to view Yeltsin as a weak embarrassment. With Yeltsin’s influence slipping and his days numbered, a group of governors that made up nearly a quarter of the entire Russian Federation in the fall of 1999 wrote a letter to Yeltsin, pleading that to sustain power it was necessary to resign from the Presidency and transfer power over to newly appointed Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.[2]Yeltsin followed up on this idea, and on December 31, 1999 Vladimir Putin became the acting President of the Russian Federation. Yet it was far from guaranteed that Putin would be able to keep power for decades to come. 

As the new millennium came into fruition and the Yeltsin-led 1990s faded into the past, the newly crowned President-Tsar of Russia needed to secure his power fast. To do this, Vladimir Putin subsequently had to achieve four goals: exploit the fears of Chechen terrorism, control the media, strip away any democratic power or institution that could curb his ambitions, and imprison or kill oligarchs, journalists, political rivals, and any person that may be a threat to his reign. Putin has achieved supremacy in Russia. However, it did not occur overnight, as these four aspects were successfully executed over the course of a decade.

Exploiting Terrorism

Before Putin was President, the conflict in Chechnya was becoming more and more prevalent. The Second Chechen War began in August of 1999 when Yeltsin was still President. Between September 4thand 16th, unidentified terrorists bombed four apartment complexes in multiple Russian cities, including Moscow. The attacks led to the deaths of 293 people and injured 1,000 more.[3]The immediate, and initially the most logical, group to blame were Chechen rebels. 

However, upon further investigation of the bombings it became increasingly plausible that Chechnya was not responsible for the attacks. In fact, Chechnya did not take claim for the attacks, something that all terrorist groups usually do after a successful attack. Even more peculiar was that there was no solid evidence that connected the Chechen rebels to the attacks.[4]Moreover, a military operation on this scale was out of the realm of possibility from a logistical or strategic point of view even if Chechen terrorists wanted to attack. What evidence that wasfound did not connect the bombings to Chechnya. Instead, the evidence connected them to the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation, or FSB. Only Yeltsin and his cronies, which included Putin, were able to have the FSB coordinate the bombings. But why would Yeltsin and Putin support the killing of Russians? The Yeltsin administration believed that Russia could be unified in its hatred of Chechnya and terrorism while also boosting the appeal of Yeltsin’s successor Vladimir Putin.[5]This was not a far-fetched assumption either, as it became increasingly likely that Yeltsin, who had been in the pockets of oligarchs and gangsters, would do something so terrifyingly unethical to keep his inner circle in power.[6]   

Upon hearing the news of the bombings, newly appointed Prime Minister Putin had a firm response to the attacks stating that, “[Russia] will pursue the terrorists everywhere.”[7]Putin’s desire for violent revenge rang in the ears of the Russian citizenry. As a result, the second invasion of Chechnya was carried out more methodically and was seemingly more successful when comparing it to the first Chechen invasion on New Year’s Night in 1994-95, and Putin was given much of the credit for the initial victory. Due to this, the young Prime Minister’s popularity soared.[8]

With Yeltsin’s term coming to an end and a new President on the horizon, Putin was initially seen as a weak candidate to succeed Yeltsin. Shortly after his appointment as Prime Minister in August 1999, polls revealed that only 2 percent of the Russian populace favored Putin for the position of President.[9]However, after the “terrorist” attacks and Putin’s strong response to them coinciding with the patriotic enthusiasm that came from a new war, support for Putin rose to 21 percent in October and then 45 percent in November, which was far higher than any other candidate at that point.[10]This rise in popularity because of the attacks made Yeltsin’s decision all the easier and, on December 31, 1999, Boris Yeltsin resigned from office, allowing Putin to become President due to Russian law which permits the prime minister to become acting president, after the president resigns, for the rest of the term. 

By being one of the planners of the FSB terrorist bombings and blaming Chechnya for it, Vladimir Putin was able to manipulate the Russian populace into supporting him, as he portrayed himself as the strong, vengeful leader Russia needed in those troubling times, even though evidence shows that Putin was one of the people who helped plan and execute the attacks. Nevertheless, it is important to note that Putin was not the mastermind of the attacks. Instead, he was an important cog in the Yeltsin regime. This would not always be the case, as from this point forward everything that Putin does will come directly from him to solidify his place as supreme ruler of Russia.

With the terrorist attacks catapulting him into the spotlight and Yeltsin’s resignation, by the year 2000 Putin had become the second President of the Russian Federation and was popular for it. However, Putin never wanted to give up this power once achieving it. This leads to a major theme that will be seen throughout Russia in the twenty-first century, as Putin will begin to strip major democratic principles that are vital to a healthy democracy all for the purpose to keep him in power.

Destabilizing Democracy

Yeltsin was such a laughing stock by the time he resigned that Russians and westerners alike saw Putin with rose-colored glasses. Many began to believe that it was impossible for the new president to be any more embarrassing than Yeltsin. They were right in a way. Though Putin was not as prone to the frequent political gaffes that Yeltsin faced, the idealistic vision of Putin that many had quickly evaporated when the 2000 election saw Putin use dirty and illegal tactics to assure his victory. 

By the time of the election in March, Putin had been acting president for almost three months. A week before the election the Russian newspaper Kommersantpublished a leaked government document entitled ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation‘ that advocated the FSB to do Putin’s bidding, with the goal of allowing Putin to “control the political process” in Russia.[11]There was little debate against Kommersant’saccusations. Putin was using the FSB as his own “Praetorian Guard,” as the new President used the FSB to manipulate the Russian state and presidential process by making it more authoritarian. The document most damningly noted that Putin had a dream of “replacing the ‘self-regulating’ nature of a democratic, market-driven, and rule-by-law system with manual control from the top.”[12]Putin’s dream would quickly come to fruition.

Six days after he was inaugurated, Putin proposed a set of bills with aims of “strengthening vertical power”, which served as the beginning of his dismantlement of the Russian democratic government and the establishment of a Putin led autocracy.[13]By claiming that the autocratic tendencies were necessary for reinvigorating Russia as a global leader, bills were passed that replaced elected members of parliament with ones that were Putin approved, allowing elected governors to be removed from office by pseudo suspicions of misdoings without a trial, and permitting envoys that were appointed by the President to supervise elected legislatures and governors.[14]Autocratic bills like this were quickly passed through the Russian Duma without protest and the dismantlement of the Russian constitution began in an almost unrecognized fashion by the outside world. However, this would not be the only time that Putin would force through legislation that centralized his political power.

With reelection approaching in March 2004, President Putin had five opponents running to usurp him. To curb their intentions, Putin passed laws to hinder his opponent’s campaigns and break the spirit of the election process. The president passed a law that required campaigns to have a notary certify the presence and signatures of every person present at meetings where presidential candidates were nominated with a minimum of five hundred signatures needed, followed by the candidate needing two million signatures from the public a few weeks after to have the campaign be legal or risk disqualification. This was a tough enough task that was made more difficult, as signatures could be disqualified for spelling errors.[15]Those able to successfully qualify to run found it difficult to find companies to print their campaign material, air their commercials, or rent areas for campaign events, as it became increasingly clear that Putin and his inner circle had threatened any and all who would support opposition campaigns. One candidate, Sergei Glazyev, found it nearly impossible to find a printing company to take his campaign’s legal funds to print his flyers.[16]When he did find someone who was willing to let him hold a campaign event, the building where Glazyev was going to speak was suddenly raided by police due to a “bomb threat,” giving the police justification to kick everyone out of the building and evacuate the premises. Moreover, physical violence was either threatened or executed, as Glazyev’s campaign manager Yana Dubeykovskaya was once beaten, robbed, and had the brake lines to her car cut.[17]

Making the campaign process difficult for candidates was not enough for the ambitious Putin. To truly disrupt the spirit of democracy, Putin wanted to make the voting process difficult. International observers and independent Russian organizations outside of government control listed a plethora of voting violations that the Putin administration promoted. These transgressions included the deletion of over a million elderly people and others unlikely to vote from the record, effectively voiding their vote, the delivery of ballots that were prefilled to psychiatric wards, the allowance of precinct staff to go door to door in elderly homes with a mobile ballot box to collect votes for Putin and disregard ones for other candidates, and managers and school officials were blackmailing staff and parents to vote for Putin or risk termination.[18]These neo-Soviet style tactics of maintaining the “democratic” process of Putin’s Russia was like an iceberg. On the surface there was no obvious or violent form of voter suppression, but below the surface was a widespread conspiracy of democratic repression. Legal or not, the 2004 election came and went, and with 71% of the vote, Putin won the presidency.

Soon after he began his second term, Putin announced that governors and the mayor of Moscow were no longer able to be elected by the people. Instead, Putin would appoint them personally. As well, the lower house of the Duma would no longer be decided by a direct election, with Russian citizens being given the right to vote for a party and Putin filling in the vacated seats with members that were a part of that party. This ruling forced all political parties to re-register, and many would be eliminated in the process. Moreover, all legislation proposed by the lower house of the Duma would be vetted by a public chamber that was appointed by Putin. All these changes became law rather quickly, and by the end of 2004 the only federal-level public official who was directly elected was Putin himself.[19]

When his second term ended in 2008, Putin found a simple but effective way to go around the Russian Constitution to keep himself in power. Due to the Russian Constitution forbidding the President to rule for more than two consecutive terms, Putin relinquished his power to his hand-picked successor Dmitry Medvedev (with Putin using illegal election tactics to get Medvedev elected), followed by Medvedev appointing Putin as prime minister, allowing the former president to become “the puppet master of Russia.” Following the whims of his overlord, Medvedev introduced a measure that would extend presidential terms from four to six years.[20]If executed correctly, Putin planned for Medvedev to be a “manchurian president,” all the while allowing himself to pull the strings behind the scenes like a mafia Godfather. This plan worked to perfection. After one term in office Medvedev did not seek to run for a second term, instead endorsing Putin to return to the presidency in 2012. This act subsequently established a trend that not only could legally keep Putin in power for the rest of his life, but also effectively dismantle any remnants of a democratic system that were left in Russia.

Controlling the Media

It is almost cliché to say that a free press is the most dangerous opponent to an autocratic system, as the institution can inform the public on the misdeeds of the government. However, what happens when the leader of an autocracy establishes a monopoly on media outlets? In Putin’s Russia, it allows the free press to transform into a state-run institution. 

In the days leading to the 2000 election, a key component to Putin’s ‘Reform of the Administration of the President of the Russian Federation’ was for the FSB to not only “control the political process” but specifically silence opposition media by “driving them to financial crisis.”[21]Putin knew the importance of controlling media and the television market since the medium helped create the positive image that many within Russia had of him after Yeltsin resigned. Putin knew the medium could turn on him and quickly end his political career if the industry was left unchecked.

To create a state-run monopoly of media Putin used personal vendettas against those who opposed him to drive his actions. Putin summoned Boris Berezovsky, the would-be “kingmaker” of Russian politics and head of one of Russia’s largest news and television networks Channel One, and tried to persuade him to handover his majority shares to the Russian government.[22]If Berezovsky did not willingly give up his shares, Putin implied that he would blackmail Berezovsky into giving him the control of Channel One and subsequently would be imprisoned for his refusal to comply.[23]The oligarch refused, knowing that crossing Putin in this manner would lead to his arrest. Days after his meeting with the President, Berezovsky fled to Great Britain. Soon enough, a warrant was out for Berezovsky’s arrest in Russia, forcing him to surrender his shares in Channel One.[24]

This kind of “thuggish” behavior to acquire media shares was not unique to Berezovsky and Channel One. The first attack was aimed at anti-Putin media mogul and owner of news channel NTV and newspaper Sevodnya Vladimir Gusinskiy. Gusinskiy and his company had a history of producing anti-Putin rhetoric, including the airing of a documentary about the apartment building explosions two days prior in the 2000 election.[25]This negative portrayal of Putin would not go unnoticed. On May 11, 2000, Gusinsky’s Media-Most company headquarters were raided by government officials and Gusinskiy was arrested a month later.[26]From prison, Gusinskiy made the dramatic declaration that Putin had, “begun the move toward the creation of a totalitarian regime.”[27]Nonetheless, in a deal that would drop all criminal charges and let him flee the country unharmed, Gusinskiy agreed to sell his shares in NTV and renounce all statements or information that would be considered to undermine the Putin government and the Russian Federation. Though Gusinskiy was given his freedom, by April 2001 the Russian state had majority control of Gusinskiy’s media assets, as the old staff of NTV and Media-Most were replaced with Putin and state approved journalists and commentators.[28]

In quick and decisive actions, Putin was able to force two of Russia’s wealthiest men, and his biggest threats, into self-exile while also stripping any wealth and influence that Gusinskiy and Berezovsky had within Russia. This took all of three months to achieve after he was inaugurated. Alas, the Putin led government was able to gain complete control of the three largest federal television networks.[29]Without any opposition networks that could reach the masses, Putin was now able to manipulate the media to unanimously presenting him and his policies in a positive light.

Arresting and Killing Opposition

What is most famous, and heinous, of Putin’s tactics to solidify his power is his tendency to imprison or murder those who oppose him. Putin got this reputation of being a thug by his own doing, as he preferred to be portrayed as a brute above all else.[30]A part of his thuggish reputation comes from his relationship with oligarchs. However, Putin is not a crusader against oligarchs for moral reasons. For the most part, Putin continues to maintain a relatively warm relationship with oligarchs due to his plan to transform the traditional oligarchic independent system into one that is more accustomed to a corporate structure, with the oligarchs and their industries serving the state.[31]In short, the president wants the oligarchs to be under him, allowing the former laissez-faire style of capitalist industry to be under the control of Putin. However, those oligarchs who do not comply will face devastating consequences.

As previously noted, oligarchs like Gusinsky and Berezovsky were forced to flee Russia or face imprisonment. However, they were not the only ones to be treated to this fate. For example, Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the richest man in Russia in the early 2000s. Yet when he fell out of favor with Putin due to his independent and vocal spirit, he was quickly arrested on charges of tax evasion. This may have been the official reason for the arrest but, as economic advisor to Putin Andrei Illarionov believes, Khodorkovsky, “was-and remains-an independent human being. Because he refused to bend. Because he remained a free man. This state punishes people for being independent.”[32]Russians, however, saw this act as Putin breaking the oligarchic system for the good of the people. In truth, Putin did not want to break the oligarchic system, but tame it. Khodorkovsky got out of line and, as a result, was imprisoned for it. To make matters worse for Khodorkovsky, Putin froze all of his assets and the state took control of his oil company Yukos, one of the largest and most successful companies in Russia. Other oligarchs took note: if they wanted to keep their wealth and assets, they had to unabashedly follow Putin’s demands. 

However, there have been cases where threats of imprisonment were not sufficient enough. Putin’s reputation as a “mafia president” comes less from psychological intimidation but through the killing of oppositional forces. Most famous, was the case of Alexander Litvinenko. Litvinenko, a former FSB officer who fled to England, was one of Putin’s most vocal critics. He was considered the “most prominent and ebullient” of Putin’s critics, as his “denunciations were fierce.”[33]The culmination of his discontent toward Putin came from the publication of his book ‘Blowing Up Russia‘ which claimed that Putin was one of the planners of the 1999 apartment bombings and that Chechnya was falsely blamed.[34]Not pleased by such vocal opposition, Putin approved the assassination of Litvinenko. On November 23, 2006 Alexander Litvinenko died mysteriously from radiation poisoning in London.[35]

Litvinenko, unfortunately, was not the only one to be murdered due to their opposition to Putin. Sergei Yushenkov, a politician who identified as a liberal and who campaigned for a free market economy, democratic reforms, and higher standards of human rights in Russia, was one of Putin’s most persistent and popular objectors. On April 17, 2003, mere hours after registering his political party to participate in the December 2003 parliamentary elections, Yushenkov was shot four times in the chest and died.[36]A few years prior, Anatoly Sobchak, the first democratically elected mayor of St. Petersburg and co-author of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, was a popular critic of the president, going so far as to call him “the new Stalin.”[37]He mysteriously died in a private hotel on February 20, 2000. As recently as 2015 there was the assassination of Boris Nemstov, a liberal politician and outspoken critic of Putin’s, who was shot four times in the back and died on the Bolshoy Moskvoretsky Bridge in Moscow. Those brave politicians who were willing to oppose Putin put their life at risk, as Putin is all too willing to kill political opponents.

The only group that are at greater risk of being murdered by Putin then politicians are journalists. Publishing and producing critical material against Putin is an unwritten high crime that could lead the author to the same fate of Alexander Litvinenko. Anna Politkovskaya tragically found this to be the case. Politkovskaya, a human rights activist and writer who authored several books criticizing Putin, was shot in the elevator of her apartment building in 2006. As well, Yuri Shchekochikhin, an investigative journalist who made his name by writing and campaigning against organized crime and corruption in Russia, found the same fate three years prior. In July 2003 he mysteriously and suddenly died in Moscow, with claims (and evidence) that he was poisoned. Finally, there is Marina Litvinovich, a journalist and aid to Putin’s political rival Garry Kasparov, who regularly condemned the president. Leaving her Moscow office in March 2006, Litvinovich was savagely attacked. She was hit several times in the head with a blunt object and was left for dead. After spending several hours in intensive care, Litvinovich miraculously survived. But Putin’s strategy for state terror scared off many opposition journalists who wanted to write against Putin. It was better to play along with Putin then die.[38]

The politicians, journalists, and oligarchs that are discussed here are only some of those who were affected by Putin’s reign, as many more have been influenced in how they operate within their occupation due to the president’s use of state terror. Freedom of speech has effectively been censored unofficially, as the Sword of Damocles lays right above the heads of people of influence. Whether a person is a rich oligarch, opposition political opponent, or a critical journalist, one thing was for certain. If someone wanted to succeed in their field they had to work for Putin. If they opposed the former KGB agent, they risked imprisonment or even death.

Conclusion

When the Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 there was much optimism in the air. The opportunity for a better, freer Russia was on the horizon. However, these dreams would remain only that, a dream. A decade after the collapse of the Soviet empire, Vladimir Putin became president. Ever since he was granted the presidency by Yeltsin, Putin has done everything possible to keep his power from slipping from his grasp. To do this Putin had to go against the optimistic, democratic ideals that were found in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse. From murdering opponents and imprisoning oligarchs to taking their assets and controlling media enterprises, dismantling any remnants of a democratic state, and going so far to commit tragedies on his people to further his gains, one thing about Putin is clear: he will stop at nothing to keep his control on Russia. Unfortunately, there is no end of the Putin regime in sight. In January 2020, Putin’s liquidation of the Russian Duma and the subsequent resignation of current Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev, has left the control of Russia squarely in the hands of Vladimir Putin.  By using all of these different strategies to keep power, Putin has undisputed rule over his country, and has successfully became the “neo-Tsar” of Russia.     

What do you think of Vladimir Putin? Let us know below.

You can also read Brenden’s past articles on Russian history for the site: Why did the USSR collapse? (here) and Peter the Great’s visit to England (here).

[1]Karen Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? (Simon & Schuster, 2015), 276.

[2]Masha Gessen, The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin (New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014), 26.

[3]David Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putin (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 8.

[4]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 9.

[5]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 42.

[6]Satter, The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep, 19.

[7]Ibid., 8.

[8]Ibid., 19.

[9]Ibid., 20.

[10]Ibid., 20.

[11]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[12]Ibid., 324.

[13]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 181.

[14]Ibid., 181.

[15]Ibid., 183-184.

[16]Ibid., 185.

[17]Ibid., 185-186.

[18]Ibid., 184-185.

[19]Ibid., 190.

[20]Ibid., 265.

[21]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 273.

[22]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 173.

[23]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 289.

[24]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 174.

[25]Ibid., 161.

[26]Dawisha, Putin’s Kleptocracy, 274.

[27]Ibid., 274.

[28]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 164. 

[29]Ibid., 174.

[30]Ibid., 145.

[31]Ibid., 324.

[32]Ibid., 243.

[33]Robert Owen, The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, House of Commons, 2016, https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf, 56.

[34]Ibid., 57.

[35]Ibid., 244.

[36]Gessen, The Man Without a Face, 129.

[37]Ibid.,142.

[38]Ibid.,218-226. 

Bibliography

Dawisha, Karen. Putin’s Kleptocracy: Who Owns Russia? Simon & Schuster, 2015.

Gessen, Masha. The Man Without a Face: The Unlikely Rise of Vladimir Putin. New York, NY: Riverhead Books, 2014.

Owen, Robert. The Litvinenko Inquiry: Report into the death of Alexander Litvinenko, January 2016, 

Presented to Parliament pursuant to Section 26 of the Inquiries Act 2005. Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed on 21 January 2016. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/493860/The-Litvinenko-Inquiry-H-C-695-web.pdf

Satter, David. The Less You Know, The Better You Sleep: Russia’s Road to Terror and Dictatorship Under Yeltsin and Putting. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017.

The Controversial Career of the First Female US Senator: Rebecca Latimer Felton

In my history classes at Texas A&M University-Commerce, I enjoy talking about strong women in American history who championed for women’s rights. I consider Rebecca Latimer Felton (b. 1835) to be one of these powerful women. Felton became the oldest freshman senator  - and first female senator - at eighty-seven years old in 1922. In this article I analyze the political career of Rebecca Felton—a patriotic and successful, yet highly controversial legislator in the Progressive Era. 

Joshua V. Chanin explains.

Rebecca Felton in later life.

Political Beginnings 

Rebecca was unlike her boisterous peers on the playground, instead enjoying quieter, mature activities such as reading newspapers and partaking in dinner conversations on the state of American politics. Since her father was a Whig, young Rebecca naturally followed suite and devoted herself to reading dense material written by several prolific Whig leaders, including Henry Clay and Millard Fillmore. “I confess to a real liking for political questions. It was my habit for many years to keep up with the progress of great questions in the national congress and I found interest and food for thought in the daily, but dull, congressional record.” She later attested that Henry Clay was the greatest man in the United States in the nineteenth century. 

One of her first major political experiences was the 1844 presidential election between Henry Clay and James K. Polk. Rebecca, at age nine, “read the newspapers very diligently” and, like others among the higher social class, firmly believed that “Henry Clay’s election was a forgone conclusion. His ability as a statesman was so transcendent; defeat was unthinkable…” However, the pollsters were wrong, and Polk easily won the political race, capturing 170 electoral votes to Clay’s 105. Rebecca later recalled the political shockwaves in the South following the 1844 election: “It was a terrible affair—it ruptured friendships, split up neighborhoods and got among church people.” Rebecca’s political upbringing allowed the young girl to absorb a distinct preview of the life she would be drawn to in the future—a life of activism and unforeseen outcomes.

Standing at the Side

Amid an education at Madison Female College and responsibilities at the family plantation in Cartersville, Georgia, Rebecca Latimer fell in love with Dr. William Harrell Felton, a southern minister. The couple wed in October 1853. Political ambitions were put aside as Rebecca Felton settled into domesticity where she completed chores and tendered to five children—one of whom, Howard Erwin Felton, survived childhood. She was one among the many women in the South prior to the Civil War who did not have a public voice and was obligated to stand at the side of their husband. Rebecca Felton not only supported her spouse in his expansive political career in Georgia’s House of Representatives and the national House, she gradually honed her own political skills by polishing his speeches and helping draft bills—William Felton’s constituents often bragged that they were getting two politicians for the price of one. At first Rebecca Felton believed her career was tied to her husband, however, she strategically used her husband’s position as a springboard for her future roles. And her visibility as a champion for public education—interest in this subject increased after the Felton’s opened Felton Academy following the Civil War—and in women’s suffrage grew to immense capacities in the latter decades of the nineteenth century.

A Patriot

Like many Southerners during the Civil War, Felton did not label herself as a “rebel” nor a “secessionist.” Instead, she viewed herself as a patriot, a defender of Southern values, and a proud citizen of Georgia: “I loved my country. No heart ever was more loyal to the South and Southern honor.” Felton, among many in this region, were angry at the 1860 presidential election results and terrified that Abraham Lincoln, a Republican who had flirted with the idea of stopping the spread of slavery in the West, would abolish the slave trade and forcefully drive the Southern economy to a grinding halt. Thus, southerners kept a watchful eye for hostile political opponents and Union spies. Felton wrote about the hidden enemy in a diary: “..Danger lurked in every passing breeze and was concealed under every hasty legislative act of our political war leaders.” To combat this enemy fear, it was natural for southerners to adopt a patriotic tone in life and demonstrate fierce nationalism. 

Rebecca Felton’s love for the South and its common Confederate sympathizers during the war is evident in her 1911 memoirs: “Such heroism was unexemplified! The South has reason to be proud of its soldiers and its women. Their story of courage will bear repeating, because it was genuine, sincere and patriotic. Like all other military achievements, the officers earn and receive all the honors of war, but it was the plain soldiers and true-hearted women of the defunct Confederacy who deserve the medals of merit.” When the Confederate government ceased operations and fled Richmond in April 1865, many supporters blamed Confederate President Jefferson Davis for the country’s economic and political failures. Instead, Felton consistently defended the president’s policies, heeding to the fact that Davis had a herculean undertaking at the start of the war: “He was not faultless—he had many and violent enemies…he was victimized by newspaper reporters…he gave it the best that was in him—and went down with it in defeat.” Although patriotism plays a key role in fueling a politician’s agenda and despite being a Dixie woman of her time, Felton’s admiration for Southern racial politics cannot be ignored.

Racial Politics

Felton’s inhumane racial views coincided with her political career. She openly shunned Native Americans and called them “savages,” a label that presumably had been in her vocabulary since she was a young child when her mother occasionally told her bedside stories of Native-led massacres against the white man. Moreover, Felton promoted white supremacism by partaking in regional Ku Klux Klan activities and dissuading her husband’s political colleagues to vote on bills that favored more liberties for African Americans; she believed that more money spent on black education would result in more black crimes in neighborhoods, and voting rights for black women would lead directly to the rape of white women. Felton was eager to spread her nauseating racial beliefs to mass audiences and publicly mock the “half-civilized gorillas,” as she tried to do at the 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago where she proposed a southern history exhibit that featured “A cabin and real colored folk making mats, shuck collars, and baskets—a woman to spin and card cotton—and another to play banjo and show the actual life of slave—not the Uncle Tom sort.” To the relief of some, the suggested slave exhibit never came to fruition. 

During a bloody time where racial violence was already prevalent in the South, Rebecca Felton advocated for more lynchings in Georgia at the turn of the twentieth century. She wanted the rugged noose to play a fixed role in Southern society, as evident by an explicit diary entry dated on August 11, 1897: “When there is not enough religion in the pulpit to organize a crusade against sin; nor justice in the court house to promptly punish crime; nor manhood enough in the nation to put a sheltering arm about inonce and virtue—if it needs lynching to protect woman’s dearest possession from the ravening human beasts—then I say lynch, a thousand times a week if necessary.” Following the burning of Sam Hose, a black man falsely accused of raping a white woman, by a white mob in Georgia’s Coweta County in April 1899—where civilians sold parts of Hose’s body as souvenirs—Felton vocally made it known that Hose was a “beast” who was no better than a rabid dog. Not only was she an aggressive advocate of racial prejudice, Felton condemned anyone who dared to question the South’s racial practices. When Andrew Sledd, professor of Biblical Studies at Emory University, published an article in the Atlantic Monthlyin July 1902 criticizing the lynchings of black men, Felton played an instrumental role in forcing Emory’s administration to terminate Sledd for improper behavior and stoked public anger towards the professor through a series of editorial attacks in the Atlanta Constitution. Felton’s racial views were perpetual as she treaded lightly with progressive politics and stayed true to antiquated Southern beliefs—Felton, having possessed slaves since she was eighteen years old, was the last member of either house of Congress to have been a slave owner. 

U.S. Senator

The peak of Rebecca Felton’s political career was her one-day appointment to the United States Senate between November 21-22, 1922. A Senate seat suddenly became vacant on September 26, 1922, following the death of Thomas E. Watson. Since Georgia Governor Thomas W. Hardwick wanted to win the November special election for the seat and appease the women voters who were displeased on his opposition to the Nineteenth Amendment, he strategically decided to appoint Felton as Watson’s temporary replacement on October 3. Despite the fact that Congress was not expected to reconvene until the end of November—President Warren Harding persuaded Congress to meet earlier due to an influx of letters from Felton’s supporters requesting the woman to take the oath of office—Walter F. George, the special election winner, chose to step aside and allow Felton to be sworn in as the nation’s first woman senator on November 21. The symbolic gesture to permit a female to sit in one of the highest political chairs in the United States (even just for a day) was a major political victory for white women.

Equal Partners

Felton did not have the opportunity to support or challenge any legislation in the Senate since she only served for one day. However, in front of a filled senate chamber, Felton delivered a speech to her male peers on November 22, pronouncing the increasing influence women had in 1920s national politics: “When women of the country come in and sit with you, though there may be but very few in the next few years, I pledge you that you will get ability, you will get integrity of purpose, you will get exalted patriotism, and you will get unstinted usefulness.” The reactions in the chamber after the address varied. Felton wrote that some of the gentlemen “Seemed to be a little bit hysterical, but most of them occupied their time looking at the ceiling.” Felton’s triumphant exit from the Senate reinforced the suffrage message she had been campaigning about for decades. Felton had been an outspoken leader in the Women’s Christian Temperance Union since 1886 and had articulated the ideas of white women having more decision-making power in the home, acquiring education beyond basic schooling, and enjoying more influence over their children. 

Felton also had tirelessly championed for white women’s suffrage during her career—she ferociously debated anti-suffragist Mildred Lewis Rutherford in 1915. Although the suffrage marches in the 1910s propelled the government to pass the Nineteenth Amendment, the Georgia Legislature was the first state to reject the amendment on July 24, 1919. In retaliation, Felton criticized the hypocrisy of southern gentlemen who boasted about their chivalry but opposed women’s rights: “In truth, character seemed to have gone out of politics…The moral salt of character could not be rescued, inside the party, controlled by such machinery…these men in the saddle were full, fat and saucy!” Thus, white women in Georgia were not allowed to vote in the 1920 presidential election, having to wait until the 1922 congressional elections. 

Conclusion

Following an active career in politics—behind and in front of the curtain—Felton returned home to lecture at public libraries and write books; she died in Atlanta in January 1930. Senator George remarked that “All in all she [Felton] must be grouped among the great women of her time.” Despite her political success and critical efforts to advance the women’s suffrage movement, Rebecca Felton was unquestionably a flawed character, rooted in her discriminating beliefs on race and southern prejudice.

What do you think of Rebecca Felton? Let us know below.

References

Felton, Rebecca L. Country Life in Georgia in the Days of my Youth. Atlanta, GA: The Index Printing Company, 1919. 

Felton, Rebecca L. My Memoirs of Georgia Politics. Atlanta, GA: The Index Printing Company, 1911. 

Helms, Amanda. ““Poor forsaken colored girls:” Rebecca Latimer Felton, White Supremacy, and Prison Reform, 1896-1900.”  M.A. Thesis, DePaul University, 2013. 

Staman, A. Louise. Loosening Corsets: The Heroic Life of Georgia’s Feisty Mrs. Felton, First Woman Senator of the United States.Macon, GA: Tiger Iron Press, 2006. 

Talmadge, John E. Rebecca Latimer Felton: Nine Stormy Decades. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1960. 

Whites, LeeAnn. “Rebecca Latimer Felton and the Wife’s Farm: The Class and Racial Politics of Gender Reform.” Georgia Historical Quarterly76 (1992): 354-372.

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 4 – How the War Impacted Germany

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers how the war ended, how Germany got the blame for the war, and the lasting impact in Germany.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here, part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here, and part 3 on the roles of the Great European Powers in the build-up to war here.

The Signing of Peace in the Hall of Mirrors, Versailles 1919.

Welcome back! We’ve covered a good deal of information during he first three parts of just how the world spiraled into chaos in 1914. But now the answer to the question that brought us here. Why did Germany get the blame? After all, the conflict would not have occurred without the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. He wasn’t even German, but Austrian. And what about those Austrians? Shouldn’t they carry some of this blame? They were the ones who wanted to fight in the first place. Germany had no direct reason to be involved other than having a treaty of military aid to Austria. 

So besides all that, let’s start with the most obvious reason: They were the first to invade anyone. Up until they crossed into Belgium in August 1914, no one had fired a shot, and no one had really believed that hostilities were that far gone. Things could have cooled, especially with Great Britain, if Germany had only got out of its own way. Arrogance and their determination at being seen as a major player is what started the war.

The War’s Progress

As the war progressed its long four-year ordeal, Germany, along with the rest of the Central Powers (that also included the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria, who need their story told all on its own), began to crumble under the weight of starving troops, starving populations, and radical ideals bubbling to the surface of their cities. In 1917, Germany sent for a secret weapon to knock one of the fronts off its back. They chose the Eastern Front because Russia was simmering with revolution. That weapon was Vladimir Lenin. They paid his passage to Russia, arriving from exile like a missing hero ready to take the lead. By the end of 1917, Germany has knocked Russia out of the war by using the cries of revolution to do it. 

In Austria, things were going bad to worse. In 1916, the old Emperor Franz Josef died. His successor was the great nephew of the Emperor’s brother. Charles I, also known as Karl IV (in Hungary), became the ruler of the country at a time when change was a dangerous game. He would only be emperor for two years before abdicating his powers and abolishing the monarchy. The young King himself would be dead within 4 years of the war’s end. With the end of Austria-Hungary the land that made up the country was officially split. Austria became its own country and so did Hungary.

The Ottoman Empire

Of the other members of the Central Powers, the Ottoman Empire (known at the time as ‘the old man of Europe’ because they had been around since 1453) also came to a close. The sultan was deposed, although he had been nothing but a figurehead for quite some time. In fact in 1918 the Ottomans were forced to give up after the armistice between Bulgaria and the Allies. Suddenly the Ottomans had no help from them, Austria-Hungary had already begun to disintegrate, and Germany no longer had the manpower to send relief.  The Ottoman Empire signed its own armistice with Great Britain in October of 1918, just one month before the official end to the war.

In its peace terms, the Ottoman Empire was to be occupied by French, Italian, and British troops. It also stipulated that the Ottoman Empire be carved up into smaller countries; effectively ending the country as a whole. The area known as the Ottoman Empire became separate countries; including Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, the boundary lines of Palestine, and the preliminary decisions of establishing land for a Jewish state. Turkey would end up changing their capital’s name from Constantinople to Istanbul.

Meanwhile, still in a position of power, the generals of Germany were beginning to see the unrest in their troops. Before long it becomes apparent that they had lost all control of their armies, and the rise of democracy became the voice of the people. While trying to salvage some remnant of the country, Kaiser Wilhelm was forced to abdicate the throne. But, unlike Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire, Germany did not cease to exist. The country remained unified but was now a democracy. Their elective body became known as the Weimar Republic, had control over the country and helped negotiate the ending of the war. This is why Germany is blamed. Solely for the reason of ‘last country standing.’ The season of revolution arrived and in its ruins only Germany, for the most part, remained intact. I believe had any one of the other belligerents, Austria-Hungary or the Ottoman Empire been left with some power, the blame would have been split. Since neither country existed anymore, combined with the desire to teach Germany a lesson, is how this blame came to pass. 

Accepting Terms

On a train near one of the battlefields, the representatives of the new Germany Republic were forced to sign the official Armistice. Later on at the official signing of the Treaty of Versailles they were given no chance to negotiate the terms of the treaty. All the decisions were made by the victors, including a rather smug France who implored the peace talks be decided in Paris to begin with. This brought rise to the belief that those who signed for Germany were no more than traitors to their country. Hitler used parts of this to imply that Jewish politicians were to blame for surrendering so easily.

The terms of the treaty were as follows: German land was handed over to other countries. France acquired the Rhineland, and additional lands were split between Denmark, Belgium, and Czechoslovakia. The bulk of the land was given to the newly formed country of Poland; and any colonies that Germany had were also divided up amongst the allies. From a military perspective the treaty stipulated that the army be reduced to 100,000 men, and all remaining tanks were to be destroyed. The Air Force was dismantled and any German U-Boats were to be destroyed. Essentially the country was gutted and stripped of everything that made them proud.

The final terms of the treaty were the worst of all. Germany was ordered to repay the war debt that had accumulated over the course of the war. They were charged 132 Billion Gold Marks, with a requirement of 50 Billion to be paid in full. If we adjusted for inflation, that would be $393.6 billion dollars (using the year 2005 as a point of reference). This threw the country into shambles. The citizens had lost all faith and credibility in the Monarchy and the military. While the war started with the Kaiser playing an active role in the planning and decision making, by its end he had been completely in the dark as to what was actually happening in his own country. The two generals who essentially ran the country during this time were Erich Ludendorff and Paul von Hindenberg. Of these two, you could argue that Ludendorff was more responsible for decisions with a warped sense of reality to the loyalty of the German people and their troops.

Germany Post-war

With the Weimar Republic formed, Germany began elections under a new democracy and the former Kaiser went into exile. He ended up living the rest of his life in the Netherlands. He always thought that one day he’d return to his post but it never came. He sadly had hopes that with Hitler’s rise, he would return to prominence. But like so many others, he too was placed under Nazi Occupation in the last years of his life. 

The new government began paying the war debt immediately. Then when Hitler rose to power in the 1930s he ordered the debt not to be paid. The country would not begin to pay that debt again until after WW2. The total war debt would not be paid in full until the year 2010, some 92 years since its enforcement.

So what are your thoughts? Does Germany deserve the blame? Or is the perception of their guilt clouded by revisionist history? It’s a debate that will probably go on forever. The only thing we can all agree with is that the end of the war in 1918 was not a real peace treaty; it was merely an agreement to stop fighting - placing a band-aid on the sore spot to be dealt with at another time. Do you think if those who signed the armistice of 1918 would have done something different, if they knew what was to come within 20 years? We’ll never know.

Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 3 – Ever Greater Tensions in Europe

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers the roles of Russia, Germany, France, and Britain prior to war breaking out in August 1914.

Part 1 in the series is on the decades leading up to World War One is here and part 2 on the role of Austria-Hungary in the outbreak of war here.

German troops marching through Blankenberge, Belgium in World War I.

We ended part two with Austria beginning to mobilize towards war. The generals had a plan; and sad to say it’s probably the most flawed war plan of all time. Their plan was based on a six-week timeline. In that time they planned to invade Serbia, destroy it, and subsequently conquer it. Anyone else see a problem with this plan? Its ambitious sure, it may even be a feeling of confidence. But any confidence Austria had is sheer cockiness. Let us face it, Austria has always wanted the area that makes up Serbia and needed a reason to go in and take it. The Archduke’s death allowed this to happen.

There is a truth to what is really going on in Austria. The last time the country was at war, was 48 years prior in 1866. Between then and now, there is no definitive armed force. The would be soldiers were actually farmers and industry workers – these soldiers weren’t even alive the last time war came to their homes. Right off the back Austria needed to train soldiers and quickly. But that’s not the only reality they hadn’t faced. The railroad system had not been tended to in years, and there were areas across the country that still didn’t have rail tracks at all. The ones that remained had not been tended to in years. Lastly, there were the ranking members of armed forces - these men were veteran soldiers. They were also overly confident. But these were also men who fought 48 years before. Their tactics and plans and approaches were all outdated. Their choices in formations and the use of cavalries weren’t feasible any longer.  

With all these issues and preparation for war, they faced one more issue. The timing of the escalating conflict had occurred in the middle of the farming harvest for the year. So now not only did they need to train soldiers, update railway systems, and plan with outdated military resources, but they also had to wait for those farmers to finish their harvest. This is why the plan of six weeks was fundamentally flawed. They’d need six weeks to take care of the issues they have and then prepare for war. In short, it was an unrealistic plan. 

Russian Action

Meanwhile, over in Russia, the Tsar had some choices to make. He knew that if Austria mobilized her army that Germany would too. Germany had a border with Russia; which increases the chances of conflict at that border. There was also the relationship with Serbia. There was no formal agreement in place like Belgium had with Britain. Either way, the tsar felt that there was some level of protection he should give to help the Serbs. He decided to mobilize. 

In terms of preparedness, Russia was like Austria; the only caveat is that they did not have a timeline of how events were to play out. They too had outdated rail systems, farmers that needed to be trained as soldiers and commanders overly confident in the power of what the country can muster in a crisis. Russia is the largest country on earth, and with that distinction comes another: the largest army in the world. But the number of men cannot be successful if they were beaten by technological advancements. 

Back in the late 19th century Russia had a spat with Japan. This conflict would become known as the Russo-Japanese War. Other powers in Europe assumed that any ‘civilized’ country could easily beat a country that is little more than an island chain. Well good thing no one bet on the matchup because Japan won the war. Their win sent shockwaves through Europe. The war revealed to the world two dark truths of Russia: that their army could not be controlled, and there was an uneasy resentfulness of the monarchy. 1905 was a year that had handed a warning in another way - it gave the royal family a warning that the Russian people were not happy. 

No one could understand how a country as large and as populated as Russia could lose a war in such a way. The reasons lay in the lack of training we mentioned above as well as technology advancements elsewhere. But there was also the issue of transportation. The country probably had a worse rail system than Austria did. In fact, at the time, the United States had more railway systems than Russia had ever put down. 

Military Commanders in Russia were not appointed based on experience. It was a society of ‘who knows who’ aristocracy that paid little attention to threats facing the country. That’s not to say that all positions were based on who you knew; there were a few ranks that required military experience but they were far and few. The commanders of the war would make decisions that had major repercussions across the country during the war years. These actions only added to the fuel that was the Russian Revolution in 1917. 

German Ultimatum

Now that Russia had mobilized, Germany sent an ultimatum: Either stop the preparations or they would be forced to mobilize their forces. While the official message was clear, what was not is the relationship between their respective heads of state. Kaiser Wilhelm and Tsar Nicholas were third cousins; both sharing the same great great grandfather Peter I of Russia. The two began writing to each other in hopes of coming to some kind of agreement. The letters, later known as the “Willy-Nicky correspondence” did not have the result either of them wanted. The reason being that by now the decision making was well out of their hands - generals, prime ministers, and other officials were now calling the shots. 

Seeing how the letters did nothing to soothe the situation, and with Russia concerned over her ability to succeed in another war, Russia made a few calls to their ally France. The Franco-Russian Alliance was essentially a military agreement between the two nations. With Germany gaining strength in the late 19th century both countries found it needed to align with each other in the event of conflict. Now with Germany giving ultimatums, Russia activated the alliance with France. 

France up until this point had been waiting in the wings. The government had been paying attention to the events knowing that this may be the chance to get a little revenge on Germany. When Russia called on France they are all for it. The territories they lost in the Franco-Prussian War were still a sore spot and they wanted that land back. 

Escalating Tensions

Lets stop and recap for a second. Two sides have now formed: Germany and Austria-Hungary versus Serbia, Russia, and now France. If you looked at a map, or even from space that is a solid chunk of Europe and part of Asia. This is escalating, but at the level of the commanders and leaders, it's still not apparent that it will end in war. 

Germany realized that with France to its west and Russia to its east they were looking at a two front conflict. On one point they were determined to finish off France. Russia they thought could be dealt with later. This is where their plan forms to deal with both countries. As long as they could take out one of them first before either is ready, they had a shot of winning. This plan looked great on paper, but was not fully investigated. The German plan was to invade one of them, and take them out. This way a two front conflict becomes one. In looking at their options, Germany chose France to invade first because they assumed that it would take Russia longer to mobilize its forces. In that time it was theorized they could eliminate France before Russia could come with aid. 

So France was the first step. It would not be an easy approach either. Commanders went over all possible points of entry to invade France. Only one made the most sense and that was to march through the relatively new country of Belgium. Germany asked Belgium if they could march through to get to France and Belgium said no. Well Germany didn’t take well to the denial and begin to threaten Belgium that they would march through with or without permission. This was a huge mistake on the part of German arrogance. They neglect the fact that Belgium is under the protection of Great Britain.

Britain’s Role

If there was any European Power truly not directly affected by the events in Sarajevo, it was Great Britain. She’s is like the sleeping bear in the back of the cave; she may stir every once in a while, but as long as you don’t bother her or her cubs she’ll stay sleeping. Belgium is one of her cubs. When the country was formed a treaty was put in place. The Treaty of London (1839) stated that if any state threatened the neutrality of Belgium, Great Britain was required to enforce the treaty and protect Belgium. This is where Germany went wrong. When it came down to it, Great Britain was the one country that Germany did not want to go up against.

Britain had not only the firepower and global standing, they had more troops than any other country across its territories. Those troops would be not only from Britain, but also Canada, Australia, India, New Zealand, etc. With the largest empire on earth Germany knew fighting them would likely mean defeat. But by now the situation was too far along. And the confidence Germany had blinded them to any real logical action. After threatening Belgium, they invoked the terms of The Treaty of London.

War Begins

Britain wasn’t really trying to go to war. They had their own problems in Ireland. Political unrest and violence between Catholics and Protestants kept them from really watching what’s happening across Europe. The Prime Minister David Lloyd George received the call of help from Belgium and discussed it with his government. They decided to give Germany a timetable. They had until midnight local time to send word they would not enter Belgium. Midnight came and went, and Britain had her answer. They started mobilizing their troops. 

By now Germany was at the border of Belgium. They did ask one more time about marching through. Again Belgium declines. Germany began entering Belgium. The date was August 4, 1914 and the war was officially live. So now we know how it all began. What’s next? Part 4 will have that and the wrap up to this tale.

What do you think about Germany invading France through Belgium? Let us know below.

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armageddon parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 2 – Crisis in Austria-Hungary

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs continues her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Austria-Hungary and its pivotal role in the events that led to the outbreak of World War One.

Part 1 in the series focuses on the decades leading up to World War One: Available here.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria in 1914. His assassination precipitated a crisis that led to World War One

In Part 1 we talked about the basics - some of who the main players were, and Germany’s habit of having a ruler who is an overachiever. We know that the country as a whole felt boxed in due to the alliances surrounding them. But what about their allies? We left off on the background of one of them: Austria-Hungary. Get comfy because this is where things get interesting.  

Succession in Austria-Hungary 

Wondering why the country was called Austria-Hungary and today they are just Austria and Hungary? Well, it is a bit complicated, but essentially both are separate countries and both are monarchies. Only, they have the same ruler just under different names. Using this example makes it clearer: after Queen Elizabeth I of England died, King James was called James I of England. But in Scotland, where he had been king since he was an infant, he was known as James VI of Scotland.

So, the ruler at the turn of the century was Franz Joseph I of Austria-Hungary and he was in a bit of a pickle. Good Emperor Franz had no male heir to take his place when he died. At the start at the war in 1914, he was 84 years old. He and his wife, the Empress Elisabeth (known as Sisi) had four children. But of those four, only one was a son. One thing to mention about Empress Sisi is that she was the most beautiful woman of her time, and was beloved by her people. Franz Joseph was deeply in love with her. Only she never quite felt the same. Her death in 1898 by an assassin deeply affected the Emperor and the country at large. The Crown Prince Rudolf was groomed from day one to replace his father. Only he would never get the chance.

Like many marriages of the day the relationship between Rudolf and his wife Stephanie of Belgium was an arranged one. Still they were able to have one child together. Perhaps it is fate, but that child would be a girl. Every prince had their occasional or favorite mistress, but Rudolf seemed to be a bit more involved with his than most. Mary Vestra was from society but had a reputation herself. At 17 years old the two of them had a torrid affair. In January 1888, Rudolf and Marie were found dead at the Mayerling Hunting Lodge. No one knows the circumstances of what the motive was or if they had planned it. The story that seems to fit best based on the discovery of Marie’s diary in 2015 is that they had a suicide pact. 

Either way, Rudolf’s death shook the country to the core. Franz only had one son and he was no longer alive to take his place. A true succession crisis was now clear to all those around the Emperor. After some consideration, the Emperor decided to make his nephew the Archduke Franz Ferdinand his successor. Ferdinand didn’t have the greatest relationship with his uncle and most of his family. His choice in marrying Sophie Chotek, a woman with no title and a morganatic marriage (a marriage with somebody of different social rank) alienated everyone. Upon the marriage, Sophie and Ferdinand waived the rights of succession for any children they had together. This was based on the fact that Sophie wasn’t of noble blood. It was a pain point for the couple, as in every official duty Ferdinand attended, his wife was forced to ‘take her place’ in the back of the room. 

Austria-Hungary’s maneuvers

Around this time, Austria-Hungary decided to officially annex the lands in Bosnia and Herzegovina into the country. This land had been under the rule of the Ottoman Empire, but had been occupied and essentially run by Austria-Hungary since 1878. What they didn’t consider was the reaction from nearby areas. Serbia, for one, was not happy about the annexation. They felt that lands in the Balkans should be ruled by those living in the Balkans. As a result of this, pro-independence and terrorist groups begin to form within Serbia. By making this move, Austria-Hungary’s actions led to conflicts in the years leading up to World War One - the Balkan Wars of 1912 and 1913.

With tensions high, Franz Joseph asked the newly made heir-apparent Ferdinand to travel to the region under instructions to review the military. The day of June 28, 1914 started just like any other day. Ferdinand and his wife Sophie were in Sarajevo; and they were put into an open car. Side note: it amazes me how long it took people to realize that any “open” mode of transportation linked with a target with this kind of high profile. Anyway, they traveled along behind local officials. As they moved through the streets, a man threw an object at the couple. There was an explosion, but the only people hurt were civilians. This would be assassin took a cyanide pill and planned to take his knowledge with him. He also threw himself in a river – but lived.

The danger apparently over, the motorcade arrived at the scheduled destination. The Archduke and his wife are a tad shocked but not too worse for wear. As they leave both Ferdinand and Sophie decide to change plans and make a visit to the local hospital to see those that were hurt in the bombing. The motorcade leaves, but no one told the driver that the plans changed and he made a wrong turn. In order to get them back the way they came and to the hospital he needed to turn around. It was in this moment that Gavrilo Princip just happened to be standing within steps of the couple. He pulled a gun and shot both Ferdinand and Sophie at point blank range. Initially those in the car did not realize that either of them had been shot. It wasn’t until Sophie loss consciousness and collapsed in Ferdinand’s lap that the realization set in. Ferdinand yelled “Sophie, don’t die. Stay alive for the children.”

Then Austrian-Hungarian Colonel Count Franz von Harrach asked if Ferdinand had been wounded. He only replied: “It is nothing. It is nothing”, before he too lost consciousness. Those in the car with them moved with all haste to the Governor’s house for immediate care. Unfortunately both Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife Sophie Chotek, Countess of Hohenberg, were dead on arrival. And with their deaths springs open a can of worms that changed everything for the next hundred years.

Aftermath

You would think that an assassination of an Archduke and heir to the throne of Austria-Hungary would send shockwaves across the globe. When we modern day folks tell the story, that’s the perception it gives. In reality, internationally it was not major news. It ended up in a few papers in some countries; but it certainly was no front-page affair. In the immediate days after their deaths, the government of Austria-Hungary wanted answers. In all honesty they were pretty annoyed. The Emperor had now lost his only son and heir, and that heir’s replacement.

Austria-Hungary knew the assassins were Serbian and wanted answers. And if they couldn’t get them, they were threatening a fight. The Serbian government was in a tough spot. The assassination wasn’t sanctioned by them, but the planning and execution of the plan were made by Serbs. For you conspiracy buff’s out there; there is a theory that the real killers were in fact part of a Serbian military force and Gavrilo Princip, along with the others, were just patsies. Maybe or maybe not, there were still no good options here for the government. So they did what any little brother would do when caught in a tough spot - they called their big brother Russia.

Now in part one I mention that the alliance between these two was nothing in a formal sense. What tied them together were ethnic lines. Many Russians were Serbian, and many Serbians were Russians. Serbia gave Russia the heads up that this situation may turn south and if it did they will need help against Austria-Hungary in a war. Russia, at the time, was still ruled by the 300-year-old Romanov Dynasty under Tsar Nicholas II. After consulting with his advisors, he opted to not make any move yet. Instead, he waited to see how things played out.

The July Crisis

While all this was going on in Serbia, Austria-Hungary made a call of their own to Germany. As part of the Triple Alliance, Austria-Hungary asked Germany to support them if war breaks out against Serbia. It’s important to keep in mind here that these events are happening lightening fast. The assassination was June 28, 1914. By the time Austria-Hungary reached out to Germany the date was July 6, 1914. From this point until the outbreak of war, it will go down in history as the “July Crisis.” 

Germany decided to pledge to Austria-Hungary in the event of war. This is called the “Blank Check;” where it is implied that Germany more or less just agreed to whatever Austria-Hungary wanted to do. By agreeing, this was a huge risk for Germany. They were already surrounded by Russia and France. And while France was not in the picture yet, if fighting broke out at the Russian border, it could trigger a two front war. The other issue was the thought of honor. Their ally had suffered a terrible blow. The honor they lost from the initial act should be defended. There was one positive going for the Germans - that Russia was still rearming itself following the 1904-05 Russo-Japanese War. In order for them to come to Serbia’s aid, they had to mobilize faster than Germany thought they could. With that in mind, the war generals considered the idea of a quick and easy conflict. 

Meanwhile in Austria-Hungary the plan for war was in full motion. Generals devised a timeline of how they would deal with Serbia. Side note: this was a horrible. Anyway, their timeline was to invade, destroy and occupy Serbia in six weeks. We all should be for lofty goals but this is not one of them. Why won’t this timeline work? Because Austria-Hungary was seriously underestimating its own people and their readiness to prepare for war. Also, from a technology perspective, they had little to no paved roads, and a lack of a railway system. It had been 48 years since they’d seen a war; and their generals had an outdated way of thinking. Either way, the plan was to mobilize and when they did Russia would have to make a choice. That’s for next time.

What do you think about Austria-Hungary’s importance in the outbreak of World War One?

Sources

Wikipedia 

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

The Amazing Story of the Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War Two

The Women Airforce Service Pilots (or WASP) of World War Two played a great role in the American war effort. Here, Mac Guffey tells us about their story – and fight for recognition both during and after the war.

You can also read Mac’s past articles: A Brief History of Impeachment in the US (here) and on Franksgiving (here).

WASP pilots (from left) Frances Green, Margaret Kirchner, Ann Waldner and Blanche Osborn leave their B-17 trainer, (christened ‘Pistol Packin’ Mama’), during ferry training at Lockbourne Army Air Force base in Ohio. They’re carrying their parachutes.

Two years before America entered the Second World War, a pioneering group of more than a thousand, relatively unknown, veteran pilots stepped forward and volunteered to be a part of the solution for what they could see as a looming manpower problem in the air-arm of the U.S. military.

 “…at the height of World War II, [they] left homes and jobs for the opportunity of a lifetime – to become the first in history to fly for the U.S. military…these women became the Women Airforce Service Pilots – better known as the WASP.” [1]

This is the story of that long unrecognized and underappreciated group of determined pilots and their uphill struggles to be accepted as the soldiers they were. And it all began with a letter – woman-to-woman – because Jacqueline “Jackie” Cochran recognized a kindred soul in Eleanor Roosevelt – the First Lady.

BACKSTORY

It was 1939, and WWII had just exploded across Poland.

Realizing America’s eventual involvement, the country’s most famous female pilot wrote a letter to the most progressive First Lady in American history with a startling suggestion – use women pilots in non-combat roles to compensate for the coming manpower demands of the military. [2]

Recognizing the wisdom and prescience in Cochran’s proposal, Eleanor Roosevelt introduced her to General Henry “Hap” Arnold, head of the U.S. Army Air Force. Cochran’s plan, however, was initially rejected. Arnold expressed the misbegotten sentiments of most Americans – especially men – when he said in 1941 that “the use of women pilots serves no military purpose in a country which has adequate manpower at this time.” [3]

But the manpower necessary to fight this coming world-wide war was far greater than Arnold (or anyone else for that matter) ever expected, and by September 1942, Nancy Harkness Love and Cochran, with Arnold’s support, independently founded two separate flying programs (Women’s Auxiliary Ferrying Squadronand Women’s Flying Training Detachment). On August 5, 1943, these were merged to become the WASP – Women’s Airforce Service Pilots - a civilian squadron under the aegis of the U.S. Army Air Force. And it was composed of only women pilots. Cochran was chosen to serve as the director of WASP and its training division, while Love was appointed director of the ferrying division. [2]

Nancy Harkness Love.

Jackie Cochran surrounded by WASP trainees.

QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING[4]

The military trained male civilians with no flying experience to be pilots for jobs ferrying aircraft from the factory to various military airfields all over the U.S. and even abroad. But Cochran and Love knew the bar for women pilots – even “civilian” women pilots – had to be a higher one. 

The qualifications Cochran and Love set for a woman just to be an applicant for the WASP were stringent: Potential recruits had to be between 21 and 35 years old, in good health, already possess a pilot’s license, and 200 hours of prior flight experience! 

In the sixteen months that the WASP squadron existed, more than 25,000 women applied for training. Only 1,830 of them (spread over eighteen training classes), were accepted as candidates. In the end, 1,074 of those candidates successfully completed the grueling four-month (Army way) training program at Avenger Field in Sweetwater, Texas.

Despite their advanced experience as pilots, WASP recruits were required to complete the same primary, basic, and advanced training courses as the inexperienced male Army Air Corps pilots. In addition to learning the superfluous - like marching and close order drill - they also spent roughly twelve hours a day at the airfield. Half the day was spent doing stalls, spins, turns, take offs, and landings – and all of it in very crowded airspace. The other half of the day was spent in what they called “ground school.”

By graduation, all WASP had 560 hours of ground school and 210 hours of flight training (in addition to the 200 hours required for them just to apply). They also knew Morse code, meteorology, military law, physics, aircraft mechanics, and navigation (and, of course, how to march).

Their previous level of flying experience allowed a large number of these pilots finished their WASP training with such stellar marks that they qualified to go on for specialized flight training. Many of them, by the end of their time as WASP, had flown every single plane in the American arsenal – including jets!

Despite the stiff entrance requirements and all of the additional training these female pilots endured, the WASP were still considered just “civil service employees”. Cochran, director of the WASP, and General Henry “Hap” Arnold, who was now the head of the U.S. Army Transport Command, pressed for full militarization of these female pilots, and for the WASP to be commissioned directly as service pilots, a procedure the Air Transport Command used routinely with male civilian pilots. But because of the considerable opposition to the program, both in Congress and in the press, Cochran’s and Arnold’s requests were denied. [5]

‘THOSE DAMN W.A.S.P.‘

As a WASP, Betty Archibald Fernandes’s primary job was to pick up a plane at the factory where it was built and fly it to the east coast so it could be shipped abroad. During her wartime service, Fernandes flew 30 different kinds of military planes, including fighters, bombers, transport, and training aircraft. But her number one love was fighters. “I flew every kind of fighter plane, including P-30s, 51’s, 39’s, 63’s, 47’s and 40’s,” Fernandes proudly boasted. [6]

In addition to ferrying aircraft and cargo from factories to stateside military bases and transporting military cargo all over the country, WASP also trained male bombardiers and provided instrument training to male cadets; they participated in simulations to help train radar and searchlight trackers, and they even towed targets for live anti-aircraft gunnery practice. [4]

The WASP were even used as motivators.

“When men were less willing to fly certain difficult planes, such as the YP-59 and B-29 Super Fortress, General Arnold recruited two WASP, Dorthea Johnson and Dora Dougherty Strother, to fly these aircraft. Arnold believed that if men saw women fly these planes successfully, they would be “embarrassed” into taking these missions willingly. Johnson and Strother flew to Alamogordo, New Mexico in the B-29s. There was a crowd waiting to see them land. General Arnold’s plan worked, “From that day on, there was no more grumbling from male pilots assigned to train on and fly the B-29 Super Fortress.” [7]

‘Those damned WASP‘ became a familiar refrain.

SOME WASP FACTS AND PILOTS

Collectively, the WASPflew every conceivable type of American military aircraft and logged over 60 million miles during their sixteen months of existence – often flying seven days a week. [8] Thirty-eight WASP lost their lives, and one – Gertrude ‘Tommy’ Tompkins-Silver – disappeared while ferrying a P-51 from LA to the East Coast. She is the only WASP whose fate today remains unknown. [9]     

Although the majority of the pilots were Caucasian, five pioneering women of color did break the racial barrier. Two of them were Chinese-Americans (Hazel Ying Lee and Maggie Gee ); one was Native American (Ola Mildred Rexroat, a Oglala Sioux woman from the Pine Ridge Indian Reservation, South Dakota), and two were Hispanic-Americans (Verneda Rodríguez[**] and Frances Dias). [10]

The number of black women pilots who applied for WASP training is unknown. However, several African-American pilots did make it to the final interview stage.

Mildred Hemmans Carter was one of those finalists. In 1940, at age 19, she earned a Bachelor Degree from the Tuskegee Institute, and a year later, she earned her aviation certification. In 1943, Carter was among the first to apply to be a WASP. Like the other black pilots, she was rejected, largely because of her race. Finally, Carter’s extraordinary qualifications and her unfair rejection were acknowledged. She was retroactively recognized as a WASP– seventy years after the fact. [11]

Hazel Ying Lee.

‘THE AAF WILL MISS YOU…’

By 1944, America and its allies dominated the skies over Germany, and the air war in Europe was winding down. The Allied leaders now planned a massive ground assault to put the finishing touches on Nazi Germany. Accordingly the Army Air Force cut back its training forces and revoked civilian male training pilots exemptions from serving in ground combat units. [12]

A brouhaha ensued.

Fearing the draft, the men complained – as a group – to Congress, the media, and accused the War Department of favoring female pilots over male pilots. Congress listened and on December, 20 1944 – five months before the end of WWII and sixteen months after their formation – the WASP, as a squadron, were disbanded. [12]

And rudely.

In fact, here is part of General Arnold’s letter of notification and thanks to the WASP for their service:

When we needed you, you came through and have served most commendably under very difficult circumstances, but now the war situation has changed and the time has come when your volunteer services are no longer needed. The situation is that if you continue in service, you will be replacing instead of releasing our young men. I know the WASP wouldn’t want that. I want you to know that I appreciate your war service and the AAF will miss you… [5]

There were 915 women pilots on duty with the Army Air Force at that time, and they were scattered on bases around the country. Since they weren’t military, there was no “mustering out” time after Arnold’s notification arrived, and the women pilots were released outright. Some WASP members were allowed to fly on board government aircraft from their former bases to the vicinity of their homes – but only as long as room was available and no additional expenses were incurred. Others, however, had to arrange and pay for their own transportation home. [11]

EPILOGUE

Records of WASP were classified and sealed by the government after the war, so historians minimized or ignored the women pilots.

The WASP, however, deserved more respect and recognition than a condescending thank you note tied to an immediate eviction notice back in 1944 or being ignored by history. Thirty three years later, they took matters into their own capable hands.

However, the entire affair came with a very heavy dose of irony.

In the 1970s, the Air Force announced that it would begin accepting women for pilot training, and the media reported the story as if this would be the first time women could fly for the US military. The WASPsthen began to push for the recognition that they deserved.  U.S. Senator Barry Goldwater (one of those male transport pilots in WW2) along with General Arnold’s son – Colonel Bruce Arnold – helped these women pilots lobby Congress for their long overdue recognition. [8]

In 1977 — the same year the Air Force graduated its first post-WASP women pilots — Congress granted veteran status to those who had served as WASP, and in 1979 issued official honorable discharges. [12]

Thirty-three years after that, in 2010, President Barak Obama signed the law that gave these brave, pioneering Women Airforce Service Pilots the highest civilian honor given by the U.S. Congress – the Congressional Gold Medal.

But less than 250 surviving WASPwere on hand to receive their long-overdue thanks. [8]

Veterans deserve better treatment – especially while they’re still alive to enjoy it.

QUOTES

“Already my big worry is that I might wash out. It’s going to be plenty tough to come up to Army standards. Several from W-7 ‘washed’ today. Everyone gets depressed when they go; tonight the Recreation Room was like a morgue–you just can’t help wondering “Will I be next? “ ~Adaline Alma Blank, WASP Class 43-8, Avenger Field Sweetwater, TX [*]

“Glamour, hell; it was hard work!” ~ Florence Shutsy-Reynolds, W.A.S.P.Training Class 44-w-5 [*]

 “The P-63 was quite an airplane. I just loved it. I flew as many as I could, as far as I could, as fast as I could.”  ~ Betty Archibald Fernandes, Class 43-3 [*]

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE WASP? LET US KNOW BELOW.

WORKS CITED

[*] All quotes are from https://www.thestoryoftexas.com/discover/campfire-stories/wasp

[**]Rodríguez, who died on March, 19, 1982, was the first of the WASP to be buried with full military honors in Arlington National Ceremony. From http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/apjinternational/apj-s/2007/3tri07/ashcrofteng.html

[1] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Official Archive.” Texas Woman’s University. (Denton, TX) @ https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/collections/women-airforce-service-pilots/

[2] Texas Woman’s University Library. “Gateway to Women’s History: Women’s Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive.” @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[3] Cornelsen, K. (2005). “Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America.” Journal of Women’s History 17(4), 111-119. Johns Hopkins University Press. Retrieved March 31, 2019, from Project MUSE database.

[4] All the information used under this heading came from one source: Texas Woman’s University. “Training.” Woman’s Collection – Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP). @ https://web.archive.org/web/20180728221611/https://twu.edu/library/womans-collection/featured-collections/women-airforce-service-pilots-wasp/training/

[5] “Women Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Women in the Army @ https://www.army.mil/women/history/pilots.html

[6] Binz, Larry E. “Airport Day provides nostalgia for crowd, local veteran aviatrix.” Clarksdale[Mississippi] Press Register – October 20, 2010.

[7] Monahan, Evelyn M.; Neidel-Greenlee, Rosemary (2010). A Few Good Women: America’s Military Women From World War I to the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. New York: Alfred A Knopf. pp.136-137.

[8] Texas Woman’s University. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Digital Archive – WASPFacts and Stats.” Gateway to Women’s History. @ http://cdm16283.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/landingpage/collection/p214coll2

[9] Baylor University. “Above and Beyond.” Wings Across America. @ http://www.wingsacrossamerica.org/above—beyond.html

[10] Steck, Em. “Women Airforce Service Pilots Aided American War Efforts With Help From These Women of Color. TeenVogue –December 24, 2017. @ https://www.teenvogue.com/story/women-airforce-service-pilots-aided-american-war-efforts-with-help-from-these-women-of-color

[11] Cornelsen, Kathleen (2005).”Women Airforce Service Pilots of World War II: Exploring Military Aviation, Encountering Discrimination, and Exchanging Traditional Roles in Service to America”. Journal of Women’s History. 17 (4): 111–119. – via Project MUSE.

[12] Wackerfuss, Dr. Andrew T. “Women’s Airforce Service Pilots (WASP).” Air Force Historical Support Division. @ https://www.afhistory.af.mil/FAQs/Fact-Sheets/Article/458964/womens-airforce--service-pilots-wasp/

Why did Germany get the blame at the end of World War One? Part 1 - The decades leading up to the war

Germany is often blamed for causing World War I – and the 1919 Treaty of Versailles led to the country needing to pay large reparations to the winners. Here, Denise Tubbs starts her look at why Germany got much of the blame for World War I. She considers Germany’s 19th century rise, Kaiser Wilhelm II, and the complicated alliances in place in Europe before the war broke out.

German Kaiser Wilhelm II with Winston Churchill in 1906.

This is a question I asked years ago when I first learned about the World Wars. No one could really give an answer though. Even in college, the narrative was the same: An Austrian Archduke was assassinated and a war begins because of it. After four years of fighting, the country that started this whole thing isn’t even blamed or even stuck with some share of guilt? It seemed unfair for Germany to have all that on their shoulders; and it makes one wonder if it would have made a difference in the years leading up to WW2. So, because no one ever told me why I will tell you why. And I promise it won’t be boring, let's make history fun.

1871 – Germany is born

Now in order to understand how and why Germany gets the blame, we first have to look at the circumstances that started the war in the first place. We’ll need to take a trip down memory lane to establish just where everyone involved is in time. The year is 1871, and Germany, as we know it today territorially, is born. Before this, there was no unified German state. It was just a collection of separate Duchies all being ruled by their own head of the house. One of the most famous was the Duchy of Bavaria (and later the Kingdom of Bavaria). Its claim to history is the gorgeous Neuschwanstein Castle, built by Ludwig II. Ludwig wasn’t the sharpest tool in the shed, and had a rather odd demise. That’s a story for another time. 

Each of the duchies (or in the case of Bavaria Kingdom) elected to become one country with one Emperor to rule. The one chosen became known as Kaiser Wilhelm I of house Hohenzollern. The name Kaiser is the German word for Caesar, the traditional name used by later Emperors of Rome. A little known fact about this - we in the present day have been mispronouncing Caesar this whole time. The German pronunciation of Kaiser is actually close to the Latin pronunciation. The ‘c’ is not an ‘s’ sound but more of a ‘ke’.

Wilhelm, I at the time of his ascension had a son that would in time wed the oldest daughter of Queen Victoria. Victoria, Princess Royal, married Frederick; who would later be known as Kaiser Frederick III. The son they have will become Kaiser Wilhelm II. Wilhelm was born with a deformed arm as a result of complications at birth. As a result, the arm was withered and smaller than the other. He, not wanting to look weak, took up every manly thing there was to do at the time.

A complex?

Wilhelm had this complex about himself, and really about the German people. He was proud to be a German and did not identify with his mother’s perception that everything British is best. She made him speak English to her and not his native German, and she also looked at Germany as a sort of step down. After all, her mother was the Empress of Britain, Ireland, Scotland, Canada, and other places... So he hated all things British; and spent most of his life trying to be better in everything they did. But even though he hated all things British, he adored his grandmother Queen Victoria - a feeling that was not mutually shared by her. 

Knowing this about Wilhelm I will help to understand why Germany did the things it did as a whole. His commanders and leaders had the same feeling of pride about themselves and wanted the world to know it. He wanted to be up there with his cousins; King George V of Britain and Tsar Nicholas II of Russia. He would never be like them though in temperament or in ruling. Wilhelm got his chance when he ascends to the throne after his father Frederick III dies before anyone had a chance to get used to him being Emperor. He’s basically the blip on the story that is WWI. So Wilhelm gets the crown in 1888 and begins making his mark on the country.

Franco-German relations

He starts to build up his military and begins to take on colonies. Wilhelm is all about getting to this table; his cousins are already there. He’s the new kid on the block and he wants them to know that he can roll with the big boys too. But that’s not all the reason he’s building. Germany’s arch-rival is France. They’ve had quite the skirmishes in the past. The last being the Franco-Prussian War; where at its conclusion Imperial Germany was born. They won this war against France and took land in that victory. So the more powerful he looked the better to keep France from thinking about revenge. 

But all the building and changes he did was really making people uneasy. To its east, in Russia, there was a concern that if they got too confident Germany could try and gain more territory. To the west, in France, they were immensely concerned that the rapid armament of Germany was increasing the chances of a conflict. Even though France lost the war, they still wanted that land back. They wanted payback, but not if they couldn’t do it alone. They needed some help.

The Triple Entente

One of the many reasons the war occurred was due to the number of treaties, alliances, and pacts made between countries over the 30-40 years prior to 1914. These agreements crossed over each other; some secret, some out in the open, and some that weren’t even official. When it came to France, they knew that if Germany became too powerful, it could be a threat to everyone in Europe. So in 1904, they proposed a formal agreement with Great Britain. For those not familiar, this was significant as the fight between Britain and France is legendary for the sheer span of time that they fought off and on. Both countries agreed to come to each other’s aid; with Britain not being exclusively required to do so. That would be determined by the circumstances. Either way, France now had an ally. This agreement became known as the Entente Cordiale. 

Russia, feeling the same as France and not wanting to fight without an ally, also formed an alliance. The Franco-Russian Alliance enabled each to come to the aid of the other when or if Germany ever threatened their parts of mainland Europe. Great Britain also teamed up with Russia and formed an alliance at the Anglo-Russian Convention in 1907. Now we have three countries that all have some kind of an alliance with each other. They combined into one alliance becoming the Triple Entente. 

One treaty that is not part of the Triple Entente is the Treaty of London of 1839. This treaty applied only to Great Britain. The treaty was in regards to the newly minted country of Belgium. One of its main terms were that being a new independent state, Belgium had to remain neutral in any subsequent conflicts. This will become an important treaty to remember as we get closer to Germany’s overall blame.

The Triple Alliance

Now, just because there were alliances on one side didn’t mean that Germany was alone. Because of the Franco-Russian Alliance, they were now facing a potential threat both east and west. In adding Great Britain with the Triple Entente, the threat was even more stressful. Britain and Germany had been in a small but potentially heated arms race between 1898 and 1912. Both countries essentially tried to psych the other out. The idea was for Germany to build a fleet of ships that could defeat Britain, assuming that any relief from a British Colony would take time to arrive. (This thought process is an example of Germany thinking too well of itself and having the confidence that they could actually do this. Having self-confidence isn’t a bad thing, but it is problematic when that self-confidence isn’t based in reality). Germany would continue to make that assumption of their power, and this will eventually lead to their downfall. 

In 1882, an agreement was struck between Austria-Hungary and Germany. It will come to be known as the Triple Alliance. Like the Triple Entente, there were three countries in the agreement to support each other. The third country was Italy. (This is surprising to some since we know what happens during World War I, but the events of the beginning of the war will cause Italy to reconsider some priorities.) Eventually, another country would be added to the alliance bringing the total to four, yet still kept the name triple. The alliance had discussed the opportunity of Italy gaining colonies just like the other powers of Europe. The Triple Alliance was a renewable agreement, and it would be renewed up until the breakout of war in 1914. But unbeknownst to Germany and Austria-Hungary, Italy had also signed a secret treaty with France in 1902. Italy did this because they still did not have any new territories that were promised to them from Germany. So the treaty with France is similar in nature to the original one with Germany.

Up until now we’ve explored Germany’s rise to an empire, covered their ruler, and discussed the enemies surrounding them. Their allies, though they may look great on paper, are in reality no more than out-dated old men.  In part two, we’ll start with the Hapsburg family in Austria-Hungary. 

What events in the decades prior to World War One were most important to Germany getting the blame at the end of the war? Let us know your thoughts below.

Sources

Dan Carlin’s Hardcore History Podcast (Blueprint for Armagedden parts 1-6)

The History of the Great War Podcast

A World Undone: The Story of the Great War by G.J. Meyer

Wikipedia

The Year Thanksgiving Changed to a New Date: Franksgiving

Thanksgiving now occurs in America on the fourth Thursday of November – but it has not always been the case. Here, Mac Guffey looks at how President Franklin D. Roosevelt changed the date of Thanksgiving in 1939 – and the issues it caused.

You can read Mac’s first article on the site, A Brief History of Impeachment in the US, here.

Troops enjoying Thanksgiving after the end of World War I, November 1918.

November 1939: ‘The Great Turkey Issue’

In the summer of 1939, an executive order was whimsically issued by the President of the United States, while vacationing at his resort. It came at the request of one of his Cabinet members, and it was executed without any due diligence other than a request by the head of a national business association for the change. His irresponsible action caused an unprecedented uproar across the country for three years.

Sound familiar?

That ‘Executive Order’ happened eighty years ago; the President was Franklin D. Roosevelt, and the issue that caused the uproar was the date of Thanksgiving.  

Traditions

Since 1863, when President Abraham Lincoln signed the executive order (then known as proclamations) officially proclaiming the first Thanksgiving and stipulating the last Thursday in November as the date of its observance, it became a yearly tradition followed by every President of the United States to do the same (except President U.S. Grant in 1869, but that’s another story). [1]

Periodically however, Novembers have five Thursdays. In Lincoln’s time, no one cared. But by 1939, another holiday tradition had become a part of America’s yearly holiday traditions – the Christmas shopping season. And it officially kicked off the day after Thanksgiving.

As the Daily Republican (Monongahela, PA) explained:

“It is a tradition among business men that advertising and display of Christmas goods is withheld until after Thanksgiving, and since that holiday would have fallen this year on the latest possible date, there would have been only 20 Christmas shopping days.” [2]

Big Business

Since the American economy was finally picking up its pace after being dormant for so many years due to the Great Depression, and because a minor recession in 1937-38 scared many business owners, some retailers were naturally concerned that losing six days of the Christmas shopping season might have a detrimental effect on their businesses. 

Therefore, Lew Hahn the general manager of a retail groups and more than 5,000 storeowners - the National Retail Dry Goods Association– wrote a letter to Harry Hopkins, Secretary of Commerce for FDR, with a request: An earlier Thanksgiving would be “good for business”. [3]

Time Magazinewryly noted FDR’s August response to the delegation’s request in its August 21stissue:

“At his Campobello cottage, Franklin Roosevelt broke his umptieth precedent, and gave a headache to football fans and turkey-growers by moving Thanksgiving Day up this year from November 30 to November 23.” [4]

Roosevelt explained that his decision was at the requests of thousands of businessmen and merchants, and since there was nothing sacred about the customary date – and no Federal law governing it – he moved it up a week. He also announced that all future Thanksgivings, beginning in 1940, would be on the second Thursday of November. [2]

Here’s a key fact worth noting at this point: Since there was no Federal law regarding the date of Thanksgiving, any President’s Thanksgiving proclamation truly affected only the District of Columbia and any territories belonging to the United States. It was actually up to the governors of each state to decide when to celebrate that day in their state. Since 1863, the governors traditionally just echoed the President’s proclamation.

Until 1939.

America’s Split Reaction

FDR’s lack of economic “due diligence”, his political oversight, and his insensitivity to the American public’s reverence for its traditions all combined to make this issue a political bludgeon and a public relations nightmare for his administration!  

The political backlash was immediate. 

“Mayor C.D. White of Atlantic City, N.J. dubbed it ‘Franksgiving’…” The term went national (and historical, and it was seemingly misattributed). [5*]

Alf Landon - FDR’s 1936 G.O.P. presidential opponent - pointed out:

“If the change has any merit at all, more time should have been taken in working it out so as to assure wholehearted co-operation instead of springing it upon an unprepared country with the omnipotence of a Hitler.” [6]

Other Republican politicos insisted that such important changes should be resolved through a deliberate, bipartisan legislative process, and not by arbitrary, executive decisions. Many Democrats agreed. 

The governors of each state were forced to decide whether to follow Roosevelt’s proclamation or stick with the traditional fourth Thursday in November. The results were twenty-three states and D.C. followed FDR’s proclamation date of November 23rd, and twenty-three other states disagreed and kept the traditional date. Two states – Texas and Colorado - decided to honor BOTH days. [7]

The American public flooded the White House with letters and telegrams. One Brooklyn businessman immediately wrote to FDR regarding the President’s sweeping but unsubstantiated allegation that more shopping days benefitted merchants.

“The small storekeeper would prefer leaving Thanksgiving Day where it belongs. If the large department stores are overcrowded during the shorter shopping period before Christmas, the overflow will come, naturally, to the neighborhood store…We have waited many years for a late Thanksgiving to give us an advantage over the large stores, and we are sadly disappointed at your action in this ma tter[sic]…Kindly reconsider and oblige thousands of small retail storekeepers throughout this country.” [8]

Newspaper articles pointed out some of the glaring consequences of FDR’s hasty decision. One consequence was the $5,000,000 to $10,000,000 costs to the calendar business. In 1939, the ONLY calendars America had were printed ones, and they were used by every business, school, government office, and many individuals.

“It will be terrible” [Fredrick E. Baker, president of H.G. Brace Calendar Co.] said. “Better than 70 per cent of 1940 calendars have already been sold and about 50 per cent or $50,000,000 worth are already in production throughout the country. Most calendar makers begin production in January on the following year’s calendar.” [2]

Other articles detailed how America’s schools, both public and private, as well as both K-12 and universities were totally disrupted.  Like the calendar businesses, schools schedule everything in advance – school functions, vacations, and annual sports events. FDR's new date for Thanksgiving forced school boards, teaching staffs, athletic departments, and athletic conferences into emergency meetings to reconsider set schedules and decide whether and how to reschedule everything just prior to the start of the new school year.  Boston College decided to ignore it.

“Franksgiving was held yesterday but don’t let that worry you, our turkey stuffing day comes on the 30thwhen we get time from classes to stuff ourselves.” [9]

Besides all of that, many Americans were just plain angry that Roosevelt tried to alter such a long-standing tradition to help businesses make more money. A very sarcastic editorial, “Thanksgiving – A La FDR”, appeared in a small town weekly in upstate New York - ironically published ‘on Thursday of each week’.

“But why should the President stop with this slight change in the traditions of a nation? Why not extend his pet whimsies? We would suggest the following…Advance the observance of Thanksgiving Day to January first of each year, which, in accordance with presidential opinion, would give the public fifty-one solid weeks of Christmas shopping.” [10]

The uproar even found its way onto the Hollywood Big Screens with the 1940 Three Stooges short film No Census, No Feeling, and Irving Berlin’s 1942 filmHoliday Inn(Bing Crosby, Fred Astaire, and Marjorie Reynolds).  [11]

George Gallup Takes a Poll

Because the 1940 Presidential primaries and election were just around the corner and FDR was planning an unprecedented third term run, was every American against the change or was this just a party issue? George Gallup decided to take a poll and find out. 

According to Dr. Gallup, Republicans disapproved of the plan by a margin of 79 percent to 21 percent. Even the Democrats weren’t happy, with 52 percent in favor and 48 percent opposed. “Dictatorship,” “whimsy” and “just upsetting everything he can” were among the most frequent negative responses given to the poll-administrators. [6]

Gallup’s summary:

“What John Smith, U.S.A., thinks about President Roosevelt's plan to change Thanksgiving Day pretty much depends on what John Smith thinks of President Roosevelt…Though President Roosevelt acted in response to the wishes of retail organizations who want the period of Christmas shopping extended, the survey shows that a majority of Americans - and particularly Republicans - are in favor of letting the nation's turkeys live a week longer.”[6]

Gallup also added this final - and rather sage - comment:

“No issue to make cabinets totter, the turkey day issue is, nevertheless, a prime example of the way Americans sometimes see questions through party-colored spectacles [glasses].” [6]

Leftovers

Three weeks after FDR’s Thanksgiving proclamation – at dawn on September 1,1939 – German troops stormed across the Polish frontier. WWII had begun, capturing much of the world’s attention. 

Despite the war and our struggle to remain neutral, the ‘Franksgiving’ or Thanksgivinginconvenience continued to be a distraction in America for two more years. By 1941, the business data indicated that FDR’s date-change had no significant effect on Christmas retail revenue. In fact, it actually affected revenue negatively in some places. So bowing to public opinion in the fall of 1941, President Roosevelt returned Thanksgiving 1942 to its traditional date.

But Congress decided to formally mandate that Thanksgiving be observed on the fourth Thursday in November to prevent any future problems. President Roosevelt signed the legislation on December 26thwithout fanfare. [13]

‘The Great Turkey issue’ was finally over.

The ViewNow

Although that was eighty years ago this month, the causes of 1939’s ‘Franksgiving’ fiasco are still around. Those very same forces that created that upheaval – insensitivity to the public, executive orders without bi-partisan cooperation and executive due diligence, the strong political and economic force of big business and retail sales, and special access to the Oval Office - are all the same forces causing our current political, economic, and social uproar. And, unfortunately, our ‘party-colored spectacles’ are still warping the view of our political system, and its proper limitations.

Two Turkey Days anyone?

This is the first of a new monthly feature. We will select one story that occurred during that month from history and take a fresh look at the story through modern eyes.

You can let us know what you thought of this article below.

References

[1] Roy P. Basler, et al.eds. (1953). The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, 9 vols. (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press.) v.6: pp.497-498. Also, Ulysses S. Grant, Proclamation 186—Thanksgiving Day, 1869 Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project.Retrieved October 20, 2019 from https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/node/204624https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/proclamation-186-thanksgiving-day-1869

[2] “Roosevelt Advances Thanksgiving Day a Week; Business Pleased, But Grid Managers Aren’t”. The Daily Republican – Tuesday, August 15, 1939. Monongahela, PA.

[3] “Rebellion Grows Against Change in Thanksgiving Date by F.D.R.” Plattsburgh Daily Press – Wednesday, August 16, 1939. p.1.

[4] Time Magazine.(August 21, 1939: Vol. XXXIVNo. 8.). “The Presidency: Off the Floor” p.7.

[5] “Nation, Divided On The Date Of Thanksgiving, Thankful For Peace”. Plattsburgh [NY] Daily Press, Friday, November 24, 1939. p.1. [*] “Franksgiving’ is often misattributed to Thomas D. Taggart, Jr. The term appears in many newspapers during the fall of 1939. Taggart was a NJ state assemblyman AND a Democrat at the time. The Mayor of Atlantic City in 1939 was Charles D. White, a Republican. The term ‘Franksgiving’ was White’s portmanteau.

[6] Gallup, Dr. George. “News Release: August 25, 1939 - Public Sees Thanksgiving Issue Through Party Classes”. Gallup VaultRetrieved October 23, 2019 from https://news.gallup.com/vault/222494/gallup-vault-thanksgiving-sparked-partisan-storm-1939.aspx

[7] Waxman, Olivia. “The Real Reason Why Thanksgiving is Always on a Thursday”. Time.com – November 20, 2018. Retrieved October 22, 2019 from https://time.com/5455162/thanksgiving-on-thursday/

[8] “Franklin D. Roosevelt and the Thanksgiving Proclamation.” Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library and Museum. Retrieved October 23, 2019 from https://www.fdrlibrary.org/document-november

[9] Cullen, Art. “Tabloid”. The Boston College Heights – Volume XIX, Number 37, 24 November 1939. p.2. 

[10] Tefft, W.R. editor. “Thanksgiving  - A LA FDR”. Ticonderoga Sentinel - Thursday, August 24, 1939. p.2.

[11] Retrieved October 25, 2019 from The Three Stooges Website @ https://www.threestooges.com/1940/10/04/no-census-no-feeling/. Also, my parents told me the story behind Berlin’s Holiday Inngraphic the first time we watched Holiday Innon television back in the 1950s. Their personal stories were hilarious – (btw, they chose Thanks notFrank’s). The topic has intrigued me ever since. 

[12] “Abandons Early Thanksgiving: Roosevelt to Return to Old Date in November 1942”Hope[AK]Star – Tuesday, May 20, 1941. p. 1. Also,Jackson, Debbie and Pittman, Hilary. “Throwback Tulsa: Roosevelt created a ‘Franksgiving’ monster.”Tulsa World – November 16, 2017.Retrieved October 29, 2019 fromhttps://www.tulsaworld.com/blogs/news/throwbacktulsa/throwback-tulsa-roosevelt-created-a-franksgiving-monster/article_9e6c3704-d31c-5c48-b79b-1a14a1a7f683.html

World War Two: The Context to Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach

Operation Overlord and the D-Day landings were a huge Allied undertaking in June 1944 during World War Two that opened up the Western European Theater of Operations. Here, Robert Tremblay considers the historical context behind the operation and key considerations for the battle itself.

Robert’s previous article on Operation Overlord and the Differing Allied and Nazi Leaderships is here.

‘Into the Jaws of Death’ - U.S. Troops wading through water and Nazi gunfire on Omaha Beach, June 6, 1944, available here.

Introduction

General (GEN) Dwight D. Eisenhower gave the best description in “At Ease”: “Overlord was at once a singular military expedition and fearsome risk”.[1]The concept of operations for the occupation of Omaha Beach was the decisive reason for the victory of Operation Overlord in Normandy.  Operation Overlord enabled the Allies’ momentum through Western Europe in 1944 and 1945 to the occupation of Berlin.  Operation Overlord was a result of the German aggressive expansionism during WWII. Then, German aggressive expansionism within WWII was the result of factors during the interwar years.  

During the interwar years, America and European countries had the inability to respond to Germany’s aggression; therefore, enabling WWII.  Further analysis shows that these countries did not respond appropriately to Germany’s mature military industrial base and its doctrine through the interwar period and the onset of WWII.  This lack of response facilitated the German aggression. Germany then used this power to be aggressive towards other European military powers. These same European military powers enabled this German aggression by not responding effectively to the earlier warning signs.  Additionally, the United States did not respond effectively either.  

Germany’s mature military industry enabled the aggressive expansionism through its occupation of Austria and Eastern Europe that led to its objective of an increased ideological legitimacy within the European region.  Germany’s military industry had the ability to produce war materials in an effective and efficient matter.  Murray & Millett stated that from a strategic perceptive, while Germany lost the War (World War I), its industrial base stayed undamaged.[2]  In the mid-1930s, Germany was dedicating a large amount of its finances to its industrial base.  Winston Churchill stated in his memoirs, that in 1936, he reported to Parliament that Germany was contributing large amount of its finances for military armaments and materials.[3]  Inability to respond to Germany’s mature military industrial base facilitated aggression from Hitler.

Thirdly, the German military inaugurated a creative combined arms military effort calledBlitzkrieg.  The Germans were able to adapt and improve their Blitzkrieg doctrine through their evolution from WWI and most recently the Polish WWII campaign. German Blitzkrieg took doctrinal lessons from World War I to the Poland invasion.[4]  There was limited response to the Blitzkrieg method from Germany’s adversarial countries. Therefore, this led to Hitler’s strategic gain and confidence, leading to the invasion and occupation of France and Western USSR.

In conclusion, Germany was able to succeed militarily in the beginning of World War II, 1939-1943, based on its mature military industrial base and doctrine during the interwar years.  This German aggressive expansionism led to the Allies needing to conduct a cross-channel invasion (Operation Overlord) in order to liberate Europe and to create an envelopment around Germany. The Battle of Omaha Beach was the main effort for Operation Overlord based on its mission.  There is no way that the Americans could have conducted Operation Overlord without the ability to secure Omaha beach.  There would be a gap between the Gold (British) and Utah (American) beach of 7,000 yards.[5]    

Situation

German Military

The German military had inadequate forces in the Normandy region to defend the Allied operation in Normandy.  Before D-Day, there were sixty divisions throughout Western Europe (France, Belgium, and Holland); however, in the immediate area of Normandy, there were only nine infantry divisions and one panzer division.[6]  The German response to the V Corps invasion was not responsive based on its intense centralized command control.  The lack of responsiveness provided ideal conditions for the German forces being chaotic and inundated during the invasion.

German naval forces were projected to harass the cross-channel invasion. Therefore, the Allied Navy placed sea mines to act as a barrier to which it would secure the approach.[7]  There was limited German air power due to the Allies already having air superiority.

Therefore, the Germans concentrated on defense.  Field Marshal Rommel recognized that the Allies were going to invade Normandy; but, he did not have an accurate time and date.  Consequently, Rommel concentrated German resources to ensure its defense. Mines were established on the Omaha battlefield.  Then, the Germans placed huge iron obstacles at the Omaha beachhead.  Next, there were huge and thick concreated fortifications on the cliffs at the end of beachhead.  In fact, Rommel stated that the defensive works would lead to fortifications and mines going five to six miles inland.[8]  The result was the Allies faced strongly protected and cleverly concealed gun replacements and pill boxes.[9]  Additionally, there were height advantages to the cliffs.  

Concept of Operations for Operation Overlord and the Occupation of Omaha Beach 

Shaping Operations

The shaping operations consisted of Allied naval and aerial bombardment with the intent to destroy the defensive positions and works and to eliminate German forces. Their contributions were the disruption of the fortifications of the defense works.[10]The effect was to give the Germans the inability to have effective defense for their firepower.  Additionally, the bombardments impacted the defense postures beyond the beachhead by destroying mine fields and other defensive fortifications.[11]  During June 5, Allied air forces conducted over 2,200 missions and dropped over 7,600 tons of explosives.[12]  During June 6, the strategic level air forces conducted 5,309 missions to drop 10,396 tons of explosives while the tactical air force conducted another 5,276.[13]  The Naval gunfire and bombardment proved to be effective at destroying the obstacles and other defensive works.[14]

Missions

SHAFE Mission for Operation Overlord

GEN Eisenhower and Supreme Headquarters Allied Forces-Europe (SHAFE)’s mission for Operation Overlord was a multi-divisional invasion front on the territory between Ouistreham and Varreville with an urgent purpose to force project follow-on forces.[15]/[16]  SHAFE knew that the Allies had two areas of operations.  These areas of operations served two purposes for GEN Eisenhower’s strategy for the liberation of Europe.  First, Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean served as a secure supply chain for sustainment for their respective fronts while simultaneously exhausting the German’s supply chain at the same time.  Then, Eastern Europe and the Southern Europe area of operations served as a flank that was designed to envelope Nazi Germany for final occupation. Therefore, SHAFE needs to open up another supply chain and force projection from a different European area of operations and flank.  This context led to GEN Eisenhower’s mission for the invasion.  Then, the occupation of Omaha Beach became the vital effort for Operation Overlord’s mission.

V Corps Mission for the Occupation of Omaha Beach

MG Gerow and the V Corp’s mission was to attack, occupy, and secure a 7,000 yard wide Omaha Beach on the northern coast of Calvados near St-Laurent.[17]  As stated before, the secure occupation of Omaha Beach was the main effort for the execution of Operation Overlord.  The other Allied beaches and the American Utah beach provided an advantageous gap (Omaha Beach) for the German defense.  The gap would create a divide in the Allied Forces that were invading Normandy Beach. The separation of Allied Forces would cause disorganized command and control with the divergence of command.  This disorganization and divergence would create conditions for a tactical success for the Germans.  Furthermore, SHAFE considered occupation of Omaha Beach as the main effort based on its impact to the overall Overlord mission and operation. V Corps would invade Omaha Beach with approximately 34,000 men and 3,306 vehicles with follow-on forces consisting of 25,117 men and 4,429 vehicles.[18]  In order to accomplish its objectives, V Corp relied and empowered 1st ID and 29th ID to perform its objectives.

Conclusion

Operation Overlord was a follow-on projection of the Allies’ force in order to finish the theater-wide envelopment of Germany for the European Theater of Operations. The Allies Operation Overlord assault was a tactical surprise to the Germans.[19]  On June 7, 1944, the Allies were 5 to 6 miles inland and on 10 June, the Allies had a sixty by twelve miles lodgment area.[20]

Allies

Operation Overlord’s successes enabled the Allies to have a port of entry through the opening of the western European Theater of Operations.  It took approximately six weeks to establish an intermediate staging base with a line of communication.[21]  This line of communication was critical to the Western European Theater of Operations for the follow-on forces.  It provided the resources needed to sustain the Allies advance to liberate Paris and the rest of France.  Then, this supply chain gave the logistical ability for the Allies to win the Battle of the Bulge and to reach their culminating point in Germany for the Battle of Berlin.  Additionally, it created opportunities of advancement for the Soviets in the Eastern European area of operations and the Allies on the Southern area of operations. 

Finally, psychologically, it created conditions for the Allies to project their forces with speed, surprise and mass through France, Luxemburg, Belgium, and eventually Germany.  Furthermore, it gave the Allies the confidence that a coalition of nations can maneuver, with combined arms, under one commander. This would have a strong impact during the final stages of the war that led to the surrender of Nazi Germany in the Battle of Berlin. Finally, it is stated that Operation Overlord was a domineering accomplishment of the Allies military judgement, technology, industry and ingenuity advanced through the war.[22]   

Germans

The occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord had a huge and adverse impact on the German industrial base.  Operation Overlord provided the final overwhelming impact to Germans lines of communication and industry.  These lines of communication and industry did not have the endurance to support the three areas of operation.  Finally, psychologically speaking, the Germans took a great blow.  In Germany, the population’s morale and confidence went down.  For example, shortly after the success at the occupation of Omaha Beach and Operation Overlord, there was a plot to assassinate Hitler.  All of these factors have a strong ripple impact on the Axis during the final stages of the war that would eventually lead to the surrender of Germany.

What do you think of the Battle of Omaha Beach? Let us know below.

[1]Dwight D. Eisenhower. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends(Garden City, NY: Doubleday and Company INC, 1967), 273..

[2]         Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World War.  (Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2000), 16-22.  

[3]Winston Churchill.  The Second World War (Condensed Version).  (London, England: Penguin Books, 1989), 94-97.

[4]Murray and Millett, Second World War, 16-22

[5]         Dwight D. Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946, 6.

[6] Ibid, 17.

[7]  Ibid. 

[8] Erwin Rommel. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart (New York: DaCapo Press, 1988), 455.

[9]             Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944), 4-1.

[10]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 57. 

[11]Ibid, 21, 57.

[12]Ibid, 19

[13]Ibid, 20.

[14]Ibid, 20.

[15]Ibid

[16]John J. Marr. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 (2011): 64.

[17]Ibid. 

[18]Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1945, 9.

[19]Viscount Montgomery. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery(South Yorkshire, England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005), 257-260.

[20]Ibid

[21]Eisenhower. Report by the Supreme Commander: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945, 21, 42.  

[22]Adrian R. Lewis. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss. (University of Chicago, 1995), 442.

Bibliography

1.    Churchill, Winston.  The Second World War (Condensed Version). London, England:   

          Penguin Books, 1989.

2.    Eisenhower, Dwight D. At Ease: Stories I Tell to Friends. Garden City, NY: Doubleday   

            and Company INC, 1967.  

3.    --. Report by the Supreme Commander to the Combined Chiefs of Staff on the Operations 

    in Europe of the Allied Expeditionary Force: 6 June 1944 TO 8 May 1945. Washington  

         D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, first published in 1946. 

4.     Lewis, Adrian R. “Omaha Beach: Americans at War.” PhD diss., University of 

     Chicago, 1995.

5.     Marr, John J. “Designing the Victory in Europe.” Military Review July-August 2011 

          (2011): 62-68.

6.     Montgomery, Viscount. Memoirs of Field Marshal Montgomery.  South Yorkshire, 

         England: Pen & Swords Books, 2005.

7.     Murray, Williamson and Allan R. Millett. A War to be Won: Fighting the Second World 

         War. Cambridge, MS and London, England: The Belknap Press of Harvard University   

          Press, 2000.

8.      Omaha Beachhead. Washington D.C: The Center of Military History, U.S. Army, 1994, 

      first published in 1945, 9.

9.      Report of the Amphibious Operations, Invasion of Northern France, Western Task Force, 

        United States Fleet, June 1944.s, Eisenhower Archives Website ( June 1944).

10.   Rommel, Erwin. Rommel PapersEdited by B.H. Liddell-Hart. New York: DaCapo Press, 

         1988.