The 1918 ‘Spanish’ Influenza Pandemic and the Boy Scout Movement

The 1918 flu pandemic, or ‘Spanish Flu’, lasted from the spring of 1918 to the summer of 1919. With many Americans in Europe to fight in World War One in 1918, sometimes other groups stepped in to help. Here, Joseph Connole tells us how the Boy Scouts of America provided much needed assistance during the pandemic.

Boy Scouts helping to distribute food and medicine to houses during the 1918 influenza epidemic.

The Spanish Influenza Pandemic of 1918 was the worst public health crisis of the 20th century; however, some public officials were reluctant to acknowledge the extent of the pandemic because of the First World War. As a result, the virus spread through communities across the world and the US, killing an estimated 650,000 Americans in just less than two years. Local authorities responded differently to the outbreak, in some cities the authorities shut down businesses, schools, and churches. In others, little was done.[i] The outbreak of the flu in 1918 was different though; it killed those who were in the prime of their lives. To complicate matters, the U.S. was fighting a war. As the U.S. war effort started, the government instituted a draft taking millions of men away from homes to fight in Europe. Yet, across the country, young men in the Boy Scouts of America sprang into action to help those suffering from the influenza.  At the start of the First World War, there were 150,000 men in uniform. At the same time, in 1918, there were over 400,000 Scouts and Volunteers in the Boy Scouts of America.[ii]  The Boy Scouts of America were the largest uniformed body in the country. Scouts helped the nation’s war effort by holding parades, selling war bonds, and establishing victory gardens. During the Spanish Influenza, they helped by handing out health guides, serving as informants for local health officials, serving food, and working with local hospitals to provide help. 

How the Scouts helped

In cities across the country, local Boy Scouts came to the aide of local health officials, hospitals, and the Red Cross. They distributed literature, ran kitchens, and helped in a variety of other ways.  Between October 1918 and July 1919, the Boy Scout official magazine for volunteers, Scouting Magazine, recorded how Scouts from across the country answered the call for assistance as the nation was paralyzed by the flu.[iii]

The image of Scouts during the second decade of the twentieth century is one of young men marching in parades, selling liberty bonds, and planting gardens. But during the Spanish Influenza outbreak, Scouts heard the call of local officials in need of help and selflessly came to their assistance. In the October 24, 1918 edition of Scouting Magazine, the Boy Scouts took out several pages to address the Spanish Influenza outbreak in the United States. They declared, “Scouts and Scout officials are not only, definitely concerned, but have a distinct opportunity for service by reason of the nation-wide Spanish Influenza epidemic.”  This call for action would be heard by Scouts across the nation. Scouts would go on to serve as junior health officers and in at least one instance, a Scout served as an intern in a hospital. The movement warned Scouts to be on their guard due to the highly contagious flu and implored Scouts to receive permission from local health officers before undertaking any risk to themselves or their families.[iv] The same issue of the magazine went on to discuss the best ways to prevent infection. 

In Shoshone, Idaho Scouts distributed some 7,500 pieces of literature to residents and met trains as people came off and distributed masks,[v] while in Topeka, Kansas, Scouts were sworn in as junior health officers. Scouts took the following oath before taking on their official duties:

In assuming the duties in the Topeka health service, I agree to hold myself responsible for the distribution of all notices and literature in my district requested by the commissioner of health. 

I further agree to gather any information that may be desired and to report on the health and sanitary situation in any district when asked to do so. 

I agree to assist the Topeka health department in every way I can, with the understanding that I will not be called upon to perform any duty that will interfere with my school or endanger my health.[vi]

In a time well before the Internet, one of the most effective ways for local health officials to get out notices to people was through the Scouts in their communities. But in some special circumstances, Scouts were also called upon to do more. In St. Paul, Minnesota, Scouts were tasked to report on violations of local health orders which would then be investigated by a health officer.[vii]

Doing their duty

In other instances Scouts took on even more advanced roles than were found in Topeka and St. Paul. In New Brunswick, New Jersey, York, Pennsylvania, New Bedford, Massachusetts, and Morgan, New Jersey, Scouts provided help by guiding and manning ambulances, escorting nurses or acting as orderlies, and serving as messengers or telephone operators. The Elizabeth Daily Journal praised the work of Scouts saying, “The work of the Boy Scouts received the warm praise of all the older workers, who found their assistance almost invaluable.”  It went on to report, “They carried cots, ran errands, acted as escorts to the refugees, served the food, stood guard over families, cared for the babies and acted in almost every capacity.”[viii] In every instance where Scouts assisted local health officials or hospitals, their work was praised according to Scouting Magazine. 

The most impressive effort made by Scouts came in Morristown, New Jersey. In one instance, a Boy Scout acted as an intern for the hospital and “he did all of the work which is usually performed by a grown man” for two weeks. Another Scout drove a supply truck three times a week for the Red Cross between Hoboken and a convalescent hospital for soldiers in Mendham. And yet another worked for a week inside a children’s home where nearly sixty of the children were sick. That Scout carried water up four flights of stairs, prepared and served meals, and did various other tasks required of him.[ix]

The Scouts who performed these duties showed unparalleled courage. In each instance of the Scouts helping in their respective communities, they were well received by the local officials and hospitals that they served. Their contributions helped save an unknown number of lives and they did it without desire for public recognition.

What impact do you think the Boy Scouts had on the Influenza Pandemic? Let us know below.

[i] https://www.history.com/news/spanish-flu-pandemic-response-cities

[ii] Boy Scouts of America. Annual report of the Boy Scouts of America: Letter from the chief scout executive transmitting the annual report of the Boy Scouts of America ... as required by federal charter. Washington, D.C.: Govt. Print. Off. 1919. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=inu.30000054452598&view=1up&seq=8  Accessed 5/1/2020. P. 18

[iii] All citations of Scouting stories during the Spanish Influenza pandemic come from Scouting Magazine in the Porta to Texas History unless otherwise noted, individual issue citations are given. Scouting Magazine in The Portal to Texas History. University of North Texas Libraries. https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/SCOUT/ accessed March 18, 2020.

[iv] Boy Scouts of America. Scouting, Volume 6, Number 24, October 24, 1918, periodical, October 24, 1918; New York, New York. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth282984/: accessed March 18, 2020), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting Boy Scouts of America National Scouting Museum. p. 5

[v] Ibid., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 5

[vi] Ibid., Volume 7, Number 11, March 13, 1919. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283026/: accessed March 18, 2020). p. 8

[vii] Ibid.

[viii] Quoted in, ibid. https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283061/: accessed March 18. 2020, p. 70

[ix] Ibid., ., Volume 6, Number 32, December 19, 1918. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth283002/: accessed March 18, 2020). p.7

Afro-Cubans in the USA During the Cold War

The Cold War and the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s led to permanently altered demographics in Miami, Florida and New York due to several influxes of Cuban immigrants in the years and decades after. Studies of this tend to focus on key players such as John F. Kennedy, political tensions between the USA and Cuba, and specific immigration issues, for example, the Elian Gonzalez scandal. 

Still, a question begs for attention: how did race and politics influence the lives of Cuban refugees in America during the Cold War? The answer is most obvious when we look to the experiences of Afro-Cuban refugees. Lietty Roig explains.

A boat with Cuban refugees arrives in Key West, Florida in 1980 as part of the Mariel Boatlift.

Afro-Cubans have not only been underrepresented and understudied in the literature of the Cold War, but they have mostly been included in the tales of how others experienced their arrival. Research shows a clear pattern that initially Afro-Cubans often settled away from Miami, Florida because the racism was so unbearable. During the first wave of migration in the 1960s only between 3 and 9% of individuals were Afro-Cubans. Under the assumption that those figures are accurate, their absence from the early scholarly literature makes sense. Still, a more practical explanation for migration further north than Miami rests on the practical reason that they would be very far away from the feared bombings and military activity of the era. During the later waves of migration, some Afro-Cubans did settle in Miami. However, these individuals struggled to fit in with white Cubans, who they shared a nationality with, and African Americans, who they shared African roots with. As a result, Afro-Cubans created their own space in the greater Miami area: Allapattah, the point between Little Haiti and Little Havana. 

What is interesting about the Afro-Cuban experience during the Cold War is that it was not universal. During the early waves of Cuban migration, Afro-Cubans enjoyed government aid, and a higher socio-economic status in New York City. In 1980, the last wave of Cuban mass migration took place through the famous boatlifts. This group of immigrants did not receive government aid, and society labeled them as criminals. So, that last wave of Afro-Cubans was met with the same discrimination as the early refugees, only this time they were stripped of their identity. By the late 1980s, Afro-Cubans were grouped with African Americans in Miami, and Puerto Ricans in New York. That triggered a crisis of identity for all the demographics involved. For one, African Americans and Afro-Cubans have African roots in common, but their histories are quite different. A similar divide can be established between Puerto Ricans and Afro-Cubans.

Yet, to think that race alone influenced their experience is naïve. Politics was a driving force in everything. For instance, John F. Kennedy was adamant about relocating many Cubans away from Miami to reduce the overflowing population. Still, that is the tip of the political iceberg.  Obviously, the United States lived in fear of communism, and so did the white Cuban refugees from the early waves. So, an “ideal” Cuban refugee was created in the United States: anti-communist, mostly republican, and white. However, Afro-Cubans struggled to fit in this mold not just because of race, but because many of them – at least initially - supported Castro. The fact of the matter is that the early wave of Cuban refugees was fleeing Castro’s ideologies, and one of those promises was racial equality. If you are at the top of the totem pole, you want to stay at the top; it is a natural reaction, whether we like it or not. Yet, those Afro-Cubans were lulled into favoring Castro because of that promise of racial equality - until they saw what reality under his rule was like. Then no one wanted to be there because there was only one person on top of the pyramid: Castro. 

While it would be easy to say that Afro-Cubans were excluded from the narrative because of racist writing, it would also be ignorant. Afro-Cuban refugees made up only a small portion of immigrants during the early years of the Cold War. During the later waves of migration, Afro-Cubans struggled with a self-identity crisis, and were not quite sure how they fit in their new surroundings. It would also be ignorant to say that discriminatory experiences started in the United States, because Afro-Cubans experienced their fair share of racism in Cuba.

What do you think about the experience of Afro-Cubans in the United States? Let us know below.

References

Benson, Devyn S. "From Miami to New York and Beyond: Race and Exile in the 1960s." In Antiracism in Cuba: The Unfinished Revolution, 122-52. University of North Carolina Press, 2016.

Current, Cheris Brewer. "Normalizing Cuban Refugees: Representations of Whiteness and Anti-communism in the USA during the Cold War." Ethnicities 8, no. 1 (2008). 

Grosfoguel, Ramón, and Chloé S. Georas. "Latino Caribbean Diasporas in New York." In Mambo Montage: The Latinization of New York City, by Laó-Montes Agustín and Dávila Arlene, 97-118. Columbia University Press, 2001.

McHugh, Kevin E., Ines M. Miyares, and Emily H. Skop. "The Magnetism of Miami: Segmented Paths in Cuban Migration." Geographical Review 87, no. 4 (1997): 504-19.

The Life of Princess Olga ‘Olishka’ Nikolaevna, the Eldest Daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia

Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna, ‘Olishka’, (1895-1918) was the eldest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Russia’s last Tsar. While many of us know how Nicholas II and his family were killed by the Bolsheviks so ending the Romanov Dynasty, many of us know less about Nicholas’ children. Here, Jordann Stover tells us about Grand Duchess Olga, the lives of the Imperial children, and the tumultuous events in Russia during her life.

You can also read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II here.

Princess Olga (right), with her younger sister Tatiana.

There is something fundamentally heartbreaking about being the eldest sister of a family. As the first child of one’s parents, it is through them that said parents learn and grow— that is a daunting task for a baby just learning how to toddle around a nursery. Eldest sisters look out for the little ones; the diaper-clad girl with chubby, unsteady legs must set an example for those that come after her. She’s supposed to be inherently nurturing, almost like a second mother to her brothers and sisters. A great deal of pressure comes down on these children making the fits of anxiety and outbursts that often dominate the child’s personality understandable. Grand Duchess Olga Nikolaevna was the eldest sister to end all other eldest sisters. This blonde haired, blue-eyed little girl came into the world as the first child of the last Tsar of Russia. After her birth, four more imperial children would follow. Olga’s parents put a great deal of pressure on their children, especially their firstborn who was to guide the other children in matters of behavior and their studies. This task was difficult for the little girl, she was sensitive and temperamental, a girl with a strong sense of right and wrong. Her life is often overlooked or forgotten in the chaos that was her father’s reign and subsequent fall which is, undeniably, a shame. Olga, as well as her sisters, were more than just royal children. They were fascinating beings in their own right. Their assassination was brutal, the details so gruesome that it is nearly impossible to stop reading fact after dreadful fact when studying this family. Behind the bloodstained wall and crudely crafted, unintentional bulletproof corsets that served to elongate their suffering during the last few moments of their lives were individuals of great character. Olga had a mind of her own; her heart ached with the pain that accompanied teenage crushes and thumped with anger when arguing with her sisters. Studying the young woman behind the stories is remarkably interesting, her innocence paired with an almost unfounded wisdom utterly captivating. 

Before Olga’s birth

Before Olga was even conceived, the controversy that would eventually aid in the end of her family’s dynasty and the family itself had already been in the works for years. Her parents were Nicholas II, Tsar of Russia, and Alexandra Feodorovna (formerly Alix of Hesse and by Rhine, a small German duchy). Nicholas’ father had not believed in his son’s ability to rule, never training him as he should have. So, when Nicholas’ father died suddenly while only in his forties, Nicholas was nowhere near prepared for the job he had no choice but to accept. Alexandra married the Tsar quickly, the two of them being moved around at a dizzying pace because of the unexpected death of the previous Tsar. Once settled into their palaces, it became quite obvious that Nicholas was even more unprepared than they’d feared and that his new bride was not someone they were very fond of. Alexandra, a rather shy woman who had suffered a number of tragedies in her short life, was often withdrawn or sullen. The people of the Russian court did not like her and they made sure that she knew it; this only added to her nervousness, leading the Tsarina to hide away in her rooms whenever possible. As these personal, royal issues caused whispers within palace walls and aristocratic circles, nation-wide tragedies and despair flourished as well. The country was suffering, the working class starving, they were unimpressed with wars they deemed unnecessary and leaders that seemed to ignore their plights. The world in which Olga would be born into on November 15, 1895 was not the picture perfect Russian world Grand Duchesses of the past had the luxury of living in— Olga’s bruised and beaten Russia was heading very quickly toward revolution. 

Birth

The day of Olga’s birth was one of celebration for the royal couple and their country. Olga was a beautiful, healthy baby girl, confirming that the couple could indeed conceive of and deliver an heir. They were sure that a healthy son could follow. While a boy was certainly what had been hoped for by the royal couple, they loved their little “Olishka”, Nicholas himself stated in his diary entry the day of Olga’s birth that it would be “A day [he] will remember forever”. Olga was a large baby, weighing over ten pounds. She had piercing eyes and dark blonde hair, the lightest hair of anyone in her family consisting of brunettes and redheads. Her tutor, Pierre Gilliard met Olga when she was ten years old. He described this meeting in his book Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. The Grand Duchesses’ tutor stated that Olga was “very fair…[with] sparkling, mischievous eyes ... she examined [him] with a look...searching for the weak point in [his] armor, but there was something so pure and frank...that one liked her straight off." Olga was a lovely child and the Imperial Family was happy to have her despite what the rest of Russia might have been thinking.  Nicholas and Alexandra wanted to have a close knit, happy family. They wanted some semblance of normal life for Olga and themselves. Alexandra had been raised in a close, loving family back in the small duchy of her childhood and wanted that for her own children. Their closeness was not something common among royal families of the time; little intimacies such as breastfeeding or bathing the children themselves even further alienated the Romanovs from royal tradition.

Olga was not an only child for long-- Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia followed within just a few years. The four of them were incredibly close, closer than any other group of princesses. Olga and Tatiana, nicknamed “the Big Pair”, shared a bedroom while “the Little Pair”, Maria and Anastasia shared another bedroom. Together, the four sisters often signed their letters or referred to themselves as OTMA (Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia) as opposed to writing their full names. While Nicholas and Alexandra loved their girls, they needed a son for dynastic purposes. Russia had an incredibly strict Salic law which forbade female descendents from inheriting the throne. The law dated back to the times of Catherine the Great, her son having hated his mother so much that he put the law in place after the Empress’ death. In the meantime, Alexandra and Nicholas focused on creating a loving family life for their four “girlies”. They raised them to be humble people, girls used to sleeping on plain beds and having simple toys instead of having a lavish life most grand duchesses would have had. The four had a thorough education, studying different languages, history, art, and more. Pierre Gilliard, the aforementioned tutor of the children, stated that Olga “emanated such a feeling of purity and sincerity that she immediately gained [his] sympathy.” She was intelligent and dedicated to her studies, the young girl often lost in analytical thoughts about both herself and the world around her. This deep introspection was almost certainly inherited from her mother. Alexandra was known to be the same, a trait that had been solidified by the loss of her mother and sister from diptheria and her brother from a fall at a young age. The young girl who had once been joyous became a shell of herself, carrying out courtly duties that her mother had once performed all the while grieving for the world she once knew. Olga, like her mother, was deeply religious and critical of herself. Alexandra’s mother, who died when Alexandra was just six years old, instilled in her the importance of helping others, something Alexandra would then instill in her own daughters. She was taught, as is common for most eldest sisters, that she must set an example for her siblings. Olga was expected to be well behaved and set the standards for her three little sisters. The Tsarina who had been sickly her entire adult life, often emphasized the importance of such behavior to Olga by making it seem as though Alexandra’s health was contingent on a lack of stress from her daughters. She would write letters to the Grand Duchesses to be delivered to their nurseries when Alexandra was ill. She would often ask Olga to be good for her sisters, that she was feeling ill and negative reports about her girlies would only worsen her condition.

A different upbringing

Olga had been aware of her place from a very young age. Being the daughter of the Tsar of Russia meant that she had responsibilities that any other girl of her age could not have fathomed. Her studies took up an incredible amount of her time. Academics aside, there were affairs of state, public relations appearances, and more. This little girl knew how to speak with ministers and military leaders when young girls nowadays may be mastering the art of speaking with a waitress when out for a meal with their family. At the same time, she and her sisters were incredibly sheltered. They could speak French and interact with their father’s colleagues but they were blind to the rest of the world that existed beyond the yard of the Alexander Palace. By the time the girls were young women, they were far more immature than they should have been. The girls might have been able to keep up with their contemporaries around Europe when it came to academics, but their social skills were severely lacking. They did not know how to properly interact with anyone that existed outside of the small inner circle of their family’s trusted friends. 

As a child, it was always noted by tutors that Olga was the most intelligent of her sisters. She was very critical of herself as well as any work that she may have been doing. Tutors noted that she was studious but her knack for self analysis could often impact her studies. With her natural intelligence came a sense of frankness and even anger at times-- she was known for having a temper and an inability to hold her tongue. Margaret Eager noted an example of those characteristics in her book, Six Years at the Russian Court which accounts her years as a governess to the four Grand Duchesses. Eager states that Olga once snapped at an artist after his portrait was proving to take a great deal of time; she said to the man “You are a very ugly man and I don't like you one bit!". Despite pre-adolescent outbursts, Olga was known for her kind nature. She cared deeply for those around her and studied the lives of others to better understand the ever changing world. She worked tirelessly for wounded soldiers during the First World War and took up her sickly mother’s duties quite often. She accompanied her father to official business, the young girl having to learn from a young age the importance of charming officials and courtiers alike. All of this responsibility, the pressure no young woman should have to carry on her shoulders, got to her at times. After the stress of working with wounded soldiers during the First World War, she was noted by Maria in her diary as having broken a number of window panes with an umbrella. Valentina Chebotareva, another woman working with Alexandra and the Big Pair in military hospitals, recounted in her memoir a time in which Olga flew into a rage and destroyed many items in a hospital closet. It was clear that the work was becoming too much for the young woman of only nineteen years. She still cared deeply for her soldiers, one of which she fell madly in love with despite the fact that such a relationship could never be, but had to let her nursing work go. Instead, she did office work for the hospital and visited soldiers to try to lift their spirits while her mother and sister, Tatiana, continued to work in the operating room. 

Revolutionary times

Russia was a country on the cusp of revolution which left the lives of the royal family in perpetual imminent danger. Nicholas and Alexandra feared for their children, the assassination attempts aimed at Nicholas’ father and the successful assassination of his uncle made the royal couple even more paranoid about their safety. Alexandra was especially worried, refusing to allow her children (or husband for that matter) anywhere without a trusted group of guards in their presence. They rarely made public appearances save for a few that they simply could not miss such as the tricentennial ceremony celebrating the Romanov dynasty in 1913.

The whole dynamic of the Russian Imperial family as well as their ideas of protocol changed in the summer of 1904 when Alexandra finally gave birth to the son that everyone wanted from her. Tsarevich Alexei was born and for a brief period of time, it was bliss for the family. Nicholas and Alexandra had their four girlies and a new heir, the baby being showered with love from his parents and older sisters. Olga, Tatiana, Maria, and Anastasia loved the little boy - they understood the importance of his birth for the dynasty but more than that, he was a new little one to play with and dote on. The happy little bubble that the family lived in did not take long to burst. It was discovered after a considerable period of unprompted bleeding from the infant’s navel that he had inherited the deadly disease of Hemophilia from his mother. Recent scientific studies have proven that the Tsarevich suffered from the more dangerous Hemophilia B, a genetic mutation in which the blood does not clot properly. Alexandra had inherited the mutation from her mother who inherited it from her own mother, Queen Victoria of the UK. Women are usually only carriers of the disease, while men suffer greatly. This is because the genetic mutation impacts the X chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes and men have one, inheriting the chromosome from their mother. If one’s mother is a carrier of the mutation, a son would only receive her afflicted X chromosome whereas a daughter would have another X chromosome to balance the hemophilia chromosome. This mutation meant that any little bump or fall could cause bleeding in the joints and possibly death for the Tsarevich. The Tsar and Tsarina were in constant fear for their little one’s life which led them to the infamous Grigory Rasputin who was, in the flesh, more menacing than anything 20th Century Fox could have animated. He was a Siberian peasant believed to be a holy man by many. He was, through sheer coincidence, psychology, or faith if you believe in such miracles, able to ease the Tsarevich’s pain. He seemed to be able to heal the boy with prayers alone. Nicholas and Alexandra, both loving parents and rulers well aware of their need for a healthy heir, became fiercely loyal to the man who, in their eyes, could save their son. Many extended members of the royal family and the majority of the country did not approve of Rasputin’s influence over the Imperial family. He was a drunk who was sexually promiscuous and violent. He had free reign in most parts of the palace, even having access to the children’s nurseries when they were in their bed clothes. There is no evidence of him being indecent with the young girls who were quickly blossoming into young women but that did not stop the rumors from persisting. Rasputin was hated by the people but needed by the family who by now viewed him as a friend and savior. Because of Alexei’s condition and the subsequent hatred of their favorite Siberian monk, the tight circle of trusted friends became smaller, and the family became more reclusive than ever. Alexei’s condition was kept from the people, a decision made to hopefully prevent fears of instability within the Romanov line of succession. 

Growing problems for the Imperial family

This decision was an interesting one. It seems as though the Imperial Family had no clue what it was that actually worried their people. Russia had fallen from a time where the populous worshipped the Tsar as infallible, a caring father-figure. By this time, the Russian people were far more worried about the lack of food and horrendous working conditions. As the animosity toward the Imperial family intensified, perhaps knowing of Alexei’s condition therefore humanising the royal bunch could have altered the eventual outcome. When looking at the fall of this family, it is impossible now, through a modern lense, to deny that they were a loving family. We can see the benevolence in them that the Russian people could not. If the family had allowed their people in just a little more, let their vulnerability shine through at times, the populace may have been more patient with their shortcomings. If these two groups were not so separate, those in charge could have seen clearly how the Russian people were suffering. Nicholas was not necessarily a malicious man; his unfavorable decisions usually preceded advisors giving an unqualified man information. Alexandra had a kind heart that was plagued with the belief in autocratic rule that had been drilled into her from the moment she was born. These leaders were not inherently bad people. They were bound to a system of government that was both outdated and deeply flawed that ultimately made any sense of human goodness further lost in the minds of their people who were suffering horribly. Alienating their family in the midst of this only intensified the growing hatred for anything imperial.

The end

All of this chaos and sense of impending doom came to a head when, on March 15, 1917 Olga’s father, Tsar Nicholas II, abdicated the throne for both himself and Alexei. Revolution was in full swing, different factions competing and people desperate for a change of any kind. A provisional government was put in charge of the Romanovs’ vast and aching Russia while the family was placed under house arrest. They would go from the Alexander Palace to Tobolsk and then finally to Ekaterinburg. With each move, their imprisonment became more strict, their lives becoming darker with every passing day. In their last prison cell, the Ipatiev House in Ekaterinburg, it was noted that Olga was keeping to herself. She was quiet, had lost weight. No one can know for certain if she had any idea of what was to come but she certainly knew that life as she knew it would never again be the same. After a grueling 78 days of house arrest surrounded by anti-tsarist soldiers who often became drunk and rowdy, of having guns aimed at their heads and windows boarded up, the Romanov family was told they would be leaving the Ipatiev house. They had been awoken in the night and told that an army of revolutionaries were nearby meaning the family had to be moved to safety. They gathered what little of their belongings they were allowed, including family jewels sewn into the bodices of the girls clothes, and made their way to the basement. Once standing in what must have been a dirty, musty basement, a death order was read aloud and bullets began bouncing off of the walls. What followed was a brutal execution of the Romanov family and their few companions. The children undoubtedly  suffered the most, the jewels protecting them from the gunfire. They watched as their parents were murdered and cried helplessly for escape until bayonets and bullets to the skull ended their lives.

What if?

Something about Olga that will always be fascinating are the things that will forever remain a mystery due to her tragic end, the ‘what ifs’ that accompany her story. What would have happened if Olga had been married off to a foreign prince as tradition called for? If her parents had put more pressure on her to find a marriage prospect, could she have survived the Russian Revolution? Perhaps she could have used her influence as Queen or Princess Consort to get her family back in Russia to safety. She could have brought them to her new home, hiding them away from the assassins determined to end them. Or perhaps her new husband would have refused, forcing the girl to watch in horror as her family’s land fell into chaos and her family was murdered? If that were the case, would she have even wanted to survive? Would the young woman have wanted to die alongside her beloved family and friends? Could things have ended differently if she had married one of the wounded officers she’d fallen for? Could that choice, the Tsar allowing his daughter to marry a commoner, have changed the way the Russian people saw their royals? What if Olga had married and given birth to a Romanov heir? A little boy free of hemophilia with Romanov blood flowing through his veins- what would that have meant for the beaten and battered country coming out of the First World War? Would Olga have hidden the boy away to keep him safe or would he have tried to claim the throne that was rightfully his from the Soviets? We’ll never know the answers to these questions but they are interesting enough to consider.

It is nearly unimaginable to consider the amount of change that happened in just a few years following the Russian Revolution. The world in which Olga had lived had been completely eradicated, leaving a country that the Romanovs never would have recognized in its place.

What do you think of Princess Olga? Let us know below.

And remember, you can read Jordann’s article on Princess Anastasia Romanova, the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, here.

References

Azar, Helen. 2014. The diary of Olga Romanov: royal witness to the Russian Revolution. Yardley, Pennsylvania : Westholme.

Eager, Margaret. 2016. Six years at the Russian court. SoHo, NY: Gibbons' Rare Books.

Gilliard, Pierre. 2016. Thirteen Years at the Russian Court. 

Massie, Robert K. 1967. Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Atheneum.

Rappaprt, Helen. 2014. The Romanov Sisters. New York, St. Martins.

Vyrubova, Anna. Memories of the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org.

The Draft Lottery in the Vietnam War and its Impact on America

The Vietnam War is remembered for many reasons: the military and civilian casualties; the turmoil and bitter division of American society; the ignominious outcome. From 1965 through 1972, the military draft profoundly affected the lives of millions of young men, inducting nearly two million and pressuring many more into volunteering for service. Often overlooked in the legacy of the war is the long-term impact of the draft system on the young men who escaped military duty, often by changing their lives to deliberately manipulate the Selective Service System.

Here, Wesley Abney tells us how the draft lottery worked and the wider impact on society and millions of young American men.

You can also read Wesley’s book on the Vietnam War Draft Lottery, available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Congressman Alexander Pirnie (R-NY) drawing the first capsule as part of Selective Service System draft, Dec 1, 1969. Available here.

NIGHT OF THE LOTTERY

December 1, 1969.  Nearly two million young American men were asking the same question: what will my number be? That evening the Selective Service System held the first draft lottery of the Vietnam era, to determine who would be next to fight in the distant and unpopular war. Overnight, arbitrary chance forced the "winners" to make a choice that helped shape the future of a generation, from combat to conscientious objection, from teaching to prison, from the pulpit to the Canadian border, from public health to gay liberation.

Despite the potentially life-changing drama of the drawing, the ceremony at Selective Service System (SSS) headquarters employed only a drab stage with a large tote board, some folding chairs and a cylindrical glass bowl to hold the lottery dates. Each of the 366 days of the year (including the extra leap year date of February 29) had been printed on a small rectangle of paper, tucked inside a blue plastic capsule, and placed in a box to await the lottery. The SSS had chosen “youth advisory” delegates from across the country and brought them to Washington, D.C. to draw out the capsules, to show that men of draft age were involved in the process.

The 1969 lottery was the first to be nationally televised, as CBS pre-empted the regular broadcast of Mayberry RFD to join news correspondent Roger Mudd for live coverage. Gen. Lewis B. Hershey, long-time director of the SSS, introduced the ranking member of the House Armed Services Committee (which had oversight responsibility for the SSS), Rep. Alexander Pirnie, R-New York. After the capsules were dumped from the box into the glass container, Congressman Pirnie drew the first capsule which contained the date of September 14. That date was stuck to a tote board beside the numerals 001. Thus every man in the lottery born on that date would be in the first group called for duty in 1970. Then the youth delegates took over the task of drawing the capsules, until all 366 random sequence numbers (“RSN”) were affixed to the board. According to Roger Mudd, four or five of the youth delegates refused to pick numbers on the grounds they were being used by the Nixon administration to give a false appearance of approval by American youth.

Later probability studies of the 1969 lottery results indicated that the selection process was not as entirely random as intended, in that birth dates occurring late in the year were disproportionately likely to be chosen early. This was due most likely to insufficient mixing of the capsules. A court challenge ensued but the lottery results were upheld. The SSS procured the expertise of statisticians for the subsequent lotteries of 1970, 1971 and 1972, which were fully randomized.

DRAFT LAW CHANGES

President Nixon signed changes to the draft law on November 26, 1969, just days before the drawing. In the year since his election, the war effort remained bogged down, while the public had grown increasingly doubtful of its outcome and skeptical of its worth. His presidency was as troubled by protest and dissension as Lyndon Johnson’s before him. He wanted to eliminate the draft as soon as possible and transition to an all-volunteer force, but had no immediate means to scale back troop strength in an amount sufficient to permit that change. In the meantime, he took several steps to ameliorate widespread criticism of the draft.

In May, 1969, in a message to Congress, he proposed to adopt two long-debated changes to the draft system: reversing the age-order of call such that 19-year-olds would be inducted first; and implementing a process of random selection by lottery. Congress approved both changes in draft law amendments passed in late November 1969.

Nixon viewed the lottery as a means to return at least a perception of fairness to the draft as well as deflate campus-based peace demonstrations. At first glance, an impartial method to set the order of call, such that every man of draft age, rich or poor, black or white, would be assigned a priority number based on a random drawing of birthdates, appeared fair and unbiased. Yet the lottery itself did nothing to change the draft law’s existing system of deferments and exemptions, and so did nothing to equalize the draft vulnerability between a man with a deferment and a man without. By this time, deferments for most graduate students had been eliminated, as well as deferments for married men, but many protected categories remained. A deferred undergraduate student, farmer, father or trained scientist could draw a low number and still avoid the draft, at least as long as the deferment continued, while someone with no deferment who drew the same low number was bound for service. Thus the new random selection process mainly affected those men without a deferment or whose deferment was ending, deciding among only them who would be drafted and who was safe.

A perhaps more significant change in the draft law was reversing age priority and limiting the period of time during which a man would be vulnerable to the draft. Instead of taking the oldest men first from the 19-to-26-year-old eligible range, the revised draft would take the youngest men first. Most men’s uncertainty over draft status would be considerably shortened. Instead of waiting up to six years to learn his draft fate, every man would get a lottery number by age 19, and would be primarily vulnerable only during the year to which the lottery applied. Anyone whose number was not reached in the course of that year would be clear of the draft and free to move ahead with normal plans for work and family without the lingering cloud of possible induction. Likewise, those with a deferment would be vulnerable only for the year after the deferment expired.

For the transition-year lottery of 1969, which set the order of call for 1970, everyone aged 19 to 26 (born from 1944 through 1950) who were already classified as available for induction (I-A and I-A-O), or were emerging from deferred status, or were not yet classified, participated in the lottery, a total of 1,893,651 men. The next lottery in 1970 applied only to men born in 1951; in 1971 only to men born in 1952; in 1972 only to men born in 1953. Because the draft was abolished in 1973 without any draft calls that year, no one subject to the 1972 lottery was drafted.

MAKING A CHOICE

Men whose lottery number fell into the definite-to-probable range for call-up had to immediately choose among the few available options: 1. Get drafted for two years’ active duty, often in the combat zone; 2. Volunteer for service in the military or National Guard (and probably avoid combat duty); 3. Try to qualify for a deferment; or 4. Defy the law and hope to avoid a felony draft evasion charge by going “underground” or leaving the country. 

At the time of the first lottery, deferments were still available for those who flunked the fitness test, or worked in various jobs deemed to be essential (including agriculture, teaching, the ministry, and defense industries), as well as for students (undergraduate and certain graduate schools), fathers with a child at home, and conscientious objectors.

GENERATIONAL IMPACT

The hard choices forced on young men by the draft and the lottery steered the major life decisions of millions, helping shape the future of a generation.

Work. Jobs with a likely deferment, such as engineering and teaching, exerted a magnetic pull on draft-age men, such that those fields became glutted with recent college graduates by the late 1960s. In 1969, 85% of New York City teaching trainees were draft-age men. A survey in the 1970s found that the career choices of 10% of draft-age men were influenced by the availability or lack of a deferment.

Education. The U.S. Census Bureau in 1984 observed that men who came of age during the Vietnam War accumulated more college education than those maturing before. A detailed study in 2001 concluded that the rate of college attendance in the late 1960s rose by 4% to 6% due to draft avoidance alone, affecting about 300,000 young men. A separate study of enrollment in Protestant seminaries showed an increase of 31% from 1966 to 1971, compared to a rise of only 3% from 1960 to 1966.

Paternity. Before the war in Vietnam, the U.S. birth rate declined steadily each year after the peak baby boom year of 1957. However, with the draft system back in effect, including the paternity deferment, the pace of decline slowed between 1966 and 1968, and the birth rate actually rose again in 1969 and 1970 before resuming its decline in 1971.

Conscientious objectors (COs). During World War II, when the military inducted 10.1 million men, only 37,000 (or .36%) were classified as COs, and were required to serve either in a non-combat military role, or perform alternative service. During the Vietnam War, when 1.86 million men were inducted, 171,700 (or 9.23%) were classified as COs, a rate 25 times higher than during WWII. Only about one-third of all COs performed alternative service rather than active military duty during WWII. During the Vietnam War, 80% of COs chose alternative work, usually in a hospital or forestry project at least 50 miles away from their home town, performing menial, low paid tasks for the required two years.

Draft evasion. During the course of the war, 209,517 young men were referred by the SSS to the Department of Justice for prosecution in the federal courts, due to violation of the draft laws. However, the DOJ had to dismiss over half of those cases due to procedural errors by the SSS, and another 76,000 men agreed to accept induction in lieu of criminal prosecution, such that only 25,279 were actually indicted. Even so, draft evasion offenses were the fourth largest category on the federal criminal docket by late 1969, and made up 21% of all pending federal prosecutions nationally by June 1972. A total of 10,055 draft offenders went to trial, where 8,750 were convicted by verdict or guilty plea. Of those, 3,250 served time in prison, for an average of twenty-two months. As convicted felons, those men lost the right to vote and were often disqualified for desirable job opportunities.

Immigration. Some men made the momentous decision to flee the country, leaving behind their homes, friends and family. The best government estimates show that about 40,000 young men left the U.S. during the war, with the majority crossing the border into Canada, at an average of 5,000 to 8,000 per year. After the war, an estimated one-fourth to one-half of the exiles chose to remain in their adopted country, even after they were granted amnesty by President Carter in January, 1977.

What do you think of the Vietnam War draft lottery? Let us know below. 

You can also read about the stories of men who were subject to the draft at Wesley’s site: vietnamwardraftlottery.com.

References

“Amnesty: Repatriation for Draft Evaders, Deserters,” CQ Almanac 1972, 1.

Baskir, Lawrence M. and Strauss, William A., Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War and the Vietnam        Generation(New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1978).

Card, David and Lemieux, Thomas, “Going to College to Avoid the Draft: The Unintended Legacy of the Vietnam War,” The American Economic Review 91, no. 2 (2001), 101.

“CBS News Special Report: The Draft Lottery 1969,” YouTube video, 9:41

“College Enrollment Linked to Vietnam War,” New York Times, September 2, 1984.

Dennis, Lloyd B., “Draft Law Revision.” Editorial Research Reports 1966, vol.1, 431-69.

Fletcher, John C., “Avoidance and the Draft,” Washington Post, February 25, 1992.

Hagan, John, Northern Passage: American Vietnam War Resisters in Canada (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001).

Kamarck, Kristy N., The Selective Service System and Draft Registration: Issues for Congress (CRS Report No. R44452), 2016.

“Living in Peace in a Time of War: The Civilian Public Service Story,” Mennonite Central Committee, March 28, 2017.

Mansavage, Jean A., “Obvious Inequities: Lessons Learned from Vietnam War Conscientious Objection,” (Ph.D. diss., Texas A&M, 2000).

 “President’s Draft Lottery Approved by Congress,” CQ Almanac 1969, 350-55.

Selective Service Act of 1948 (Elston Act), Pub. L. 80-759.

Selective Service Amendment Act of 1969, Pub. L. 91-124.

Selective Service System, “Induction Statistics.”

Selective Service System, Semi-Annual Report of the Director of Selective Service for the Period July 1 to December 31, 1969; July 1 to December 31, 1972.

Starr, Norton., “Nonrandom Risk: The 1970 Draft Lottery,” Journal of Statistics Education, vol. 5, no. 2 (1997).

32 C.F.R. 1622 (1967).

U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States 1968, Table 194; 1969, Table 188; 1971, Table 198; 1973,Table 211, 1974, Tables 67, 68.

Van Sant, Rick, “Paying Price Every Election Day,” Cincinnati Post, September 21, 1993.

Zeidler, Maryse, “40 Years Later, Remembering Jimmy Carter’s Pardon for Draft Dodgers,” CBC News, January 21, 2017.

The Greatest Trick of WWII? How Operation Fortitude Fooled Nazi Germany and Enabled the D-Day Landings

Almost anyone with even a passing interest in the Second World War knows of Operation Overlord (D-Day) and its immense importance. Yet, far fewer have heard of another great military operation that helped to ensure Overlord’s success: Operation Fortitude. Here, Nathan Richardson explains what happened in the 1944 operation to fool the Nazis and make them think that the D-Day landings would take place in Calais, France and Norway – and not in their actual location of Normandy.

A dummy British RAF aircraft in October 1943. Source: The National Archives, available here.

In 1944, the combined British and American military chiefs, along with their various allies, were intently planning an invasion of Western Europe. They all knew Hitler’s “Fortress Europe” must be breached if the Western Allies were to bring the war effectively to Nazi Germany and take the pressure off of the beleaguered Russians. Fighting in Italy had taken a terrible toll on the Allied armies. Regrettably, Italy had not turned out to be the “weak underbelly” that Churchill had thought. Though the operations in Sicily and Italy had successfully forced the fascist Mussolini out of power and switched Italy over to the Allied side, German troops barred the Allies from crossing the Alps into Europe proper. The Allies decided that they must find another invasion route into Europe.

The Combined Chiefs of Staff, the Allied generals made up of both British and American commanders and headed by General Eisenhower, determined that an amphibious assault must be made from Britain into Western Europe. Where and when were the only remaining questions. Ultimately, Normandy, France and June were the location and time decided upon. Yet, keeping this information from the Germans could very well decide the success or failure of the invasion. Churchill, though convinced of the necessity of an invasion, nevertheless greatly feared its results if it turned out to be a disaster, which it very well could have been (Keegan 164-5). 

However, Eisenhower, who held the gut-wrenching last word on when the invasion took place, went to impressive lengths to keep the Germans as much in the dark as possible. That an invasion was coming, the Germans knew for a fact—it was inevitable that the Allies would attempt to retake Occupied Europe. Indeed, Hitler had been making enormous preparations on his coastal defenses, stretching from Norway in the north, down the whole coast, all the way down the English Channel. However, this impressive length of coastline defenses was never completed, and never lived up to its propaganda—nor did it live up to the faith that Hitler placed in it (Esposito 66). Naturally, the Germans knew they must decide which areas were most likely to be assaulted, and to build their best defenses there. Deciding that the Allies must need a port to sustain an invasion, the Germans centered their heaviest weapons and fortifications at port-cities such as Cherbourg, Calais, and Antwerp (Weinberg 685).

Not illogically, the German High Command decided that the most likely invasion point was the Pas de Calais, with its port close at hand, and it being the closest point between Europe and England. Why would the Allies travel farther than necessary? Would not the Allies enjoy greater air cover from their powerful air forces the closer they were to England? Thus, the Germans centered the bulk of their divisions in the West around Calais, and there put their best forces, ready to repel at this likely invasion site (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88). However, this was exactly why the Allies knew they must not attack where the Germans expected them. Eisenhower knew he must keep the Germans from knowing the true invasion point. In order to do that, he made sure the Germans found evidence that seemed to confirm their preconceived ideas. The Germans must be convinced that Calais was the true planned site of the invasion, and that any other attack was just a diversion (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82, 88). To accomplish this trickery, the Allies employed some truly ingenious schemes.

German Spies Flipped

World War Two was a war of spies and espionage. In an age of rapidly advancing weaponry and innovative tactics, spies were absolutely essential in keeping the commanders on both sides knowledgeable of the enemy’s capabilities and plans. Yet, the Allies were able to effectively deprive the Germans of their ability for espionage, and turn any German spies into Allied agents, who would turn around and feed the Germans false information about the Allies. How was this done? The British Secret Service identified German spies and carefully evaluated them. If German spies were deemed suitable (i.e., most likely to cooperate with the Allies), they were convinced to turn ‘double-agent’, and to report to the Abwehr (the German military intelligence) exactly what the British wanted them to know. Those spies who were not deemed suitable or who did not cooperate were either executed or imprisoned. This system was known as the Double-Cross System. Thus, not only did the Allies control the German spies, but with the ability to intercept German coded radio transmissions due to British code breaking (known as ULTRA), the Allies could confirm that the Germans were receiving the information the Allies wanted them to receive, and could also confirm whether the Germans believed what they were being told (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 77). This system of turning German spies into double-agents had carefully been built up since the beginning of the war. Yet, British intelligence knew that using the Double-Cross System to the Allies’ advantage could likely only be used once, since the Germans would eventually realize they had been duped, and the Allies would never have such an opportunity again. So, the British were forced to sit by and patiently wait to use this weapon until the perfect time. That time was D-Day. Until then, the British carefully fed the Germans true and valuable information to ensure the Germans trusted and valued their agents, while also taking care not to feed them information that would be militarily damaging (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 78).

Operation Fortitude

The last thing the Allies wanted was for the Germans to realize that their spies had become compromised. The Germans must see tangible evidence that what their spies were reporting was true. Enter: Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude was designed to fool the Germans into believing that the Allies were attacking at Calais, France and southern Norway, which would hopefully cause the Germans to concentrate their best defensive efforts at these points - and away from Normandy (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82). 

A seaborne invasion, of course, necessitates a massive buildup of men and materials. Shipping of all sorts must be concentrated at the embarkation points. Supplies of every sort, including a massive number of vehicles, such as tanks, trucks, and jeeps. Fighter and bomber aircraft, ready to provide air support for the attackers, must be kept in readiness at airfields close to the invasion beaches. For a Normandy landing, this massive buildup must be assembled in and around ports in the south of England, at important port cities such as Plymouth, Dartmouth, Portland, and multiple others (Esposito 67). How could these preparations be kept hidden? They could not fully keep them hidden, despite the Allies’ best efforts. No amount of care and camouflage could keep German scouting planes from picking up the U.S. 4th Infantry division near Plymouth or the British 50th Armored Division west of Poole or the Canadian 3rd Infantry division near Portsmouth (Esposito 67). The location of these troops, if spotted, would show the Germans that Normandy was a more likely invasion site. Contrarily, the empty fields and ports of southeast England around Dover (the closest point between England and France), would indicate that Calais was not the target. Despite all of the Allied efforts to hide and disguise their readying of forces and to muzzle or flip the German spies, the Germans might still catch on, and the result might lead the Allies to an enormous defeat. 

Thus, the only way to keep the Germans from guessing the true invasion point, was to provide a distraction. This distraction was Operation Fortitude. Operation Fortitude was a dummy Operation, involving dummy formations of troops. In Scotland, the completely fake British “Fourth Army” was stationed, ready to assault southern Norway. In the southeast of England, the bogus First United States Army Group (FUSAG) was stationed, across from Calais, right where the Germans expected to see such an Army Group stationed (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82). To make FUSAG look like a real army group to the Germans (from far enough away at least), the Allies built poorly camouflaged dummy landing craft and fields of papier-mâché tanks. To make the tanks look more legitimate, jeeps were used to drag chains around the tanks to create “tank tracks” and to kick up dust, indicating movement. Hitler’s spies obediently reported all of these fraudulences as the real thing (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84). Fake radio traffic was also broadcast around the assembly areas for these fake armies. The British Fourth Army, which was entirely fictional (FUSAG was made up of some real units, though not all were even in England yet), knew that the Germans, due to their expertise in intercepting and decoding their enemy’s radio transmissions, were able to geographically pinpoint the location of the Fourth Army headquarters (which was Edinburgh Castle), as well as locating and identifying divisional and corps command posts (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 82-3, 85). The Allies would use the Germans’ proficiency against them with great effect. 

The already-famous General George S. Patton was placed in command of this force, giving further credence to the Army Group he supposedly led, since the Germans believed him the best Allied general. In reality, Eisenhower considered Patton more in his element when the time came for an impetuous drive across France, so Patton was given this unconventional role and saved for later (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 85). With control over the German spies in Britain, the Allies could control in large part what information the Germans received, and what they did not receive. Also, with the ability to read the German codes, the Allies could see the Germans’ react to the false reports, and could tell whether the Germans were buying it or not. Even if some information indicating Normandy as the main landing area came into German hands, this information would be buried amidst a far greater volume of reports that said the Allies were getting ready to attack Calais (Weinberg, 682).

Dummy landing craft used as decoys in south-eastern England harbours in the period before D-Day, 1944.

The German Defenses Affected by Fortitude

Operation Fortitude worked so successfully that the Germans believed not only that the Pas de Calais was the main target (which Hitler and General von Rundstedt, the commander in the West, both agreed would be the case), but that the Allies actually had far greater capabilities than they actually possessed (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84, 87). From the intercepted and decoded German radio messages, the Allies could tell that the Germans figured Eisenhower had twice as many forces as he actually had (the Germans counted eighty-nine Allied divisions, rather than the forty-seven Ike actually had), and that he had four times as many landing craft, which were actually in very short supply (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 87, 83). Believing that Eisenhower had so many men and landing craft at his disposal, the Germans easily believed that Ike had enough power for diversionary assaults in addition to the main assault—which, in the end, kept the Germans from reacting swiftly and with enough force against the Normandy assault. In fact, the lie that Normandy was just a diversion for a Calais assault lasted until nearly two months after the Allied invasion, well after the beachhead had been secured and the push inland accomplished (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 100; Esposito 83). Fifteen German divisions, the bulk of the Fifteenth Army, which were the best-equipped the Germans had in France, were kept out of the fight in Normandy altogether, awaiting another threat that never came (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88, 100). The distraction caused by the bogus British Fourth Army was no less successful. Hitler was so convinced that an attack was coming that he reinforced the Norwegian garrisons, leaving them with thirteen divisions—twice as many troops as were needed for the occupation. An additional 90,000 naval and 60,000 air personnel were also left to guard Norway, along with an armored division—all of which would have served a far better purpose in Normandy (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 84).

Conclusion

In summary, Operation Fortitude, which masterfully employed the resources that the Double-Cross System provided, managed to utterly fool the Germans into believing that the main attack was coming anywhere but Normandy. It can even be said that if Operation Fortitude had not succeeded, Operation Overlord would have failed. The Allies simply did not have the means to transport enough men to France quickly enough to meet the full force of the German occupation troops in the West if Fortitude failed to hold them back (Ambrose, Ike’s Spies 88-9). Eisenhower wrote frankly in February of 1944, just months before the great invasion, that “The success or failure of coming operations depends upon whether the enemy can obtain advance information of an accurate nature” (Ambrose, D-Day 83). The success of the Normandy invasion was just the first step in the freeing of all Europe from the terror of Nazi occupation. Thus, Operation Fortitude did incalculable service in the Allied effort to rid the world of Nazism.

What do you think the significance of Operation Fortitude was? Let us know below.

References

Ambrose, Stephen Edward. D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II. Simon & Schuster, 1994.

Ambrose, Stephen Edward. Ike’s Spies: Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment. Doubleday, 1981.

Esposito, Vincent J. The West Point Atlas of War. European Theater. Tess Press, 1995.

Keegan, John. Winston Churchill. Viking Penguin, 2002.

Weinberg, Gerhard. A World at Arms: A Global History of World War II. 2nd ed., Cambridge University Press, 1994.

McCarthyism Before McCarthy: Vincent Hartnett in the 1940s

American Senator Joseph McCarthy remains well known due to his Communist witch-hunts in 1950s America. But others were giving similar messages a decade earlier. Here, Alex Reid explains how Vincent Hartnett was discussing the rise of Communism and its threat to America in the 1940s.

A colorised image of Joseph McCarthy, a man much more famous for his anti-Communism than Vincent Hartnett. Available here.

McCarthy and the 1950s

The 1950s for the United States proved to be a time in which it could flex some of its muscle as a new world superpower after the conclusion of the Second World War. Consumerism was flourishing amongst citizens and Rock n’ Roll was hitting the mainstream. However, the same decade in which Elvis Presley was swinging his hips on the new media platform of television is synonymous with Communist anxiety. No one better personifies this anxiety, arguably, than Joseph McCarthy. McCarthy was a Senator from Wisconsin during the 1950s who reached a level of infamy that few can claim to have without leaving behind a body count. His ascent into notoriety as well as fear mongering began with a speech he delivered in Wheeling, West Virginia on February 9, 1950. As we know, the speech mostly consisted of McCarthy ranting that he held a list of known Communists that had infiltrated the State Department. The ensuing panic gave McCarthy his own “ism” and the early 1950s became known as the McCarthy era.

It is no secret that McCarthy was not the first person to spread fears of an impending Communist takeover, he does get the most attention though. He also wasn’t the only one to do so using religious overtones due to his strong Catholic upbringing. During the 1940s, before McCarthy was the face of anti-Communism, a writer named Vincent Hartnett was polluting the air with Communist fears. Hartnett would obtain some notoriety himself in the Faulk v. AWARE Inc. court case. Hartnett was one of the founders of AWARE Inc. in 1953 which was one of the organizations responsible for the blacklisting of celebrities during the 1950s due to possible Communist affiliations.[i] In 1962 Hartnett was being sued by actor John Henry Faulk for lost wages and libel. Faulk was fired from his job as a radio host due to the publications by AWARE Inc. labeling him as a Communist. Hartnett’s publications during the two decades before the court case show that he was no stranger to condemning people for what he saw as the downfall of the country.

Hartnett’s Fears During the 1940s

Hartnett wrote numerous articles for America Press Inc, the subjects of which ranged from book reviews to critiques on society. The former usually turned into the latter, however. One of his favorite themes was the impending collapse of western civilization due to the rise of naturalism and society’s shift away from religion. In an article Hartnett published in 1941, he discussed the dire need for Catholic leadership against expanding paganism in the United States.[ii] He stated in the article that “At the present day, when the powers of hell are attacking the Mystical Body of Christ with almost unparalleled violence” not referring to anyone specifically but bringing attention to what he believed was a crisis. Hartnett wasted no time in placing blame for the destruction of religious values. He traced the causes back to English desists, French Encyclopedists and the Illuminati in Germany. Scientists and patent offices also received their own share of the blame for bringing too much comfort and convenience to our everyday lives.

Like McCarthy, Vincent Hartnett was a staunch Catholic. Both were obsessed with what seemed like an unseen nemesis to the American way of life. Harnett even went as far as to call naturalism an “invisible toxin” that was poisoning Catholics. According to Hartnett, Western civilization was almost beyond the point of saving. In another article he wrote for America Press in October 1941, he cited a census taken in 1926 that stated less than half American citizens attended any church regularly.[iii]Hartnett excelled at using religious rhetoric to stir up fear and anxiety in the community. However, after the United States became directly involved in the Second World War his writing shifted in attempts to disfigure the causes and meaning of the war.

Communism and Soviet Attacks on Faith

Hartnett published an article in 1942 titled “Wanted: More Saint Justins in the Church’s Serious Crisis” that heavily discussed the book Lord of the World by Robert Hugh Benson published in 1907.[iv] Immediately Hartnett points out that the novel is set at the end of the world in a time of universal Socialism.  He praises Benson for his far-sightedness but stated that he did not predict the rise of Communism or Nazism. Once again Hartnett tries to convince readers that Christianity is facing a time of absolute crisis. According to Hartnett, the true evil of Nazism and Communism is not the Holocaust or the Great Purge by Stalin, it was their attacks on spiritual values. In fact, he makes no mention of Nazi or Communist actions outside of religious perspectives. Hartnett goes as far to say that Nazism and Communism are nothing but the tip of the iceberg hiding the true enemy, naturalism.

Even though Nazism and Communism were discussed, Hartnett condemns the latter more so. The root of his condemnation was that “Communists have been more forthright in their abjuration of religion than have the Nazi leaders.” Death tolls did not seem to be a problem for Hartnett but what he believed was a Communist attempt at building a Utopia without God was. He argued that not only does Communism attempt to destroy religion, Communism is a logical reaction of the rejection of God. Without God, Hartnett argued, the United States would fall into a totalitarian government. The spread of Communism meant the spread of paganism which meant the downfall of the United States.

Hartnett proposed this supposed war on faith was being waged on the United States by the Soviet Bezbozhniki, or Union of Militant Godless.[v] Not only was this Soviet group attacking Christianity, it was attacking the American democratic way of life. He sincerely believed this group had been slowly poisoning the United States. The article culminated in a call to arms of all Catholics especially writers and journalists. He was charging these writers with the task of stopping the expansion of paganism through Communism in the United States. It should be noted that he mentioned that action must be taken quickly because America might already be losing to Communist despotism. Hartnett drew on emotion by relating the story of Saint Justin in which he became a martyr and wrote one last Christian message with his own blood. He stated that the United States needed more people like Saint Justin.

Harnett turned the Second World War into a religious battle between Christianity and Atheism. He believed a victory in the war without faith was no victory. Communist ideals would bring about the end of Western civilization. Hartnett’s constant crisis rhetoric as well his anxieties about Communist subversion serve as a precursor to McCarthyism. Although Hartnett has not obtained the infamy or notoriety that McCarthy has, his goals were the same. Hartnett continued his fear mongering from the 1940s into the 1950s. More broadly, there is a lack of current writing on Vincent Hartnett and this lack has led to a weak spot in the historiography of McCarthyism.

What do you think of Vincent Hartnett? Let us know below.

[i] Doherty, Thomas. Cold War, Cool Medium. New York: Columbia University Press. 2003. 

[ii] Hartnett, Vincent. “Accent on Catholic in Catholic Action.” America Vol. 65, Issue 9 (1941): 233-234. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

[iii] Hartnett, Vincent. “Tertiarism: Sanctity with Action.” America Vol. 66, Issue 1 (1941): 7-9. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

[iv] Hartnett, Vincent. “Wanted: More Saint Justins in the Church’s Serious Crisis.” America Vol. 66, Issue 16 (1942): 430-432. http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dax.lib.unf.edu/

[v] Ibid. Pg. 431. 

The Life of Princess Anastasia Romanova, the Youngest Daughter of Tsar Nicholas II of Russia

Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova (1901-1918) was the youngest daughter of Tsar Nicholas II, Russia’s last Tsar. While many of us know how Nicholas II and his family were killed by the Bolsheviks, so ending the Romanov Dynasty, many of us know less about Nicholas’ children. Here, Jordann Stover tells us about Grand Duchess Anastasia.

Grand Duchess Anastasia in court dress, 1910.

We’re all familiar with the auburn haired beauty drawn up by 20th Century Fox, the orphaned girl rescued by a young boy at the height of an attack on her family’s palace. The animated movie, Anastasia, was released in 1997 and has since become a childhood classic for a generation of children. We watched Anya slowly transform into the missing Grand Duchess; we cheered as she fell in love with Dimitri and hid our eyes when the menacing Rasputin appeared on screen in an eerie green hue. For many of us, this story was the first time we’d dipped our feet into the subject of history, marveling as our parents told us the true story-- that there had once been a powerful Romanov family that was murdered but the remains for the youngest daughter had never been found. As young kids, we hoped that Anastasia would one day remember who she was, that this real princess would get the happily ever after awarded to her fictional counterpart.

The life of Anastasia

In 2007, the final two remains of the Romanov family were found in a Siberian forest. The state of their bodies was consistent with the executioners’ notes and were then confirmed to be Romanovs via DNA testing. With that case closed and any chance of the Grand Duchess or any of her family members surviving their basement room assassination in the Ipatiev House, the real story becomes inherently more interesting. Who was Anastasia? What is the story behind those ghost-like characters who danced along to the iconic “Once Upon a December”? Anastasia was born Grand Duchess Anastasia Nikolaevna Romanova, the youngest daughter and fourth child of the last Tsar of Russia, Nicholas II, on June 18, 1901. While her parents had been hoping for a son and heir, they loved their little Anastasia. She was named for St. Anastasia in the Russian Orthodox Church, the saint known as "the breaker of chains". A fitting title as Anastasia broke nearly every rule set in order to chain her to the idea of what an imperial daughter should have been.

Even when Anastasia was a small baby, her personality was larger than the Alexander Palace itself. She was best friends with her big sister, Maria with whom she was fondly referred to as “the Little Pair” in contrast to her older sisters Olga and Tatiana who were the “the Big Pair”. The four were close but so incredibly different; unlike the introspective Olga, the dutiful Tatiana, and the loving Maria-- Anastasia was referred to as “Schwipsig” meaning “little mischief” in German. She did the same needlework, the same chores and academics as her three sisters but she desired something far more fun than listening to tutors lecture for hours. Anastasia had a knack for comedy, often performing little skits with her sisters. She not only thrived on making people laugh, she excelled at the art. Helen Azar notes in her short biography of the fourth Grand Duchess that “some remarked that [Anastasia] was destined for the stage. Even in the darkest of times for her family following her father’s abdication and their arrest amidst country-wide revolution, she managed to draw laughter from her loved ones, the sound surely echoing off the walls of their prison house in Ekaterinburg for the Bolshevik guards to hear. 

Her personality, though fun-loving and entertaining, was not always charming to the people around her. As a small child, she was known to be a bit of a brat, her will too strong to be held back by her English, Victorian nannies. She would climb trees, hide away in cupboards, and refuse orders. She was a master at pranks and naughtiness, the blue eyed, strawberry blonde haired little girl dissolving into fits of giggles as she tripped servants and her siblings. She was not always the ideal playmate with other children, even noted by her cousin, Princess Nina Georgeivena, as being “nasty to the point of being evil”. Anna Vyrubova notes of an instance in her memoirs where Anastasia played a bit too rough with her sisters-- the four sisters had been having a snowball fight in the yards of their Polish palace when Anastasia knocked Tatiana to the ground with a snowball full of rocks.

Birth of a male heir

When her little brother, Tsarevich Alexei, was born, the family and country rejoiced. Russia remained one of the only monarchies at the time to refuse women the throne. Because of the Law that had been put into place by the son of Catherine the Great, the fact that Tsar Nicholas already had four daughters, they meant little to nothing for the Romanov line of succession. The birth of a little boy in 1904 meant that the Tsarina had fulfilled her duties as Empress and that the four sisters had a little one to dote on. When it was discovered that their baby brother was sick, that he had the dreaded Hemophilia, the four young girls became even more protective of the boy. They kept a close eye on him, sitting by his bedside when he was sick and writing letters when they were not permitted to visit. Despite his sickness that often left him bedridden, Alexei was a vivacious, curious boy. Who better than to be his partner in crime? His big sister, Schwipsig. The two of them were incredibly close, the absolute best of friends. Together, they no doubt ran their governesses ragged.

Towards the end

As Anastasia aged to the seventeen year old she would forever be frozen as, she mellowed out. She still enjoyed making people laugh, still pushed the boundaries of what was allowed-- for example, during the family’s time under house arrest Anastasia was nearly shot for peering out a window and then stuck her tongue out at the guard who had fired at her. Anastasia went from playing silly pranks and sticking pins on the chairs of her tutors to becoming the relief that her family desperately needed. One can hardly imagine what it must have been like for the teenage girl locked up with her future in constant danger. She and her family had no clue what awaited them, they did not know if they’d ever be allowed outside for more than an hour under guard ever again, they had no clue if they’d be allowed to see their friends, to dance, paint, sing, or any of the other number of activities they’d so loved prior to the Russian Revolution. Anastasia, determined to maintain her status as the joy of the family, must have felt an enormous weight on her small shoulders. How was she to make her father, who had lost his kingdom, laugh? Her eldest sister, Olga, who was becoming thinner and more depressed with each passing day-- how was she to bring a smile back to her face? Her brother who was in agonizing pain, her mother who was suffering from her own ailments-- could she make things better for them? We will never know if Anastasia was able to accomplish these goals but we can hope. We can hope for this Anastasia, the real girl with messy hair and skinned knees who lost her life before it had truly begun, just as we hoped for the animated princess of our adolescence. 

What do you think of Princess Anastasia? Let us know below.

References

Azar, Helen (2017). GRAND DUCHESS ANASTASIA NIKOLAEVNA: 18 JUNE, 1901 – 17 JULY, 1918. theromanovfamily.com

Eagar, Margaret (1906). Six Years at the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org

Massie, Robert K. (1967). Nicholas and Alexandra. New York: Dell Publishing

Vyrubova, Anna. Memories of the Russian Court. Alexanderpalace.org.

Russian Prince, U.S. businessman, hero of World War II: The Unbelievable Life of Sergei Obolensky

Serge Obolensky (1890-1978) may not be somebody you have heard of; however he led a fascinating life. From World War I to the Russian Civil War, from London to New York, from marrying the daughter of one of the richest Americans to capturing Sardinia in World War Two - and playing a key role in the US hotel industry. Dmitriy Nikolayev explains.

Serge Obolensky, Source: Available here.

There have been some amazing people in the history of Russian immigration to the USA. The life of the Russian aristocrat, Prince Sergei (Serge) Obolensky, was full of rises and falls, deprivations, great financial success, and military exploits. During the First World War he was awarded the highest medals for personal courage; later, the Bolsheviks hunted him. In America he became one of the founders of the U.S. Special Forces, a lieutenant colonel of the Office of Strategic Services, and a U.S. Army paratrooper at the age of 53. Obolensky successfully completed the task of peacefully seizing Sardinia and transferring it to American forces. He became a successful businessman, socialite and publicist, vice chairman of the board of directors of the Hilton Hotels Corporation. Obolensky was married several times, including the daughter of the Russian emperor Alexander II and the daughter of one of the richest people in the USA, John Jacob Astor IV, who died in the sinking of RMS Titanic.

The revolution of 1917 in Russia turned out to be a disaster for the country. Entire groups of society (for example, the nobility and the clergy) were proclaimed ideologically alien to the new Bolshevik state. There was no place for them in the new country. Several million people were forced to emigrate from Soviet Russia. Many died in the Russian Civil War (1917-22), between the ‘red’ communists and the opposition ‘whites’. Those few who remained were repressed or had to hide their origin. Life scattered the ‘white’ Russian immigration across different countries and continents. Some tried to find a new life in Europe, some fled to China, and some moved to the United States.

Sergei Obolensky was the oldest son of Prince Platon Obolensky-Neledinsky-Meletsky (1850-1913) and Maria Naryshkina (1861-1929). Thereby, both of his parents were the representatives of noble families of the highest rank. In 1897 his parents divorced. From the age of seven, the prince was brought up by his father. In 1912, Obolensky went to study in Oxford, England. There he got acquainted with representatives of the English aristocracy, including the Prince of Wales (the future king of England, Edward VIII). At the beginning of World War I, Obolensky returned to Russia and joined the army as an officer in the Cavalier Guard regiment. He was awarded three St. George’s crosses, which was the highest medal for bravery in Tsarist Russia.

During one holiday Sergei Obolensky met Ekaterina Yuryevskaya, the daughter of Alexander II in his morganatic marriage. Despite the significant difference in age for the time (she was 12 years older than the Prince), they got married in 1916. Then the revolution erupted. First Obolensky hid from the Bolsheviks in the Crimea, using a fake passport, then the couple moved to Moscow. He found a job for a textile factory in Moscow, and his wife began working as a schoolteacher. Their property in Russia was confiscated, and having such noble titles became simply dangerous.

Fleeing from the communist regime, the Obolensky couple moved to Europe. After wandering around several countries they settled in London. The Prince still had money in English banks. His former university connections helped as well. Even so, his marriage with Catherine broke up and they got divorced. 

Immigration from Russia

In London, Obolensky found a job in sales of agricultural machinery. He started to participate in social life and attend balls and parties of the English nobility. At one of the balls he met Alice Muriel Astor. Alice's father, John Jacob Astor IV, was one of the richest people in the United States, the great-grandson of the first American millionaire who was among the passengers of the Titanic in 1912. The last time he was seen, he was calmly smoking a cigar on a sinking liner. Obolensky proposed and they soon got married and settled in New York.

The Russian aristocrat joined the circle of confidants of the head of the family business of Vincent Astor and became the manager of its hotels and restaurants. Alice gave birth to their two children, son Ivan and daughter Sylvia. Though they divorced in 1932, Serge maintained friendly relations with both his ex-wife and her brother Vincent. Obolensky ran Astor's fashionable St. Regis Sheraton hotel on Fifth Avenue.

Vincent successfully navigated the financial crisis of 1929 and became an advisor to President F.D. Roosevelt and sometimes provided Roosevelt with his yacht "Nurmahal". Along with Vincent’s financial success, Obolensky’s prosperity grew as well. The Prince hosted lavish parties. George Gershwin presented the fragments of his still unfinished opera “Porgy and Bess” at one of his birthdays. 

Serge also helped Russian emigrants who were in a difficult financial situation in America, while his interests were not limited to the hotel business. Before the Second World War, he was successfully involved in perfumery with his immigrant friend Aleksandre Tarsaidze.

During World War II

When the war broke out, Obolensky decided to join the army again. But this time it was the US Army. His cavalry past was not in demand, but he thought that his experience of hiding from the Bolsheviks could be useful in the Special Forces. At first, he was refused. Nevertheless, Obolensky continued his training, passed the exams to be an officer, became a lieutenant, and soon received the rank of captain. He did it in his free time when working at the hotel.

Bill Donovan, the man who was busy organizing American commando forces, was living in the same hotel at that moment. He just formed the OSS - the Office of Strategic Services, which later became the Central Intelligence Agency of the United States. After talking with Donovan, the Russian Prince became part of the OSS. Obviously, Obolensky had an extraordinary talent for convincing people, finding a common language with different individuals. He could use his gift both in business and in military service.

First, he got several months of special training. The commanders developed not only the technical side, but also the tactics of guerrilla warfare. For this, Obolensky translated a manual for Soviet partisans into English, which formed the basis for the preparation of sabotage groups. After that, Serge took part in training in various branches of the army, from the Marine Corps to the tank forces. At the age of 53, Obolensky made his first parachute jump.

In September 1943, shortly after the overthrow of Mussolini, Obolensky, having landed in Sardinia with three other commandos, came into contact with General Basso, who commanded the Italian forces there, and, passing him special messages from Eisenhower, the Italian king and Marshal Badoglio, persuaded him to join the American forces. The capture of Sardinia was regarded as one of the most impressive achievements of the OSS at that time. Later he received the order to prevent the destruction of the power plant by Germans during their retreat. This task was also completed successfully.

The life of Serge Obolensky after the war

After the war Obolensky continued to work in his hotel business. He went to work for the fast-growing hotel empire of Conrad Hilton. And soon he became a vice president of the Hilton Corporation. In 1949, the Russian aristocrat also started his own public relations firm in New York City, Serge Obolensky Associates, Inc.

Serge continued to host society parties too. There are some photos of him with American celebrities; for example, on one of them he is dancing with Marilyn Monroe. At "white balls", which he sometimes arranged, he danced on the table the so-called "Russian dance with daggers" - even when he became much older. In 1971, Sergei Obolensky married for the third time to Marilyn Fraser Wall. He was 81 years old that year, his wife was 42. During the last years of his life, they lived in Gross Point, a rich suburb of Detroit. Sergei Obolensky died in 1978, at the age of 88. He worked in the hotel business until the last days of his life.

What do you think of the life of Sergei Obolensky? Let us know below.

The Great Flu of 1918 and CoVID-19: A Wake Up Call

CoVID-19 is leading to great change in how societies and economies operate the world over; however the Great Flu (or Spanish Flu) of 1918 caused devastation some 100 years ago. Here, Daniel L. Smith considers what happened in 1918 and in retrospect what it could mean for CoVID-19 now.

Daniel’s new book on mid-19thcentury northern California is now available. Find our more here: Amazon US| Amazon UK

U.S. Army Camp Hospital No. 45, Aix-Les-Bains, France, Influenza Ward No. 1, in 1918. Influenza pandemic ward during World War I.

So here we are. In a great modern-day national quarantined lock-down. A new procedure for most people in America and the West. Has anyone ever heard of the Great Flu  - or Spanish Flu - of 1918? The Great Influenza of 1918 might arguably resemble the CoVID-19 flu that we are seeing today, at least to some degree. For instance, we notice that Iran is dealing with a large viral outbreak with over 1,000 casualties that they are allowing to be officially reported inside of their borders.[1] Of course they are also hyping up the situation by calling for “over one-million deaths” from this unfriendly influenza.[2] During the Great Influenza the global economic and social effects were catastrophic for everybody at that time, not just Asia and the Middle East.

The U.S. Center for Disease Control and Prevention wrote: “The 1918 influenza pandemic was the most severe pandemic in recent history. It was caused by an H1N1 virus with genes of avian origin. Although there is not a universal consensus regarding where the virus originated, it spread worldwide during 1918-1919.  In the United States, it was first identified in military personnel in spring 1918.

“It is estimated that about 500 million people or one-third of the world’s population became infected with this virus. The number of deaths was estimated to be at least 50 million worldwide, with about 675,000 occurring in the United States. Mortality was high in people younger than 5 years old, 20-40 years old, and 65 years and older. The high mortality in healthy people, including those in the 20-40 year age group, was a unique feature of this pandemic.

“While the 1918 H1N1 virus has been synthesized and evaluated, the properties that made it so devastating are not well understood. With no vaccine to protect against influenza infection and no antibiotics to treat secondary bacterial infections that can be associated with influenza infections, control efforts worldwide were limited to non-pharmaceutical interventions such as isolation, quarantine, good personal hygiene, use of disinfectants, and limitations of public gatherings, which were applied unevenly.”[4]

After doing some research, I found out that Iran (Persia) seemed to suffer the most casualties from the Great Influenza of 1918. A telegram from the Minister in Persia (Caldwell) to the US Secretary of State read: “American Relief Commission en route to Persia (Iran), headed by Doctor Judson, are scattered on the Pacific at Seattle, Bombay, Kermanshah, and Harakiri. They have immense supplies of much-needed medicine, supply of which is almost entirely exhausted in Persia. Epidemic of influenza prevails and quinine retails at $125 a pound.”[5]

In Retrospect

In this transcript, the American Relief Commission was charged with supplying Iran specifically with viral medication for the pandemic’s relief efforts. The point that is being made here, is that these viral and bacterial outbreaks do happen and these things will continue to happen. There will be war, there will be sickness, there will be pestilence and famine.[6] People will be injured, and people will lose their lives. It is the way of humanity, as we can see today when we look into our more recent history. It is clear that people know this, as panic and fear have driven people nationwide to hoard supplies at grocery and department stores.[7] Shelves are empty. Supply simply cannot keep up with demand.

Was the 1918 Influenza epidemic bad? Sure it was. It's obvious by the way the United States, Britain, and Germany have been unleashing their national “war-time powers” for the (so far milder) CoVID-19 today, powers not seen since WWI and WWII.[8]  And there is good reason to be aware of the history behind this whole “Pandemic” feature of post-Modern America.[9] With the United Nations and World Health Organization (WHO) trying to unite countries across the globe to fight CoVID-19 in unity and parallel coordination, it should make you ponder the political freedoms that everybody has taken for granted here. I feel as of right now our American liberty is being thrown under the bus in some sense. Some might say all for an illusion of a false sense of security.[10] A certain security that absolutely no government can offer you, or your family.

An over-reaction?

Statistical numbers on fatalities due to this global pandemic just aren’t matching up with the reality of this fully overblown response and lock-down of millions upon millions of people across the globe. Here’s the breakdown for infections: “COVID-19: Approximately 247,400 cases worldwide; 14,250 cases in the U.S. (as of Mar. 20, 2020). Regular Flu: Estimated 1 billion cases worldwide; 9.3 million to 45 million cases in the U.S. per year. And here’s the breakdown for Deaths: COVID-19: Approximately 10,067 deaths reported worldwide; 205 deaths in the U.S., (as of Mar. 20, 2020). And for the regular Flu: 291,000 to 646,000 deaths worldwide; 12,000 to 61,000 deaths in the U.S. per year.”[11]

As we all sit and wait out what has been dubbed the newest pandemic to affect humanity, we should take time to appreciate everything that we have in our own lives. This means educating ourselves on issues that we do not understand. This also means we should also take this time to reflect on our own household and community. As we endure our newest and most politically uncharted direction for some time, we should also ponder taking on an old-time responsibility and obligation to our American solidarity, heritage, and traditional acts of participation in community affairs. We have hit a crossroads in humanity’s timeline. From here on out, regardless of your social class and occupation, we are all prisoners of the political and social cycle that we as individuals choose (and don’t choose) to be part of.

Daniel was due to give a talk about his book on mid-19thcentury northern California later this year. It’s now been canceled; however, you can keep up-to-date on when it is rearranged for here.

Finally, Daniel Smith writes at complexamerica.org.

Resources

[1] "Iran Coronavirus Death Toll Passes 600, Syria Shuts Schools." Worthy Christian News. Last modified March 14, 2020. https://www.worthynews.com/47764-iran-coronavirus-death-toll-passes-600-syria-shuts-schools. 

[2] "Coronavirus Ravages Middle East As Iran Warns of 'Millions' of Deaths." Worthy Christian News. Last modified March 17, 2020. https://www.worthynews.com/47862-coronavirus-ravages-middle-east-as-iran-warns-of-millions-of-deaths.

[3] "The Minister in Persia (Caldwell) to the Secretary of State. Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, 1918, Supplement 2, The World War." Office of the Historian. Last modified October 2, 1918. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1918Supp02/d709.

[4] "History of 1918 Flu Pandemic." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Last modified January 22, 2019. https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-commemoration/1918-pandemic-history.htm.

[5] Ibid., Office of the Historian.

[6] "African Locust Swarm Headed for Middle East." Worthy Christian News. Last modified March 17, 2020. https://www.worthynews.com/47840-african-locust-swarm-headed-for-middle-east.

[7] Solé, Elise. "Hoarding Toilet Paper Amid the Coronavirus: Why Are People Doing It?" Yahoo. Last modified March 19, 2020. https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/hoarding-toilet-paper-amid-the-coronavirus-why-are-people-doing-it-203046290.html.

[8] Rawlinson, Kevin. "'This Enemy Can Be Deadly': Boris Johnson Invokes Wartime Language." The Guardian. Last modified March 18, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/17/enemy-deadly-boris-johnson-invokes-wartime-language-coronavirus.

[9] "Trump Says He Will Invoke Wartime Act to Fight 'enemy' Coronavirus." U.S. Last modified March 19, 2020. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-trump-act/trump-says-he-will-invoke-wartime-act-to-fight-enemy-coronavirus-idUSKBN2152XL?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews.

[10] "COVID-19: Is A Psyop – Cabal Wants To Turn The World Into A Militarized Police State." Investment Watch – Spreading the Truth. Empowering the People. Last modified February 19, 2020. https://www.investmentwatchblog.com/covid-19-is-a-psyop-cabal-wants-to-turn-the-world-into-a-militiarized-police-state/.

[11] Dr. Maragakis, Lisa L. "Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vs. the Flu." Johns Hopkins Medicine, Based in Baltimore, Maryland. Accessed March 20, 2020. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseases/coronavirus/coronavirus-disease-2019-vs-the-flu. 

The TV Series Chernobyl: A Masterpiece?

The TV series Chernobyl has been the subject of acclaim by many people. Here, Shannon Bent returns and gives us her generally positive take on the series. However, she also considers the inaccuracies in the show and some of the negative impacts, including the vandalization of the Chernobyl area.

This follows Shannon’s articles on Berlin’s Checkpoint Charlie (here) and Topography of Terror (here), the UK’s Hack Green Secret Nuclear Bunker (here), and the definition of a museum (here).

A 2013 photo of a ferris wheel in Pripyat, the town in which the Chernobyl power plant was. Source: Tiia Monto, available here.

We all love a good war film, or period drama TV show. History carries its own drama and intrigue that we can capitalize on and use for entertainment value. And yes, it is okay to say that you are interested in a movie about the darkest moments for the human race; arguably it is part of the human condition to have interest in ‘horrible’ subjects. And then big film companies have a fantastic ability to take these already amazing, impressive, unbelievable historical subjects and add even more drama, explosions and death to it. Sometimes to the point of impertinence. 

As a historian, historical accuracy is the most important thing in not only my work, but in my own time when enjoying TV, books and films. I enjoy action, drama, suspense. But all this cannot be at the expense of historical accuracy. There’s just no need for it! There are so many war films that take drama and action over the heroic stories of those that actually fought and it is a huge shame. 

Moving away from war

I’m going to move away from war for a moment. I know, shock. In my defense, when you have a degree in something, it tends to occupy your mind more than other subjects. But the first piece of popular culture (using a term harping back to my Sociology class) I want to speak about is the recent HBO series ‘Chernobyl’. I don’t wish to use the word ‘masterpiece’ more than once in this series of articles so let’s get it out of the way first off. This series was a masterpiece. I have never been more gripped, more hooked, more moved, by a piece of cinematography than I was by this mini-series. I was skeptical at first. While the writers, producers and cast list was enough to make anyone impressed, it was the topic that concerned me. We have a tendency to wait a few decades before we begin to encompass historical events like this into popular culture. That, or we begin fairly soon after the event so that it is fresh in everyone’s mind and people that were apart of it can be involved if they wish. The Chernobyl disaster happened in 1986, and not only that but during the most secretive period in the world’s history, the Cold War. (Okay, I lied. I said there was no war in this one. There is. Sorry.) This makes accurately commenting on the subject tricky to say the least. For a start, of course 1986 is within many people’s lifetimes. However, to be crude and obvious about it, not many people that were there have survived to be able to tell their story today. Furthermore, anything that happened within the Soviet Union was kept under tight lock and key, and even with the downfall of the regime in 1991 that supposedly made archives and records accessible to governments, journalists and historians, knowledge on everything that occurred is sketchy at best. Let alone knowledge on a subject as damming as this. 

So, I was skeptical. I was worried if it was going to be handled sympathetically, accurately, and without too much political correctness when it came to ‘pointing the finger’ so to speak. There were many things that could have gone horribly wrong. But we were all in for a positive shock.

The Bridge of Death

The series begins a mere few hours before the disaster occurs yet does a fantastic job at setting the scene in communist Ukraine. It presents Pripyat as the purpose-built town it was intended to be – all existing purely to house workers for the power plant. Filmed in previously communist Lithuania, the architecture is perfectly Soviet. The reactor room was reconstructed on the set with minute accuracy, but we have photos to help us with that. This means costumes etc. can be fairly accurate too. These things should be correct; however, like I say, photos and, lets be honest, logic, should lead to these things being accurate. It’s the smaller matters that may be an issue. 

I’ve just spent the last half an hour annoying my parents who are trying to read the newspaper by reading out lines from various articles I have found online about the accuracy of this series. There seemed to be a consistent item that was cited in these articles – ‘The Bridge of Death’. In the first episode, it is shown that many residents of the town went to stand on a bridge that directly faced the power plant to watch the fire, and this eerie blue glow that sat above it. The episode also depicts a type of ‘ash rain’ falling onto the skin of the onlookers, adults and children alike, presumably radioactive ash. At the end of the episode, in a manner that a lot of historical dramas like to adopt, the producers add in comments about what has been more accurate or extra information about scenes shown before. The comments at the end of this episode claim ‘of the people who watched from the railway bridge, it has been reported that none survived. It is now known as ‘The Bridge of Death’’. This has been highly disputed by just about everyone. A BBC article containing the comments from Mr Breus, an engineer at the power plant and eyewitness of the disaster just hours after it happened, says that many people would have slept through the night and would have only been aware of the explosion the following morning. I am inclined to agree. Depending on how loud the explosion was (and I know that sounds potentially stupid, it is an explosion. It’ll be damn loud. But what I mean is, taking into account proximity to the town, surrounding terrain etc., it may not have been loud enough to wake some people) many people may have continued to sleep unaware. The series practically implies that half the town took a picnic up to the bridge to go and watch. Also, I do not wish to insult the intelligence of the people of Pripyat by implying that an explosion or fire at a nuclear power plant is something to go and watch like one would a firework display. It is more likely that even if residents were aware, most would have done the smart thing of staying in their homes until morning and awaiting official information.

Google this concept and you will find forum after forum, website after website, thread after thread, about how there is no evidence of this being true. Keep in mind this is one of the most highly researched events in history, and I don’t just mean by historians. Every sector of science has taken this one under its wing; environmental scientists, human scientists, biologists, chemists, physicists, sociologists, anthropologists. You name it, they have studied it. Not to mention historians, journalists and writers collecting eyewitness accounts and numerous stories from just about every element of society in Pripyat. If there was a notable amount of people collecting on a bridge to watch the biggest nuclear disaster in history, someone would have noticed the pattern and commented on it. Perhaps this is a case of drama for drama’s sake. People are pretty annoyed about this point. It’s a fairly large misleading point, and furthermore to claim that everyone depicted died is even more misleading.

Chernobyl Tourism

There are various other historical inaccuracies that people have pointed out, and a few accounts of drama for drama’s sake. Overall though, the consensus is that the series was done sympathetically, mostly accurately and with fantastic self-awareness of the enormity of what they were commenting on. Even I, who believe that historical inaccuracy is the worst thing people could grace TV and cinema with, can overlook these elements in favor of overall understanding better the hell that these people went through in dealing with this disaster. But more to the point, very much more to the point than my last 1,000 words have been, far worse and sinister things have come out of this series than just a few historical inaccuracies or dramatization of the facts.

I will forever maintain that the human race is its own greatest vice. We are an incredible species; we develop and research and discover. We advance at the speed of light to make our lives better. Yet we are still infinitely stupid. Within a month of the series airing on its various platforms, visitors to the exclusion zone rocketed in numbers. I guess to be expected, to an extent. If you draw attention to any historical site or event in popular culture, you are, by definition, making it popular. This is very much the point of this series; making history popular and how we react to it. I will also admit my guilt in jumping onto this bandwagon. Many times I have seen a site on TV or read about it in a book or article and insisted on going to see visit it. After all, standing in the place in which history has occurred brings it to life, as I have said before. However, I must say, not many of these places I have been eager to visit contain the most radioactive areas of land on the planet. I considered it, once, when I was looking for interesting trip destinations. While it was cheap to visit (it has considerably risen in price now as I’m sure you can imagine), it was a fleeting consideration and it was short-lived. 

However, unfortunately, many people aren’t flocking to the site to pay their respect to history, to the people that lost their lives because of the tragedy. No, instead they are going there to take selfies and graffiti the buildings. And it is not just the visitors that are capitalizing on ‘dark tourism’. Online and at the site there are gift shops selling souvenirs such as t-shirts with the radioactive symbols on, ‘radioactive glow’ mugs and key rings, fridge magnets and hats. But perhaps more disturbingly than all of this, the official souvenir vendors at the checkpoint entering the exclusion zone are selling bottled ‘radioactive air’ and ‘Chernobyl ice cream’, supposedly made from the contaminated milk of local cows. The amount of times I have used inverted commas in this article to do with this topic is disturbing to me. These elements of gifts and souvenirs are fairly alarming when you consider that they are supposed to be a thing which would give the user radiation poisoning. Apart from being totally stupid, it is the most appalling, unethical, amoral thing I have ever read in my life. 

Reading up on what these tours off, how these tour companies bring bus after bus of people in, making their guests spend longer at these souvenir stands than at the actual site, and then allow these visitors to pick things up, climb into buildings, vandalize the area and litter the now reclaimed wildlife-filled forest is utterly disgusting. Both parties are to blame here. Yes, the people should know better; have some basic humility. But these tour companies shouldn’t be allowing such vile behavior in such a dangerous place. Ultimately, the bottom line is that while living history is amazing, and the concept of standing in the very place that history happened is very important to many including me, this should not be happening. Who is to blame is to be debated, of course, and is hotly contested. To me, everyone is. Everyone from the tour companies to the people behaving badly on the tours are all throwing their hat into this ring of destruction and in some manner competing to see who is worse.

The importance of the media in popularizing history

The question is, seeing as this has all stemmed from the HBO series as the popularity of the site rose along with the viewing figures of the show, how much is the entertainment industry to blame? And I’m referring to more general concepts too, not just Chernobyl; World War battlefield sites and movies, areas of natural beauty that appear in the media, these are all places that have been affected by the emergence of media popularity through TV and film. 

Ultimately, I feel the question is should we have to miss out on educational and entertainment opportunities of TV and movies so that idiots don’t know where to go to defile and destroy an area of great importance to humanity.?

This seems harsh maybe. But if you’ve read anything else I’ve written you may know by now I pull no punches in these articles. I’m fed up with people thinking that their stupid actions should take priority over the preservation of a place in which people lost their lives to try and save others. Not many things can make my blood boil like this topic does. I was beside myself with anger when I began reading the articles I have mentioned and quoted in this piece. I do not believe we should stop creating fantastic pieces such as the series Chernobyl just in case someone decides that they want to graffiti a radioactive building or somebody decides to capitalize on a very real deadly concept of radioactive material and uses it to sell some kind of ‘quirky’ and ‘individual’ gift. However, I feel ultimately this is the price we pay if we wish to encompass sites such as Chernobyl into popular culture. It doesn’t matter how good your intentions are, how historically accurate you make your show, you always run a risk of being misconstrued or misinterpreted or simply people missing the point that this area is a) dangerous, b) should be protected, and c) is sacred to the people that once lived there and witnessed this disaster. Even if you can beautifully articulate this point in your work, as I feel Chernobyldid, capitalism will continue to roam free in the area and people will continue to not understand why taking smiling selfies in a reactor room where people lost their lives is in poor taste, to put it mildly. 

Creating series like this are so important for everyone, and I cannot express how vital it is for everyone to understand this topic, no matter how little of it they understand. And if we remove the tour guides, the souvenir shops and the memorabilia, the Chernobylseries has achieved its main goal: one thing is for sure, the disaster of Chernobyl on the April, 26 1986 will never be forgotten. 

What do you think of the article? Let us know below.

References

https://www.theguardian.com/travel/shortcuts/2019/jun/04/chernobyl-welcomes-the-tourists-a-messy-and-morally-queasy-experience

https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/dark-tourism-chernobyl/index.html

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-48580177

https://works.bepress.com/philip_stone/31/