The Secret Lie that Ended World War One: The Bulgarian Contract

As hard as it may be to believe, not everything is yet known about World War One. Even some major events have remained hidden for more than a century. Here, Graeme Sheppard, author of a new book, tells us about the extraordinary Bulgarian Contract.

Over a hundred years on, and after the production of so many detailed studies, anyone might reasonably assume that there can be nothing new, surely, to discover about the events of World War I. That is, nothing surely of major consequence. A new aspect or angle to a campaign or battle maybe, or perhaps a fresh insight into some familiar ground. But the discovery of new and previously unseen evidence of how and why the war ended when it did in 1918, rather than continue in to 1919? Surely not? And yet a few years ago that was precisely what a visit to the UK National Archives in Kew presented me with.

Why the war ended?

I hadn’t been looking for it or anything like it. In fact, I was searching for unrelated material pertaining to British diplomats in China. But while doing so, I came across a very slim Foreign Office file from 1931. It came in a box with the unpromising title of “Miscellaneous”. It contained a mere few pages: an internal letter from a junior diplomat, one D.J. Cowan, explaining how, while a prisoner-of-war in Bulgaria in 1918, he had encountered among its peasant population word of an extraordinary act of political propaganda and misinformation, one so effective that it had succeeded in propelling Bulgaria out of the war. It was this act, he believed, rather than the Allied offensive of that September, that had been the true cause of the collapse of Macedonian front - a collapse that foreshadowed the November armistice six weeks later. Cowan was clearly making an important claim, and yet, by the look of the file, at the time the letter had elicited little interest.

I was still trying to make sense of this find when a few weeks later I came into possession of the unpublished memoirs of another Foreign Office diplomat and fellow Balkan prisoner, Robert Howe. Howe wrote in the 1970s in his retirement. Quite independently, and with greater detail, he described being a witness to the same Balkan deception. But Howe went further: a few years after the war, in Belgrade, he had actually met the political architect behind the plot. He had discussed the matter with him in the royal palace.

An extraordinary tale

Quite apart from the startling information the pair provided, junior officers Cowan and Howe had an extraordinary story of their own to relate.

In late September 1918, Cowan and Howe, prisoners since 1915 and twice before failed escapees, walked out of their Bulgarian prison camp deep behind enemy lines. Having heard rumors that the Macedonian front had collapsed, on this third occasion they simply announced to their resigned captors that they were leaving. No one stopped them. They then spent several days travelling a hundred miles over chaotic roads and rail lines jammed with an enemy army in a rebellious retreat. Largely ignored on their way, they headed not toward the advancing Allied forces to the south, but instead west toward Sofia, the enemy’s capital, and a city now engulfed in political turmoil. Arriving at the main rail station, which they found in a state of frenzy, they caught a horse-drawn cab to the nearly deserted Ministry of War building. There, despite their less than orderly attire, they brazenly announced to staff there that they were British officers and were taking control of the city in the name of His Majesty the King. No one raised an objection. With their authority established, a ministry car and driver were summoned to take the pair to the city’s Grand Hotel, where they demanded and were provided with the best rooms the establishment had to offer. An hour later, having washed and shaved, they entered the hotel restaurant, only to find it full of senior German officers gloomily eating their dinner. The hotel, it transpired, happened to serve as the German regional headquarters. Undeterred, they informed the maître d' that they required the head table and would the two gentlemen seated there kindly vacate it, at which point the German officers concerned rose wordlessly from their seats. Rubbing salt into the remaining diners’ wounds, one of the chums then raised a toast to the victorious Allies.

“It was a great moment,” remembered Howe. “One of the greatest moments of my life - perhaps never again one like it. One of those moments when you know there is nothing you cannot do, when no obstacles exist, when no one can touch you.”

Contract

A great moment, indeed. And yet, though they did not realize it fully at the time, the two men had so much more to relate. They had experienced a very peculiar captivity in Bulgaria, one of extremes, ranging from internment in the worst of punishment death-camps to that of living in virtual freedom among its peasant folk. Their survival tale, however, provides only the backdrop to their unique eye-witness accounts of a secret act of Balkan propaganda, known as the Contract, one that triggered not only rebellion in Bulgaria and the collapse of the Macedonian front, but also acted as the catalyst for German defeat and the road to the armistice of November 11.

A new book, The Bulgarian Contract, provides readers with two new strands of evidence that together change our understanding of how and why the Great War reached its conclusion. Firstly, recently discovered eye-witness accounts of a clandestine deception that was crucial in bringing about the dramatic collapse of the Macedonian front. Secondly, the direct influence this fraud had on Germany’s High Command (Oberste Heeresleitung) in occupied Belgium, and on de facto dictator, Erich Ludendorff, and his crucial meeting with the Kaiser of September 29, resulting in the road to German surrender six weeks later. Describing politics, revolution, treason, assassination, and deceit, the book explains how without the hitherto unknown Contract, the Great War was destined to continue through the coming winter and into 1919, resulting in many thousands of further deaths.    

You can order The Bulgarian Contract here: http://thebulgariancontract.com/

Image provided to the site and used with permission.

Was Romania Neutral or a Nazi Ally in World War 2?

Officially Romania started World War II as neutral, but was it really neutral throughout the whole war? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this question by looking at Romania in the 1920s, the rise of authoritarianism in the country in the 1930s, the role of Romania during the war in the USSR and the Holocaust, and finally how it changed position towards the end of the war.

Ion Antonescu and Adolf Hitler. Munich, June 1941. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-B03212 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Looking back on the belligerent nations of the Second World War, Romania is often counted as part of the Axis nations. Romania’s Fascist leader, Ion Antonescu, was close with Hitler, the country had officially joined the Axis in 1941, and Romanian troops fought alongside the Germans on the Eastern Front.

If one was to judge Romania simply by these factors alone, then the county can be consigned to the realm of yet another Axis collaborator. However, Romania’s situation during the Second World War was more complex than meets the eye, and an assessment of neutrality requires an examination of what led to its position in the conflict.

A Political Problem

Following the conclusion of the First World War in 1918, Romania was one of the few countries to end up better off than it had been before the war; it received generous awards of territory that allowed the country to nearly double in size, with its population reaching up to 16 million. [1] 

In addition to managing all its new peoples and territory, a major issue in Romania following the conclusion of the First World War was the struggle between democracy and authoritarianism. Romania had a solid foundation of democracy, given that its two strongest political parties throughout the 1920s, the Liberal Party and the National Peasant Party, were both recognized for their staunch democratic viewpoints. The National Peasant Party even won the 1928 election, and, at the time, the future seemed to bode well for democracy in Romania.

However, things changed in the 1930s with two major events that would shape Romania’s future turn towards authoritarianism. The first major change was the Great Depression, which crippled Romania’s economy and shook the people’s faith in their democratic government, led by Iuliu Maniu. This left people free to look for solutions to the country’s problems in more extreme political movements, a familiar narrative in Europe at the time. The second major change came with the accession of King Carol II to the throne, who would push democracy aside in favor of his own self-centered reign.

A Controversial Figure 

Carol was born on October 15, 1893 and was the first Romanian monarch to be born in the country; previous monarchs were of German descent. [2] Carol was raised by his aunt and uncle, King Carol I and Queen Elisabeth, who felt that his parents, King Ferdinand and Queen Marie, were unable to raise their son properly because they were too young. His uncle tried to raise Carol in his own militaristic image, but quickly found out the boy preferred a hedonistic lifestyle of party and drink, caring little for military pomp and ceremony. Carol was extremely adventurous; he joined the Prussian Guards military unit and fought in both the Second Balkan War of 1913 and the First World War.

Carol renounced his claim to the throne twice - first in 1918 and again in 1925 - and gave birth to his son Mihail, future king of Romania, in 1921 with his second wife Helen of Greece (his first marriage was a messy affair, conducted without the approval of Parliament and was swiftly dissolved). 

In 1927, Carol’s father died, and the throne went to his infant son, with a regency ruling on his behalf while Carol lived in France in exile. Although he had been officially excluded from the throne by his father’s will and by a law passed in 1926, he returned to Romania in 1930 with the goal of reclaiming his position on the throne. [3] Following a coup that took place on June 7, 1930, Carol took his place as Romania’s king over his infant son.

Upon usurping the throne, Carol immediately tried to increase his own power, disregarding the oath he had sworn upon taking the throne to uphold the 1923 Constitution, and began to fashion himself as a dictator. During his reign, and as a consequence of his growing admiration of the Fascist policies of Benito Mussolini in Italy, he began to dismantle Romanian democracy. His attempts came to a head in 1938, when he dissolved all political parties and proclaimed a royal dictatorship. This was done following his discovery of a plan that attempted to bring the anti-Semitic and Fascist Iron Guard into power.

As Europe once again drew closer to war, Carol tried to appease both sides - he appealed to Britain for help while also trying to improve relations with Germany by visiting Hitler. When the Second World War officially broke out in September 1939, Carol declared neutrality. However, in May 1940, seeing the shocking fall of France and the Allies back-pedaling, he decided to officially join the Axis.

Unfortunately, Carol’s reign did not last much longer. In June 1940, under threat from the Soviet Union and knowing his army was no match for the Red Army, Carol was forced to surrender pieces of Romanian territory to appease Stalin. In August, further territory in Transylvania (which had been awarded after World War One) was ceded to Hungary as a result of the Second Vienna Award. This was a set of territorial disputes arbitrated by the Fascist powers of Italy and Germany with the goal of drawing Hungary into their alliance. [4] This resulted in Carol losing support from the people, and the army refused to follow his orders. Out of desperation, Carol named General Ion Antonescu as prime minister, but was forced to abdicate in favor of his son Mihail on September 6, 1940. However, Mihail immediately granted Antonescu dictatorial power, further paving the way for the Fascist regime, as Antonescu would later ally himself with the powerful Iron Guard.

Rise of the Iron Guard

Much like other European countries during the tumultuous interwar period, Romania had its own Fascist-style movement that sprang up during the 1930s. Following King Carol’s dissolution of various political parties in 1938, a new party to crop up in Romania was the Legion of the Archangel Michael led by Corneliu Zelea Codreanu, whose father was the leader of the largest extreme anti-Semitic party in Romania. [5]

For several years, the Legion was just a small organization with little money or support. In 1930, the Legion founded a militia branch called the Iron Guard, which included all Legionnaires (members) between the ages of 18 and 30, and won two local by-elections, thereby gaining parliamentary representation for the first time in 1931. In the national elections of 1932, support for the Legion rose to only 2.37 percent. [5] However, the National Peasant Party, which won the election, showcased interest in obtaining the help of the Iron Guard’s Legionnaires. At the same time, Nazism was rising in Germany and Nazi contacts became more frequent in Romania, even establishing a Romanian Nazi party.

The Legion acknowledged the Romanian monarchy as an important and fundamental institution, and as a result, King Carol actively tried to reign in and exploit the Legion for his own purposes until 1937. However, realizing his efforts were futile, Carol tried to stamp out the organization - a move which also failed.

In the 1937 elections, the party finished third with 15.5% of the vote, its highest total yet. When Carol abolished all parties and declared a royal dictatorship the following year, Codreanu urged his compatriots to accept the new regime, but was arrested by the government and put to death. An internal battle for power followed his death, with the victor being Horia Sima.

Antonescu’s War Contributions

Upon taking power, Antonescu allied himself with the Iron Guard and established Romania as the authoritarian National Legionary State. However, this new state was not to last long - Antonescu and the Guard had opposing ideologies. Antonescu embodied strict order, while the Guard aligned itself with chaos, rejecting Antonescu’s social policies. This led to a rift which erupted in January 1941 when he used the army to destroy the Guard, making himself a military dictator for the remainder of the war.

By this time, the Second World War was in full swing, and Antonescu decided to ally himself with Hitler, who he had no doubt would win the conflict. He committed Romanian troops and resources to aid the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, hoping that he would be granted the territory of Transylvania after the war’s conclusion. [1] In fact, Romanian troops in the invading Axis army numbered the second highest. [6] This proved to be a disastrous move as the Soviets repelled the attack, leading to huge numbers of Romanian casualties, destroying Antonescu’s hope that Germany would win the war.

In 1941, the Iron Guard attempted (and failed) to overthrow Antonescu, forcing its leaders to flee the country. By 1943, the tide of war had turned against the Axis powers, and Romania was subjected to Allied bombings, especially its oil fields, which were vital to the war effort. The Soviets, who had recovered from the previous invasion and were now pushing their way back across Europe towards Berlin, invaded Romanian territory and the army was unable to hold them back.  Seeing his country’s plight and sensing an opportunity, Mihail gathered his supporters and launched a coup, overthrowing Antonescu's government. He proceeded to align Romania with the Allies and the Soviets, declaring war on Germany on August 23, 1944.

Romania would spend the rest of the war fighting alongside the Allies against the Germans, waging bloody battles across Eastern Europe. Although it ended the war on the winning side, Romania lost a lot of territory as a result of the Soviets downplaying the defection of King Mihail, given that, for a majority of the war, Romania had fought against the Soviets. In post-war negotiations, the Soviet Union was given a 90% share of control over the country, which would result in its Cold War Sovietization and the rise of a Communist regime. [6]

The Holocaust

Romania’s role in the Holocaust is often forgotten. Unlike Germany or Italy, Romania was not driven by a desire for conquest, but a desire to do what was best for the national interests of the country. During the period of Antonescu’s leadership, the government ramped up its anti-Semitic laws and authorized many pogroms which killed thousands of Jews within Romanian borders. However, the Romanian government later realized that they could make a large profit from the situation by allowing European Jews transit through Romania to safer lands while charging exit fees. Abroad, Romanian anti-Semitism was showcased by the atrocities of Romanian troops massacring upwards of 260,000 Jews in southern Russia and Ukraine. [7]

One of the most infamous incidents was the Odessa Massacre in 1941, in which approximately 30,000 Jews were murdered by German and Romanian soldiers. [8] On October 16, 1941, the Red Army surrendered the city of Odessa to German and Romanian troops after two and a half months of bloody and bitter fighting. At this point, roughly 250,000 inhabitants remained in the city, including some 90,000 Jews.

Around 6.45 p.m. on October 22, a bomb (probably in place since before the city’s capture) exploded close to the Romanian headquarters, killing 67 people, including 16 Romanian and four German officers. Angered, the invaders announced that for every dead officer, 200 "Bolsheviks" must be executed, and 100 for every dead soldier.  However, there were no longer any “Bolsheviks” left in the city - they had fled long ago. Instead, the city’s Jewish population faced the retaliation of the invading armies. Between October 22 and 23, up to 30,000 people were rounded up and locked in nine empty munitions depots at the edge of the city, which were then doused in gasoline and set on fire. Similar horrifying acts of extermination took place across Ukraine over the following months and weeks.

Figures show that Romania bore responsibility for the deaths of more Jews than any other German-allied country other than Germany itself. [7] In the face of such clear destruction and hatred, the Romanian government has steadfastly maintained its innocence, blaming these acts solely on the Germans and Hungarians. As recently as 2003, the government stated that it is “unjust to link Romania to the persecution of the Jews in Europe” and that the numbers of Jews killed in Romanian-perpetrated atrocities were being inflated for the sake of media impact. [7] Romania must face the horrors of its Holocaust past and accept the role it played in one of the worst atrocities in history.

Conclusion

The question of whether Romania can truly be considered neutral is easy to answer. Despite the country’s declaration of strict neutrality at the outset of the war, the political situation within the country forced Romania into the Axis camp. Its politically Fascist ideologies, anti-Semitic policies and actions taken towards Jews, and the contribution of manpower to help the German army in its attempt to crush the Soviets meant that Romania, like Italy, was firmly a wartime ally of the Germans - even if official statements may have indicated otherwise. Romania made more contributions to the Axis war effort, both militarily and ideologically, than it did to the Allied war effort, only fighting alongside the Allies for roughly a year, and only when it was already too late to have an impact.

What do you think of Romania’s role in World War Two? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Stefan’s article on whether Portugal was neutral in World War Two here.

Sources

[1]“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

[2] Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

[3] “Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

[4] “Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

 [5] Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

 [6] Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

 [7] Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

 [8] Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

Bibliography

-“Carol II.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., https://www.britannica.com/biography/Carol-II

- Chen, C. Peter. “Romania in World War II.” WW2DB, ww2db.com/country/romania.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “'Ignoring Romania's WWII Complicity – Not an Option'.” Ynetnews, Ynetnews, 27 Apr. 2012, www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4142322,00.html.

- Feldman, Oleksandr. “The Odessa Massacre: Remembering the 'Holocaust by Bullets': DW: 22.10.2018.” DW.COM, 2 Nov. 2011, www.dw.com/en/the-odessa-massacre-remembering-the-holocaust-by-bullets/a-45844546.

-“Greater Romania.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., www.britannica.com/place/Romania/Greater-Romania.  

- Mehl, Scott. “King Carol II of Romania.” Unofficial Royalty, 31 Dec. 2020, www.unofficialroyalty.com/king-carol-ii-of-romania/.

- Payne, Stanley G. “Why Romania's Fascist Movement Was Unusually Morbid-Even for Fascists.” Slate Magazine, Slate, 21 Feb. 2017, slate.com/news-and-politics/2017/02/romanias-unusually-morbid-fascist-movement-blended-nationalistic-violence-with-fanatical-christian-martyrdom.html.

-“Vienna Awards.” Oxford Reference, www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803115719661.

Japanese Attacks on the USA in World War 2: Beyond Pearl Harbor

While the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in World War II is well known, most people are less familiar with other Japanese attacks on US soil in World War II. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about attacks on California and Oregon, and the occupation of Alaska.

U.S. soldiers fire mortar shells onto a Japanese position during the Battle of Attu in 1943. Aleutian Islands, Alaska.

The USA decided to join World War II because of two major factors: the well- known attack on Pearl Harbor and Hitler’s war declaration on December 11, 1941. In addition, in 1942, Japan achieved some strategic gains by launching some lesser-known attacks on the continental United States. The Japanese were an effective Axis Power in part as they occupied a U.S. territory. Additionally, their attacks were not only limited to Hawaii. They also attacked California, Oregon, and Alaska.

The Japanese attack on the U.S. military Base at Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941 was devastating. The attack killed 2,008 Navy personnel, killed 109 U.S Marines, killed 218 U.S. Army Soldiers, and killed 68 civilians, for a total death toll of 2,403 people ([1]). The Japanese military strike also sunk the American Battleships Arizona and Oklahoma, the target ship Utah, and the Destroyers Cassin and Downes (1). The Japanese attack destroyed 96 Army Aircraft, and 92 Navy Planes, for total planes destroyed at 188 (1). The Japanese also lost 29 planes and five submarines during the raid (1). 

Attacks on California and Oregon

In 1942 the Japanese military launched some attacks though while not as successful as Pearl Harbor, did achieve some gains for the Japanese. On February 22, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-17 Submarine shelled the area of  Ellwood City California near Santa Barbara, California ([2]). The attack by the I-17  lasted 20 minutes and only damaged a pier and oil well derrick near Santa Barbara California([3]). The I-17 attack did result in a shell exploding near an oil well causing about $500 in damage to a catwalk, some pumping equipment, and did create ‘invasion fears’ along the West Coast (2). A U.S. army soldier named Captain Bernard Hagen was wounded while trying to deactivate one of the fuses from one of the recovered shells from the Japanese I-17 Submarine attack (2). He was awarded the Purple Heart for this act (2).

On June 21, 1942 the Japanese Submarine I-25 took up position off the Oregon side of the mouth of Columbia River, and shelled the military base of Fort Stevens ([4]). The I-25 Submarine’s shells fell harmlessly in the sand and scrub around Battery Russell, damaging only the baseball diamond backstop and a power line(4). On the dates of September 9, 1942 and September 29, 1942, the Japanese Submarine I-25 launched an aircraft which conducted a single bombing raid in Oregon on those respective dates ([5]). The I-25 Submarine Aircraft’s bombing raids only resulted in little damage with only one incendiary bomb exploding to start a small fire on Wheeler Ridge Oregon, approximately four miles southeast of Mount Emily, Oregon (5). Within four hours of the first raid, General John L. DeWitt, commander of the Fourth Army and the Western Defense Command, sent staff officers to Washington D.C to obtain permission, to add a small squadron of P-38 Lightning Fighters to his defense forces (5). The I-25 Submarine aircraft attack on September 9, 1942 forced the U.S. military to divert valuable P-38 Lightning Fighter Aircrafts, which could have been used on other important military fronts.  

Occupation of Alaska

During World War II, the Japanese would occupy Alaska, which in 1959 along with Hawaii would become a U.S. State. The Japanese decided to attack the Aleutian Islands in Alaska, as a means to divert American military resources away from the Japanese attack at Midway in June 1942 ([6]). The Japanese military also decided to occupy the two western Aleutian Islands in order to gain a psychological victory over the Americans by establishing a foothold on North American soil, and also hide their June 1942 Battle of Midway defeat ([7]). The Japanese launched an air attack on Dutch Harbor, Alaska between June 3 and June 4, 1942 which killed 43 Americans ([8]). The Japanese forces invaded and occupied the Aleutian Island of Kiska on June 6, 1942 and the Aleutian Island of Attu on June 7, 1942([9]). Fortunately, Kiska Island was unpopulated, and no civilians suffered under the Japanese occupation of this island ([10]). In contrast on Attu Island, Charles Foster Jones was taken away by the Japanese and never heard from again, while his wife Etta Jones was taken to a Japanese POW Camp in Yokohama, Japan ([11]). Etta Jones would survive World War II and was released on August 31, 1945 (13). In 1942 there were 43 Attu Aleuts, with one of the 43, traditional chief and village elder, John Artumonoff, dying of natural causes at age 56 during the Japanese occupation (12). On September 17, 1942 the Japanese transported 42 Attu Island natives to Japanese POW camps in Japan, of which only 25 Attuans and a surviving baby were repatriated after the war ([12]). The Attuans lost 17 out of the 42 that were transported to Japan, with also four out of five babies that were born in captivity dying at birth (12). The Americans responded to the Aleutian Islands invasion with outrage since this was the first time American soil had been occupied since the War of 1812 (14). Indeed in a nationwide public opinion poll, only 21% of Americans could find Hawaii on a map, while 71% could find Alaska (14). However, there were still some segments of the population who did not know the Aleutians had been invaded (14). More broadly, American war planners were still reeling from the aftermath of the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (9). 

Retaking of Alaska

On May 11, 1943 the American military forces began the invasion of Attu to help retake Attu Island (15). The battle officially ended on May 30, 1943, when the Americans declared Attu secured after very fierce fighting (9). The widely accepted U.S. casualties from the Battle of Attu, according to the Army Source The Western Hemisphere, Guarding the United States and its Outposts, listed 549 American soldiers dead, 1,148 wounded and 2,100 suffering non-battle injuries (16). On the Island of Attu there were approximately 2,500 Japanese soldiers on Attu Island when the U.S. forces landed  (17). According to Anchorage attorney, Michael McLaughlin, who visited the Attu battlefield on multiple occasions, used multiple sources from the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park Maryland, and the records of Camp Tracy, an interrogation center, he came to the following conclusion about the Japanese causalities (16). McLaughlin claimed that 28 Japanese soldiers were captured after the Battle of Attu, and one an officer was killed while trying to escape, which reduces the number of Japanese who went into captivity from 29 to 28 (16).  This means that the Japanese suffered 2,471 died in battle, and one died while trying to escape, which totals to 2,472 men died out of an approximate garrison of 2,500 men during and after the campaign on Attu. This means the Japanese garrison on Attu suffered a 98.88% fatality rate.

The story was completely different on Kiska. On July 28, 1943 the Japanese military, under the cover of fog, evacuated the entire garrison of 5,183 men off of Kiska Island in “Operation Ke” (18). The reason why the Japanese evacuated troops off Kiska Island was as a means of reinforcing other Japanese occupied territories (21). The Americans came to Kiska Island on August 15, 1943 and found the island deserted (9). On August 24, 1943 the Americans declared Kiska Island secured and thus the Aleutian Islands campaign ended (9).

Later attacks on America

In 1944-45 the Japanese military used a secret weapon to attack America. On November 3, 1944 the Japanese military launched fusen bakudan or balloon bombs which were carried to America by the Pacific jet stream (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were armed with four incendiaries and one thirty-pound high explosive bomb (19). The Japanese balloon bombs were designed to cause damage and spread panic in the continental United States of America (19). The weapon achieved its greatest success on May 5, 1945 when an explosion from a Japanese balloon bomb killed six people in Bly, Oregon. Among those was Elsie Mitchel, who was five months pregnant (19). They were the only Americans killed by enemy action on the continental USA during World War II (19). Even though Bly locals knew about the attack they adopted a code of silence by military order and reported that the victims of the tragedy died of “an explosion of undetermined origin” (20). Even though the military did release information about the attack at the end of May 1945, its impact was not widely known (20). The reason for this is because the impact of the Pearl Harbor Attack dominated the history textbooks for decades to come, which caused news of the attack to not be widely known until recently. These various attacks make Imperial Japan the only Axis Power to launch attacks against American territory and the only one to occupy American soil during World War II! 

In conclusion, the closely guarded, secretive and less publicized attacks by the Japanese and their subsequent invasion of the Alaskan Territory have now been revealed. Truly the Japanese were the most effective Axis Power to face the USA! 

What do you think of the World War II Japanese attacks on US soil? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here.

[1] Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978. 72. 

[2] Hackett, Bob and Kinsepp Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com/I-17.htm

[3] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 68. 

[4] Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005. Last corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011.  History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

[5] Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002. 110. 

[6] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  123.

[7] Cloe, John Haile.  Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service- 2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 23. 

[8] Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.  124 to 125. 

[9] “Battle of the Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th, 2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

[10] Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mari. “75 years later, ‘forgotten’ WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com . Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

[11] Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Aunt Phil’s Trunk. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

13 “Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POWs”  www.lastlettersfromattu.com Accessed on February 15th 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

[12] Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017.  https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 32 to 33. 

14 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf. 25.

15 Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books, Inc. 1980. 136. 

16 Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of the Interior-The National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf . 113. 

17 “Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st, 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu . 

18 “Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm . 

21 Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming An Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Last Modified July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com . Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-300-dead-wounded/

19 Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanese-baloon-bombs-fu-go . 

20 Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-balooons-70-years-ago . 

Bibliography

“Battle of Aleutian Islands”. History Channel. Updated June 30th,2020. Accessed on February 17th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-the-aleutians-islands

“Battle of Attu”. History Channel. Updated August 21st , 2018. Accessed on February 16th, 2021. https://www.history.com/topics/world-war-ii/battle-of-attu

Boyd, Carl and Yoshida, Akihiko. The Japanese Submarine Force and World War II. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1995 and 2002.

Clark, James. “How the US Suffered 300 Casualties Storming an Empty Island in WWII”. Last Updated or Modified on July 21st, 2016. Taskandpurpose.com Accessed on March 8th, 2021. https://taskandpurpose.com/history/wwii-battle-empty-island-left-300-dead-wounded/

Cloe, John Haile. Attu the Forgotten Battle. United States Department of Interior-National Park Service-2017. https://www.nps.gov/aleu/planyourvisit/upload/Attu-Forgotten-Battle-Optimized-508.pdf

Hackett, Bob and Kingsepp, Sander. SENSUIKAN! Imperial Submarines. IJN Submarine I-17: Tabular Record of Movement. Last Modified 2001-2017. Nihon Kaigun.  Accessed on February 18th, 2021. http://www.combindedfleet.com//I-17.htm

“Japanese Occupation Site National Historic Landmark”. National Park Service. Updated on January 14th, 2021. Accessed on February 14th, 2021. https://www.nps.gov/places/japanese-occupation-site.htm

Klein, Christopher. “Attack of Japan’s Killer WWII Balloons, 70 Years Ago”. Last Updated August 29th, 2018. History Channel. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.history.com/news/attack-of-japans-killer-wwii-baloons-70-years-ago

“Last Letters from Attu-Letters from the POW’s”. www.lastlettersfromattu.com. Accessed on February 15tth, 2021. https://www.lastlettersfromattu.com/powletters.asp

Laurel, Bill. “Japanese invade Aleutian Islands 72 years ago”. Last Modified June 16th, 2014. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://auntphilstrunk.com/japanese-invade-aleutian-islands-72-years-ago/

Matthias, Franklin. “Japanese Balloon Bombs “Fu-Go” “. Last Modified  August 10th, 2016. www.atomicheritage.org. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https:/www.atomicheritage.org/print/history/japanaese-baloon-bombs-fu-go 

Rigge, Simon. War in the Outposts. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1980.

Thiessen, Mark and Yamaguchi, Mar. “75 years later, “forgotten” WWII battle on Alaskan island haunts soldiers”. Last Modified May 27th, 2018. www.armytimes.com. Accessed on February 15th, 2021. https://www.armytimes.com/vtereans/2018/05/27/75-years-later-forgotten-wwii-battle-in-alaska-haunts-soldiers/

Wilma, David. “Japanese submarine shells Fort Stevens at the mouth of the Columbia River on June 21st, 1942”. Last Posted February 8th, 2005.  Last Corrected or Modified November 7th, 2011. History Link.org Essay 7217. Accessed on February 18th, 2021. https://www.historylink.org/File/7217

Zich, Arthur. The Rising Sun. Alexandria, Virginia. Time-Life Books Inc. 1978.

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy - The Modern Role of the First Lady

Eleanor Roosevelt and Jackie Kennedy took quite different directions when they were the First Ladies of America. However, they both had a lasting impact on the role. David M. Huff explains.

Jackie Kennedy at the Taj Mahal in 1962.

Jacqueline Kennedy once said, "Everything in the White House must have a reason for being there. It would be sacrilege merely to 'redecorate' it — a word I hate. It must be restored, and that has nothing to do with decoration. That is a question of scholarship."

Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "You must do the thing you think you cannot do". 

The modern view of the president's wife in American political life was intrinsically shaped by two extraordinary women: Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy. Astute, engaging, and well-educated, both women left an indelible imprint on the American cultural, social, and political consciousness. Eleanor championed social and humanitarian reform and Jacqueline taught a nation about culture and distinction by combining a unique sense fashion with a commitment to the preservation of the arts and humanities.

Although they were different stylistically, both First Ladies shared similar characteristics. Both Eleanor and Jacqueline were born into wealth and privilege. Each woman experienced an unsettled, turbulent, and lonely childhood. Both loved books, history, and leaned toward introspection. Eleanor's mother died when she was eight and Jacqueline endured the tragic ordeal of divorce. In addition, both emerged as enlightened patricians, whose fundamental aims, motivations, and personal convictions differed from their contemporaries. Moreover, Eleanor and Jacqueline married men who suffered not only from life-threatening illnesses (FDR was stricken with polio and JFK suffered from a failed back and Addison's disease), but whose acts of infidelity served to crystallize a renewed sense of self-awareness and direction within each woman. Each was also private; neither wanted to live initially in the White House. Yet, both women summoned an inner resolve that enabled them to carve out a role, to create a voice, separate and distinct from their husband's.

Differences

Notwithstanding common similarities, differences also existed between these two women. Eleanor displayed an eagerness to embrace Democratic politics and actively engaged with the press. A woman of considerable intelligence, perception, and personal conscience, she traveled throughout the country during the Great Depression delivering speeches and writing her own column, "My Day," which was published five days a week. With insight and understanding, Eleanor wrote about the poor, the dispossessed, those who had been left behind in American society. She was Franklin Roosevelt's "eyes and ears" in regard to the impact that FDR's politics had on the American people.

On the other hand, Jacqueline preferred to avoid the contentious field of politics and the press. Underneath her soft-spoken voice, however, was a woman who possessed a depth of intelligence and a subtle wit along with a passionate conviction for the cultivation of the arts and humanities, particularly among youth. To the role of First Lady, Mrs. Kennedy brought grace, beauty, intelligence, and cultivated taste. Her avid interest in the arts, publicized by press and television, inspired an attention to culture never before evident at a national level. Mrs. Kennedy originally felt the restoration should focus on the White House's early style (it was completed in 1802, then rebuilt in 1817 after being burned to the ground by British troops during the War of 1812). Yet her goals soon expanded to have the restoration reflect the whole history of the presidency.

Art and history

To highlight her artistic and historic accomplishments, Mrs. Kennedy invited artists, writers, Shakespearean actors, ballet groups, musicians, opera singers, and poets to the White House, who spoke with politicians and statesmen. An eclectic, multicultural, and strong-minded individual, Mrs. Kennedy spoke Italian, French, and Spanish fluently. She not only advocated youth concerts to encourage the next generation of musicians, but also felt that the White House rooms were furnished with pieces of furniture that lacked distinction and the history they should, in a place as special as the Executive Mansion. As a result, Mrs. Kennedy created The Fine Arts Committee with Henry Francis du Pont as the chairman.

Furthermore, she requested Congress to declare the White House an historic landmark, founded The White House Historical Association to protect, preserve, and provide public access to the rich history of the White House and wrote and edited the first White House guidebook, which was sold to tourists. The proceeds from the book were used to help finance her restoration of the White House with historic antiques. To that end, on February 14, 1962, Mrs. Kennedy took America on a televised tour of the renovated White House. In addition, working with Rachel Lambert Mellon, Jackie also supervised the redesign and replanting of the Rose Garden and the East Garden, pushed for the creation of a National Cultural Arts Center (now known as the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts), urged President John F. Kennedy to create a national department of culture in America and collaborated with architect John Carl Warnecke for the historic restoration of Lafayette Square and Pennsylvania Avenue.

To that end, shortly after moving into the White House in 1961, Mrs. Kennedy became intensely interested in plans afoot to redevelop Lafayette Square, opposite their new address at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Several architectural firms, the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts, and the General Services Administration were the principal players, and talks centered on the style of new office buildings to be built there. Some camps favored a Beaux Arts structure, others, more modernist. Mrs. Kennedy favored the winning plan that would create a seamless facade of nineteenth-century residences on Jackson Place, the western side of the square. The New Executive Office Building, built during the renovation, is set back from the square and rises unobtrusively above the row of town houses.

Perhaps the greatest difference between these two First Ladies, however, came at the end of their husband's administrations: Franklin slipped away from Eleanor as a result of a cerebral hemorrhage, while Jackie endured the horror of her husband's brutal assassination.

Lasting impact

Eleanor and Jackie were movers and shakers who played a critical role in the political, social, and cultural times in which they lived. Their extraordinary, yet turbulent lives, brought forth a determined, intriguing, and passionate curiosity that shaped their public persona and actions. Their lives brought meaning to the phrase that adversity builds character. Through tragedy and sorrow, these women learned to adapt, to endure, to develop a will of iron that enabled each woman to bear the burdens that fate dealt them with an uncommon grace. Rather than retreat, they rose to the occasion to create, to summon creative impulses that they saw within themselves and in turn, utilized them to benefit American society.

Eleanor and Jackie also represented an evolving change in the role that women played in politics. Instead of walking in their husband's shadow, both women emerged with strong personalities who played an instrumental role not only in their husband's presidencies, but also in shaping the hearts and minds, hopes and aspirations, of generations of Americans. As a result, the torch they lit provided a beacon for a more visible, independent, and substantive role for future First Ladies, such as Betty Ford, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Michelle Obama.

Such historic figures in a great civilization, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, can help to illuminate, cultivate, and to summon the reservoir of talent and individual ingenuity that resides within our people. In the American experience, we, as a nation, as a people, have shown that we can meet challenges head-on. Brave and passionate, steadfast and undeterred, we are a nation of pioneers, gifted with the priceless qualities of depth of personality and strength of character.

Conclusion

In sum, I believe so strongly the American people should be reminded about pivotal historical figures, such as Eleanor Roosevelt and Jacqueline Kennedy, who each played a vital role in shaping our history. I think there is a yearning on the part of the American people not only for political change, but also for enterprising individuals who would exert a positive influence on American society. Sometimes we have to look to our past to find individuals who elevated our civilization to new heights. If we do not understand our past, we cannot understand our country's future. Our country's youth, who are America's future, need to understand that Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy believed they could make a positive difference not only in their own personal lives, but also in the social-economic and cultural fabric of American society.  Since Mrs. Roosevelt and Mrs. Kennedy made a difference during their generation, why shouldn't we expect those in a position of influence to make a difference in the difficult and turbulent time in which we live?

Finally, Eleanor and Jackie's dedication to personal development and sense of obligation can best be summed up in a poem by Robert Frost, "Choose Something Like A Star."

...It asks a little of us here. It asks of us a certain height, so when at times the mob is swayed to
carry praise or blame too far, we may choose something like a star to stay our minds on and be staid."                                                                        

Let us know your thoughts on the article below.

About the Author

David M. Huff was born in Wheeling, West Virginia in 1968. A violist, he studied with the Pittsburgh Youth Symphony Orchestra from 1983-1984. He attended the Interlochen Arts Festival and Interlochen Arts Academy from 1984-1986 and also participated in the Boston University Tanglewood Institute's Youth Program during the summer of 1986. He earned a B.A. in History from West Virginia University and an M.A. in History/Research from West Virginia University. He works in Washington, D.C.

Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?

In 1920 Britain was granted an official Mandate by the League of Nations to administer the country of Iraq - and ultimately allow it to achieve independence.

The whole affair, which lasted from the end of the First World War to independence in 1932, was largely a failure, with few flattering accounts and obligations often unfulfilled. It is from this point in time that the first underlying signs of declining British power are evidenced, while for Iraq it set a path to a fraught and unstable future.

Steve Prout explains.

King Faisal I of Iraq.

The War and Occupation

The British presence had been building up in Iraq since 1914 when her forces had removed the Ottomans from the region with domestic support. As soon as the British had expelled the Turks they were making encouraging noises that raised Iraq’s hopes of independence.  

The British, in the words of General Maude and High Commissioner Percy Cox, implied loudly that they came as liberators.  This was welcomed by Iraq, which already had nationalistic aspirations and expectations were raised.

The Ottomans previously allowed levels of autonomy to many areas of Iraq and the noises from the British were encouraging, but what followed was very different and did little to assuage growing Iraqi concerns as the British occupation continued.

The Post War Mandate

The League of Nations appointed the mandate to Britain in 1920 to run Iraq and lead her on the path to self- determination.  In retrospect it resembled a poorly disguised colonialism. 

Iraq offered a geographically strategic position as a potential overland route from Egypt through the Middle East to South East Asia.  Iraq filled a gap of land in the middle of a long run of British possessions. It would provide a useful alternative to the long and arduous sea lanes that had been threatened by submarine warfare.

There was also an urgent need to offset the cost of the war that Britain bore in the region.  The overland route would be safer, quicker, and - more importantly - cheaper as there would be less demand on oil from the navy. Whether this theory was correct or not, the later revolt and the cost of suppressing it made the economic debate moot. By the end of 1920 Britain could see further lost opportunities as her plans to monopolize the oil reserves also met US resistance and generated a reversal of policy.

Nevertheless, another possession in the oil rich region at the time could enhance Britain’s international leverage, and counter French and Russian influence in the region (in May 1920 the Red Army invaded Northern Persia further fuelling Bolshevik expansionist fears).  

Now Britain had the mandate it was the India Office that provided the administration to mobilize it.  It imposed a very prevalent British presence in all aspects of Iraqi life – that would prove very unpopular. 

The Uprising

The uprising that occurred in Iraq in 1920 was fuelled by an unrelenting nationalism that was growing years before the British presence whilst under Ottoman rule.  The very loud and public promises made by the British during the war now looked like they were going to be unfulfilled. Arnold Wilson and other British high commissioners treated peaceful petitions and representatives in a high-handed and often dismissive manner, which no doubt irked these nationalists.  

The various tribes were treated inconsistently, controversial taxes were established, and a questionable plebiscite was orchestrated that favored a British outcome. Much of the country was resentful, as they felt excluded from political decisions.  The India Office imposed colonial rules on all aspects of life that felt more restrictive than that of the Ottomans.

The British responded to the uprising by deploying the full force of the military, with Royal Air Force (RAF) support.  Despite the belief that Churchill was an advocate of the use of poison gas, this was not deployed but the use of the air-force’s bombing tactics was no less brutal than that used by Italy in Abyssinia against poorly equipped tribes.  It was all over very quickly by the end of the year, but it was not an easily fought campaign for the British.

The British had far superior forces at their disposal with the presence of the RAF. This should have put them at a far greater advantage than the less well-equipped tribes.  The revolt was suppressed in a few short months after a brutal response that cost 10,000 Iraqi lives, the bombing of mosques and the burning of villages. There were also defeats and retreats that bloodied the nose of this huge Imperial force. Humiliating examples were the seizing of HMS Firefly and her artillery by the tribes who turned the arsenal on the British and the retreats from Karbala and Najal (to name but two).  It was a humiliating situation for a Great Power.

After counting the cost of the revolt and the continued strain on the finances, Britain began to urgently push for Iraqi independence. When the final tally was counted the uprising cost the exchequer circa £40m and the continued occupation of Iraq would cost circa £20m per annum.  Policy now had to change.  There was then an interim approach in Iraq in the meantime - and that was in the form of a democratic offering of sorts.

The Veneer of Democracy 

It was clear that military intervention would not be enough to keep a sustained peace.  The British needed a friendly Iraqi government that they could still influence and control in the background, whilst at the same time creating a veneer of a democratic government.  In 1921 that friendly pro-British ruler took the form of King Faisal, a man who was in favor with the British for his support during the war.  After his expulsion by the French for his attempt to establish power in Syria he took an offer by the British to head up a ruling government in Iraq. Faisal was not representative of the varied and diverse population - and it would not satisfy the underlying tensions completely.

Meanwhile, the British, with successive high commissioners over this period, still pulled the political strings. Faisal’s new government was shored up by 300 Ottoman officers who fought for his side in the Great War, but a large proportion of the population was still left ignored and dissatisfied.  This discontentment would still bubble under the surface long after the 1932 independence. Iraq was never going to be the stable state that Britain promised under the auspices of the League of Nations. 

Economic Concessions

There are several views on Britain’s intentions with the oil and petroleum reserves that Iraq had.  David Lloyd George wanted to monopolize the oil and petrol reserves for British interests as there was a dependency on US and Mexican oil that was embarrassing to Britain - despite having an abundant and sufficient source with The Turkish Petroleum Company. 

This stance would soon change from a monopolistic policy to one of an open free market by allowing US investment. There were other ways that the oil could serve British interests and that did not necessitate having a monopoly.

The oil revenues would financially support the objectives of the mandate and offset the economic liability she had undertook. Iraq’s own resources would be used but when it came down to the bare facts the Iraqi nation would have no voice in how their own natural resources would be used.

The Conclusion – An empire in decline and a new nation broken

Before the war Iraq was modernizing and progressing into the Industrial world.  The building of the Suez Canal had opened her grain and wool markets to the world.  There was German and British interest in her vast petrol reserves as early as 1907.  The war and the Mandate era had set her far back.

Although Britain was not the originator of the nationalistic fervor it was her heavy handed and brutal response that did little to help Iraq’s future unity and stability, as King Faisal would later comment in his memoirs.

There were ominous signs for Britain also. The Empire was dangerously over-stretched, and cracks were now appearing in Ireland and India as well as Iraq.  Although the idea of Empire was still something the British were proud, other priorities were becoming more apparent on home shores. 

On paper the revolt should have not been as troublesome to suppress for a Great Power such as Britain, with the power of the RAF and mechanized divisions at her disposal to fight the local tribes. Considering the resources, the British had this was not an easily fought campaign, possibly a sign of waning military strength.

The drain on the British Exchequer was not insignificant and the economic situation was bleak at the time. This was something the public purse could not tolerate as Britain had over one million unemployed, the large majority being de-mobilized servicemen. By 1921 unemployment had risen to over two million with several major strikes taking place.  There was no room for troublesome additions to an already troubled Britain.

All these factors contributed to a less that half-hearted commitment to Iraq. By 1932 a poorly produced independence was handed over. There were no winners or favorable outcomes for Iraq but for Britain that small snippet of history held so many signs of the beginnings of imperial decline. 

What do you think of the British Empire and Iraq? Let us know below.

References

David E Omissi – Air Power and Colonial Controls, Manchester University Press 1990

Dr Toby Lodge – The British Mandate in Iraq 1914-32, Institute for Strategic Studies

Amal Vinograv – The 1920 Revolt in Iraq Reconsidered, Cambridge University Press, International Journal of Middle Eastern Studies 1972

William Shrivers - International Politic and Iraqi Oil 1918-1928, Business History Review 1981 (Pages 517-540)

Judith Yaphe – War and Occupation in Iraq: What Went Right, What Went Wrong?  Middle Eastern Journal 2003, Middle East Institute

Kashmir: A Divided Territory Since 1947

The region of Kashmir largely lies across the territory of modern-day India and Pakistan. The area has had a tumultuous history since India became independent in 1947. Here, Manan Shah explains what happened to Kashmir in 1947 and the years after.

India soldiers during the Indo-Pakistani War of 1947–48.

In Asia lies the picturesque region of Kashmir, which records history from as early as the Neolithic period. Over a period of time numerous sovereigns have ruled over the land, which has established and benefited their empires. The area has always benefited from its geography and has proved to be a major trade route which connected Central Asia to the north of India. It was not at all surprising to see rulers take refuge in the beautiful valley of Kashmir, since it is protected by the natural frontiers and difficult terrain.

While we shall not go into the detailed past of Kashmir, the article takes into consideration the events that have shaped the current socio-political character of the valley, thus making it one of the world's most militarized zones. As of today it stands as a politically disintegrated country which is a constant battle ground for three nuclear powered states - India, Pakistan and China. It is a place where human rights abuse is no exception and people do not have basic rights.

1947

In 1947, world's biggest colonial power Britain left the territory of India after colonizing it for about 200 years, thus marking its independence; however, dividing the Indian sub-continent into two separate countries, India and Pakistan, the former largely for Hindus and latter largely for Muslims. It should be noted that prior to independence, India had about 584 princely states, states that were ruled by rulers while acknowledging British sovereignty. Kashmir was one of them. At the same time these princely states were given an option either to join the union of India or union of Pakistan and few had the option to remain independent. Hari Singh, the Hindu ruler to his Muslim subjects, tried to delay his decision thinking this could maintain the independence of Kashmir. Meanwhile, rebellion from the west and infiltration from Pakistan's tribal groups into the territory forced him to sign the famous “Instrument of Accession” of Indian Union on October 26, 1947 - against the will of the people. The document was signed with three conditions that the Union of India has control over: defense, external affairs and communications. This gave rise to local warfare. While popular opinion in the valley says Kashmiris' accession to the Union of India was temporary and was asked as a favor to protect their territory and to provide essential help, it was agreed that the Indian Army would evacuate as soon as there was no external threat to the land. However the irony is the situation in Kashmir has never been stable since then.  Both India and Pakistan never fail to put the blame on each other, time and again.

The matter was put forward to the United Nations in 1948. The resolution was passed by the UN to restore order. The three-step recommendation suggested that Pakistan withdraw all the forces that they had infiltrated into the territory of Kashmir. Secondly, India was asked to reduce the number of forces to the minimum level required. Thirdly, a plebiscite was to be conducted. As we speak right now, none has taken place as both India and Pakistan raised objections to the resolution. In January 1949, India and Pakistan agreed a ceasefire line that divided the country into two temporarily. Although, that so-called “temporary” partition still exists, even after 72 years. All this is happening in the democratic country of India, as it occupies most of the territory of Kashmir, followed by Pakistan, and then China’s incursion in 1962 to Aksai Chin.

Since the 1940s

Over the years Kashmiris have raised their voice against the abuse even though the two nuclear powers remain silent or blame each other. While a small percentage of the population wants to accede to India and a substantial part favors Pakistan, most of the population chooses to remain independent.

People have continuously feared and resisted the presence of Indian Army in the state due to the threat to their lives. They fear India is not holding up its promise of evacuating the land of Kashmir as the India has made it public that Kashmir belongs to them. Bills were passed in parliament to change the character of the state and to legitimize India's claim over the land. Recently there has been the abrogation of article 370 and 35A, which protects the demographic status of Jammu & Kashmir in a constitutional form. The state was put under lockdown and all means of communications was suspended for an indefinite period of time, high speed internet being one, which was restored after 17 months.

Kashmir’s independence right and claim was even acknowledged by Jawaharlal Nehru, the first prime minister of India, who said on January 2, 1952:

“Kashmir is not the property of India or Pakistan. It belongs to Kashmiri people. When Kashmiris acceded to India, we made it clear to the leader of Kashmiri people that we could ultimately by the verdict of their plebiscite. If they tell me to walk out, I will have no hesitation in quitting Kashmir.

We have taken the issue to the United Nations and given our word of honor for a peaceful solution. As a great nation, we cannot go back on it. We have left the question of a final solution to the people of Kashmir and we are determined to abide by their decision.”

Since independence both India and Pakistan share a bitter relationship and therefore Kashmir has served as the vote bank for both. It has time and again helped political parties to shift the momentum in their favor. It has become a weak point for both states to shift public opinion and deviate them from other issues.

India and Pakistan have fought three wars over Kashmir, in 1947, 1965 and 1999. They caused numerous casualties and human rights abuses. People were raped, tortured and murdered in cold blood. Today the state is under threat, there are continuous attacks on the state’s identity and people’s voices being suppressed. As Basharat Peer writes, “Srinagar* (Summer capital of Jammu & Kashmir) is never winning and never being defeated.” 

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

Manan Shah is a student of Archeology and Ancient History who writes for independent publications. Born and brought up in Kashmir he shares an intriguing insight of the culture and political history of the region.

His email is shahmanan74@gmail.com

Christine Jorgenson: The First American to become well-known for having Gender Reassignment Surgery

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

Christine Jorgensen in 1954.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr. in 1926) was a pioneer in America. She had gender reassignment surgery in the 1950s and became famous after. Here, James Zills tells her story.

It is not every day a person gets to witness a historical or groundbreaking event, unless that person happens to live in the United States. The country tends to celebrate “almost” everything. As a still relatively young country, there are still historical milestones to achieve, but where does the country draw the line at historical first? Where does it become ridiculous? America’s new vice president has been bestowed the honor of three historical first, the first African American, the first South Asian American, and the first female to be vice president. The first transgender person picked for a senate-confirmed post, the first openly transgender contestant on Jeopardy, Callie Brown, was the first non-biological female hired as a full time NCAA coach. Twenty years from now the history books our children bring home from school will be as thick as technical manuals. We anxiously await daily for the next historical first while tearing down and erasing the past. We have entire months dedicated to peoples of various races, cultures, gender, sexuality, and heritage. In honor of Women’s History Month we shall explore the trials and tribulations of a true trailblazer; a women who has been largely forgotten in a time of historical first for women.

Christine Jorgenson (born George William Jorgenson Jr.) was born on May 30, 1926 in New York, the second child of George and Florence Jorgenson. During her high school years she had a sense of attraction to her male friends, but felt that she was not homosexual. Instead Christine concluded that she was a woman trapped in a man’s body. This was not a time in which a person could discuss their sexuality so, she repressed her identity and tried to fit in. Never quite being able to control her feminine tendencies she was subject to teasing from boys in the neighborhood and at school. Her sisters even took notice in her odd behaviors and would often tease her for not being more masculine. Despite the teasing and gender dysphoria, she graduated high school and attempted to volunteer for service in the United States Army.

I’m Not the World’s Most Physical Guy

Due to her size and weight, the Army disqualified her from service. This was devastating to Christine who was searching for a sense of belonging and a chance to make her parents proud.[1] The opportunity for military service would come to Christine a couple of months later when she was drafted by the Army. Entering into service in September 1945 at the conclusion of WW2 she was assigned to Fort Dix, New Jersey as a clerk facilitating paperwork for soldiers returning home for war. In December 1945 Christine was honorably discharged from the Army and attended a photography school in New Haven, Connecticut and later training as a dental assistant in New York using the G.I. Bill. Unable to find meaningful happiness Christine turned to research in order to find a solution to her gender dysphoria. 

Upon reading the book The Male Hormone, a study by Paul de Kruif on testosterone published in 1945[2], Christine believed she had found an explanation to her problem – a lack of testosterone. This led her to start taking estrogen to further decrease her testosterone levels. In 1950 she traveled to Europe which at the time was the only place where reassignment surgeries were practiced. When she arrived in Denmark she met with Dr. Christian Hamburger ,who diagnosed Christine with being transgender. Dr. Hamburger offered his experimental services for free and once special permissions were granted from the government of Denmark, Christine began a two year journey of hormone treatment, psychiatric evaluations, and surgery. [3]However, the surgeries received in Denmark only removed the male genitalia and she was unable to receive a vaginoplasty until sometime after her return to the United States in 1952. 

Taking a Walk on the Wild Side

Any hope of keeping a private life quickly diminished when the press swarmed her at the airport upon her arrival home in 1952. Understandably, this was quite the story and since the media has no appreciation for personal space, she was plastered on the front page of the New York Daily News titled “Ex-GI Becomes Blonde Beauty” and was the subject of articles in hundreds of newspapers around the country. Initially she was unable to cope with all her new found attention and went briefly into seclusion.  However, she decided that if this is the life she was going to live she would have to embrace it. For a fee, Jorgenson was willing to give interviews and tell her story stating, “I decided that if they wanted to see me, they would have to pay for it.”[4] Not surprisingly, Hollywood was ready to cash in on what they viewed as a human anomaly, though the attention was from a relatively unknown director at the time.

Edward Davis Wood Jr., better known as Ed Wood, sold the idea of a biopic of Jorgenson to investors. However, the finished product was a docudrama about cross-dressing and trans-sexuality, which would become known as one of the worst pictures ever made. Several offers to Jorgenson to appear in the film were declined and Ed Wood stepped in to fill the part of the transvestite spinning the movie into his personal story.[5] In 1970, the film The Christine Jorgensen Story premiered in Los Angeles based on her autobiography published in 1967. Through the ridicule and praise, Jorgenson endured the world of gender dysphoria on her own terms. In a world not quite ready for out and about transgenderism, she became a pioneer for others to emulate and embrace. 

She supported herself as a lounge singer and speaker for those who were curious or fascinated enough to hear her. During her time in the spotlight, she was engaged to be married twice, but due to the marriage laws at the time she was unable to secure a marriage license. Once Hollywood and the media had finished profiting off her she retired to southern California were she succumbed to bladder and lung cancer on May 3, 1989. Though viewed as an oddity by most during her time, she stayed true to herself, lived as the live she wanted to live, and became a trailblazer for other with gender dysphoria.

In a country that rushes to place people on a pedestal as “firsts” for the sake of creating history, America often neglects real historical events until they are ultimately forgotten.

What do you think of Christine Jorgenson? Let us know below.

Now, you read James’ past article on the Fascism on 1930s America here.

[1] “From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgenson’s Story,” The National WWII Museum New Orleans, last modified June 29, 2020, https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen

[2] Paul Kruif, The Male Hormone (Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945)

[3] Biography, "Christine Jorgensen," Biography, last modified June 22, 2020, https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

[4] Ibid

[5] Judith R. Fagen, "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953," The Gay & Lesbian Review, last modified February 24, 2021, https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

Bibliography

Biography. "Christine Jorgensen." Biography. Last modified June 22, 2020. https://www.biography.com/activist/christine-jorgensen.

Fagen, Judith R. "Glen or Glenda Bent the Gender Rules in 1953." The Gay & Lesbian Review. Last modified February 24, 2021. https://glreview.org/article/glen-or-glenda-bent-the-gender-rules-in-1953/.

"From GI Joe to GI Jane: Christine Jorgensen’s Story." The National WWII Museum | New Orleans. Last modified June 29, 2020. https://www.nationalww2museum.org/war/articles/christine-jorgensen.

Kruif, Paul. The Male Hormone, 1st ed. Harcourt, Brace and company, 1945.

Was Portugal Really Neutral in World War II?

Portugal was officially neutral in World War Two, but did its behaviour show that it was neutral? Here, Stefan Morrone considers this by looking at the Portuguese leader’s beliefs, the long-standing treaty between Portugal and Britain, the wolfram question, and the Azores.

A British Royal Air Force plane in the Portuguese Azores during World War II.

When discussing the roles played by various countries in conflicts throughout history, the term “neutrality” implies impartiality and a lack of bias towards any belligerent side. However, as we have seen with other countries during the Second World War, declaring neutrality was often much more complex than simply avoiding taking sides.

When the Second World War broke out in the autumn of 1939, Portugal was one of various European countries to declare its neutrality.  Portugal was in quite a delicate position at the opening of the conflict, meaning that a declaration of neutrality was in the country’s best interests - at least for the moment. This declaration of neutrality would allow Portugal to preserve her own foreign policy and take advantage of various opportunities that the war provided to prosper.

Rise of the Estado Novo

Antonio Salazar was born in 1899 in Beira Alto, Portugal. Salazar’s parents sent him to a seminary for his education when he was 9 years old. However, after spending several years at the seminary, he decided he wanted to further his education, and entered Portugal’s most prestigious university, the University of Coimbra, in 1910 at the age of 21. He graduated four years later with a degree in economics and his performance merited an appointment at the university as a professor, where he became known for his speeches and articles on political economics. His popularity continued to grow, and he was elected to Portugal’s national legislature in 1921. [1]

In 1926 there was a coup d’état and the leaders offered Salazar the position of finance minister, which he accepted with the stipulation that he receive almost total control of the government. This was declined and he resigned five days later to return to teaching. Two years later, in 1928, the leader of the government again asked Salazar to become the finance minister and met the stipulations that Salazar had initially demanded.

As finance minister, he quickly managed to balance the country’s budget and brought financial success to the Portuguese government. Salazar’s position strengthened further when he became the president of Portugal’s ruling Council of Ministries in 1932.

A year later, he formally created the Estado Novo, or “New State”, a corporatist state with a fascist orientation. Although it has often been compared with the contemporary regimes of Italy, Spain, and Germany, Salazar’s Portugal differed through its comparatively moderate use of state-sponsored violence.  Salazar was a Catholic traditionalist who strongly believed in using economic modernisation to defend Portugal’s Catholic and rural values.

Conflicted Loyalties

The outbreak of the Second World War put Portugal in a tenuous position. Since signing the Treaty of Windsor in 1386, Portugal had always maintained close ties with Britain. However, during this era, Portugal also maintained close ties with its large neighbour, Francoist Spain. Salazar had backed Franco’s regime during the Spanish Civil War, and this, combined with his government’s Fascist qualities, earned him the respect of Hitler and Mussolini. [2] 

Upon the outbreak of the Second World War in September 1939, Salazar issued a declaration of Portugal’s neutrality. He also declared that Portugal’s old treaty of alliance with England did not automatically mean that Portugal had to go to war in support of the Allies. This was discussed with Britain beforehand, and the British indicated that they did not need Portuguese assistance. [3]

Salazar’s reasoning for neutrality was that he feared invasions by Germany or a potential German-allied Spain if the country entered the war; German troops were stationed roughly 260 km from the Portuguese borders. As a result, Salazar decided to stay out of the conflict, but decided he could use it to his country’s economic advantage, maintaining open trade with members of both the Allied and Axis camp throughout the war years. However, when considering the question of Portugal’s neutrality, it is important to examine two key factors that came into play with Portugal’s relationships with belligerent countries.

The Wolfram Question

One of the biggest issues with Portuguese neutrality was the prevalence of the mineral wolfram in the country. [4] This powerful resource quickly became Portugal’s ticket to maintaining neutrality throughout the conflict. 

Wolfram is a major source of tungsten, a metal used in steel hardening processes used in producing important items such as machine tools, armor-piercing shells, tank and airplane parts, and engine parts.  Outside Portugal, the Allied powers did not want Germany to have access to this incredibly valuable resource, while inside, Salazar viewed it as a matter of Portugal’s sovereignty since the mineral belonged to the country. He decided to satisfy both parties, Allied and Axis, preferring not to alienate either camp to maintain Portugal’s neutrality. 

However, the so-called “Wolfram War” seriously damaged Portugal’s claim to neutrality, since it was a definite expression of pro-Axis sentiment within the country - the Germans received approximately 75% of Portugal’s wolfram exports, while Britain received only 25%, despite the alliance and loud protestations. [5] Britain did enjoy one advantage in this situation - due to their long-standing relationship, Britain was able to pay in credit, while Germany had to pay cash. This allowed Britain to obtain a valuable resource while being short on cash.

On the other hand, Portugal also allowed the Axis powers to incur sizable debts in their clearing agreements, even advancing them significant amounts of private and government contracts.  In addition, Portuguese merchants were an important source of vital smuggled commodities such as diamonds and platinum to the Axis.

Portugal negotiated secret agreements with Germany to send an average of over 2,000 metric tons of wolfram annually between 1941 and mid-1944, which was roughly 60 percent of Germany's minimum industrial requirement. [6] The intense competition for wolfram boosted the Portuguese economy and generated huge profits for banks and businesses. Portugal profited so much from the sale of wolfram trade that it continued to do so despite threats from the Allies.

In January 1944, the Allies tried to pressure Portugal to embargo all wolfram sales, but this was resisted - Portugal defended its right as a neutral country to sell to anyone they saw fit, while also fearing a German attack should they stop. The wolfram trade debacle finally ended on the eve of the D-Day invasion in June 1944, when Portugal imposed a total embargo on shipments to both sides of the war after the Allies threatened heavy economic sanctions. 

Despite this, Portugal was able to profit massively from the wolfram trade and gain a major economic boost.

The Azores

In addition to wolfram, Portugal had another resource coveted by both the Allied and Axis powers: the strategically important Azores islands. Located in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the islands made a perfect base for launching offensive operations. For the Allies, possession of the Azores was important for protecting the convoy supply routes of the central Atlantic. Failing to control them left a gap in defenses for convoys in which they might get caught in pitched battles between Allied and Axis ships. In addition, controlling the Azores would prove vital to the Allies’ potential plan of an invasion of Europe, since they could be used as an air base to provide cover for the invading armies. [7]

For the Axis, the Azores meant an ideal U-boat base plus air bases needed for Projekt Amerika, a Luftwaffe bombing campaign of the East Coast of the US. An Azores base in the middle of the Atlantic would greatly improve the operational efficiency of German U-boats by cutting out the time needed to return to ports in France to refuel, meaning they could spend much more time out in the field. [7]

Again, Salazar was torn - should he give up control of the Azores to the Allies, he feared a German invasion of Portugal through Spain. Despite Salazar’s refusal to give up the islands, Churchill and Roosevelt jointly decided to occupy the islands in 1943 but agreed that it would have to be done delicately. Churchill favored a diplomatic approach, and invoked the Treaty of Windsor, which Salazar approved. One airfield was quickly constructed in secret, with the British entering first, followed by the Americans, with plans for more airfields to follow. However, Salazar stipulated that while the British were welcome under the Treaty, the Americans were not - and if pressed by the Germans, he could not use the excuse of diplomatic necessity, as with the British. Salazar threatened to forcefully resist the landing of American troops in the islands but reneged at the eleventh hour. 

The Azores airfields were used to transfer bombers to the Pacific theatre and played a key role in winning the war in the Atlantic for the Allies. It allowed more planes to launch than from any aircraft carrier group, punched a hole in German U-boat supply lines and put Allied convoy lines within reach of land-based bomber protection, allowing for crucial shipments of provisions to reach their destinations unscathed.

Conclusion

The question of whether Portugal was truly neutral is a complex one. A nation can only be considered truly neutral if it exhibits no biases to other belligerent nations. Examining Portugal’s relationships with the Axis and Allied powers, Portugal in fact did express bias, although in different ways to each of the warring sides. It sold a far higher percentage of the valuable wolfram mineral to the Axis powers, making a vital contribution to their war effort, yet also contributed to the Axis’ defeat by allowing air bases to be constructed on the Azores islands and fell back on its traditional relationship to Britain.

Ultimately, Portugal can be considered neutral during the Second World War. In fitting with the traditional definition of neutrality, Portugal did not clearly favor a particular side in the conflict, instead preferring to play both sides against each other, seeking to benefit itself economically above all. Portugal’s neutrality remained useful to both sides throughout the war, and thus, by rendering different services to both sides, Salazar was able to effectively buy his country’s ability to remain out of the Second World War.

What do you think of Portugal’s role in World War Two? Let us know below.

Now, you can read about whether Spain was neutral or a Nazi ally in World War Two here.

Sources

[1] Watkins, Thayer. Antonio Salazar De Oliveira of Portugal and His Estado Novo, www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/salazar.htm.

[2] Gayer, Gary. “Political Neutrality in World War 2.” California Polytechnic State University, 2013.

[3] Leite, Joaquim da Costa. "Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II." American University International Law Review 14, no. 1 (1998): 185-199. Accessed February 26,2021

[4] Wheeler, Douglas L. “The Price of Neutrality: Portugal, the Wolfram Question, and World War II.” Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1986) Accessed February 26 2021 https://www.jstor.org/stable/3513391?seq=1

[5] Packard, Jerrold Michael, "The European neutrals in World War II" (1989). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3984. Accessed February 26. 2021 https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5866

[6] RG 84: Portugal.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration. Accessed February 26, 2020 www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-portugal.html.

[7] Gnam, Carl. “Portugal during WW2: Covering the Azores Gap.” Warfare History Network, 3 Dec. 2020. Accessed February 26, 2021  warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/01/25/covering-the-azores-gap-in-world-war-ii/

Bibliography

Gayer, Gary. “Political Neutrality in World War 2.” California Polytechnic State University, 2013. 

Gnam, Carl. “Portugal during WW2: Covering the Azores Gap.” Warfare History Network, 3 Dec. 2020, warfarehistorynetwork.com/2018/01/25/covering-the-azores-gap-in-world-war-ii/.

Leite, Joaquim da Costa. "Neutrality by Agreement: Portugal and the British Alliance in World War II." American University International Law Review 14, no. 1 (1998): 185-199.

Packard, Jerrold Michael, "The European neutrals in World War II" (1989). Dissertations and Theses. Paper 3984. https://doi.org/10.15760/etd.5866 

 “RG 84: Portugal.” National Archives and Records Administration, National Archives and Records Administration, www.archives.gov/research/holocaust/finding-aid/civilian/rg-84-portugal.html.

Watkins, Thayer. Antonio Salazar De Oliveira of Portugal and His Estado Novo, www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/salazar.htm.

Wheeler, Douglas L. “The Price of Neutrality: Portugal, the Wolfram Question, and World War II.” Source: Luso-Brazilian Review, Vol. 23, No. 1 (Summer, 1986)

How America Supported the Anti-Soviet Mujahideen Rebels in 1980s Afghanistan

At the end of 1979 the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in order to support the Communist-inspired Afghan government. This led to a decade-long conflict in which the anti-Soviet Islamic Mujahideen rebels were supported by the United States. Here, Daniel Boustead tells us about the conflict and some of the negative unintended consequences of American support for the rebels.

A Soviet military offensive against the Mujahideen.

From 1979 to 1989 the Americans supported the Mujahideen Islamic rebels in their fight against the Soviet Union’s invasion. The Americans supported the rebels as a means of inflicting their own “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision in sending weapons to the anti-Communist rebels helped turn the tide of the war in the rebels favor and doomed the Soviet Union - and later the USA. American support for rebels in Afghanistan, was one of a number of Carter and Reagan’s foreign policy blunders that hurt America and Israel. The U.S. decision to support the rebels in Afghanistan was a strategic miscalculation and the wrong way to overcome our defeat in Vietnam. This was known as “Vietnam Syndrome”, which haunts America to this day.

U.S efforts to support the rebels appeared as far back as March 1979 in classified protocols at the Jimmy Carter White House ([1]). This was done because the U.S. was worried about increased Soviet involvement in propping up the weak pro-Communist puppet state in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in late December 1979 ([2]). In the very first hours after the Soviet Union invaded, President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said “He hoped the Soviets could be punished for invading Afghanistan, that they could be tied down and bloodied the way the United States had been in Vietnam” ([3]). At the start of the conflict the American government started sending the rebels some captured Soviet weapons as a means of getting revenge for the Soviet’s (limited) involvement in the Vietnam War, while keeping their involvement minimal (6). This was a bad decision because the Islamic fundamentalism of the recent Iranian Revolution was also coming to Afghanistan.

Iranian influence

In early spring 1979, in the Shiite Muslim town of Heart, Afghanistan, religious activists started organizing along fundamentalist lines based on the Iranian Ayatollah Khomeini’s example ([4]). Even the non-Shia Muslim groups of Afghanistan were beginning to organize along the lines of Khomeini’s religious-political revival (4). 

In late December 1979 an amended top-secret presidential finding was signed by President Jimmy Carter, and it was reauthorized in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan (5). This permitted the CIA to secretly ship weapons to the Afghan Mujahideen rebels ([5]). The CIA would ship these weapons through the help of the Pakistani government‘s secret service, the Inter Services Intelligence or ISI (5). 

In 1983, after a visit to Afghanistan, Congressmen Charles Wilson from Texas, in his role as a member of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, began procuring  billions of dollars of weapons for the Mujahideen (11). Charles Wilson’s weapons would then pass-through Pakistan’s ISI (11). 

As time went on the weapons the rebels received became more sophisticated, so that they could combat the Soviet attack helicopters. The biggest threat to the Mujahideen was the MI-24 D, which was called by the rebels “The Devil’s Chariot” (14). From 1982 to 1984 the Americans sent the Mujahideen the portable surface to air missiles such as Strela-2 and the Redeye (7). The Mujahideen did use the Stela-2 and the Redeye with some notable successes against Soviet attack helicopters, but further success alluded them due to the fact that the Mujahideen lacked the training required for successful use of these weapons (7). The Heat Seeking Strela-2 and the Redeye were not as effective against the Soviet MI-24 Attack Helicopter, because the MI-24 used two flare dispensers and the AVU system, which blocked a direct view of the hot engine exhausts and swirled the exhaust gases in the rotor streams (7). The MI-24’s began using the AVU from 1983 to 1984 (7). The AVU also increased the MI-24’s weight, which resulted in Soviet crews having, in some cases, to remove the MI-24’s armor, and so making the weapon vulnerable to attack (8). The AVU also would not work under extreme high-altitude conditions and high temperatures and thus it could not always be used in combat (8). Furthermore, the heavy weight of the AVU caused minor reductions in maximum speed and the service ceiling, which could present a problem in combat (8). The MI-24 D attack helicopter’s cockpit was vulnerable to small arms fire - which was how some were lost in combat (9).

Later military supplies

The next weapon that was a “game changer” was the FIM-92 Stinger portable surface to air missile (7). The Afghan Mujahideen started acquiring the Stinger Missiles at the end of 1986 (10). Stinger Missiles started appearing in large numbers in the first half of 1987 and the end result was that Soviet attack helicopter units lost more MI-24’s in the first six months of 1987 then they had in all of the previous year (7). The Stinger Missile was so effective that the Soviet helicopter fleet was temporarily paralyzed (7). The Stinger Missiles also had an unpleasant consequence. When the MI-24’s were escorting passenger or transportation aircraft they were forced to put their MI-24’s in front of the passenger or transport aircraft and take the hit from the incoming missile themselves (7). This resulted in MI-24 helicopter crews being able to protect the transport and the passenger aircraft in the vast majority of cases, but not always (7). The Soviet Special Forces soon captured examples of the Stinger Missiles and they discovered weaknesses in the weapon, so allowing them to develop countermeasures (7). The result of this was that the MI-24 was equipped with infrared jammers, which could be tuned in to jam the Stinger’s seeker head almost perfectly (7). This in combination with the AVU System and flares reduced the effectiveness of the FIM-92 Stinger (7). Even this counter measure was not 100% effective though. The L166V Ispanka infrared jammer was not an all-protection system (8) as it was designed to counter missiles with infrared seeker heads. The Stinger Missile’s effect in the Soviet-Afghan war also sowed fear among the Soviet pilots and troops (12). From 1980 to 1989, according to the Russian periodical Mir Aviatsiya, 122 MI-24’s were irretrievably lost, with 42% of all downed MI-24 helicopters lost to “Dushkas” heavy machine gun, 30% by portable surface to air missiles, 25% by light antiaircraft guns, and the remaining 3% by small arms fire (13).

Consequences

The decision to arm Afghan Mujahideen rebels and other non-Afghan rebels during the conflict would have disastrous consequences for Israel and the USA. By the time Taliban had taken Kabul, Afghanistan in 1996, an estimated 600 of the approximately 2,300 Stingers distributed by the CIA during the Soviet-Afghan war remained missing (15). The Iranians were buying as many Stinger Missiles as they could, and CIA officers roughly estimated that Tehran had acquired about 100 Stingers by 1996 (15). In that same period the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, had possessed 53 Stingers missiles that had been collected by various Pashtun warlords that were loyal to the Taliban (15). By the end of the Soviet-Afghan war the CIA was worried that the Stinger Missiles could fall in the hands of terrorist groups or hostile governments such as Iran for shooting down American civilian passenger planes or military aircraft (12). Many Stinger Missiles went to Mujahideen commanders who were associated with anti-American radical Islamist leaders (12). In my view, the U.S. government should not have sold Stinger Missiles or any weapons to Mujahideen groups. The USA should have also stayed neutral during the Soviet Afghan conflict.

President Carter failed to resolve the Iran Hostage crisis (1979-81). In February 1982 the US government removed Iraq off the list of states, ‘supporting international terrorism’ and reopened diplomatic relations with Iraq in December 1984 (16). From December 1984 the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad provided the Iraqi Military much needed military intelligence (16). Conversely, U.S. relations with Israel were especially hurt after the Israeli Air Force’s raid on the Iraqi Nuclear Reactor on June 7, 1981(17). The raid resulted in the delaying of a shipment of American aircraft to Israel that had already been authorized, as well the U.S. voting for a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel (17).

Conclusion

The American government supported Mujahideen rebels in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989. Many historians believe that the American government did this as a means of inflicting a “Vietnam” on the Soviet Union. The decision to send weapons to the rebels defeated the Soviet Union but created a breeding ground for terrorists in Afghanistan. The decision also made Iran more dangerous to American national security. The U.S. decision to support the Mujahideen was one of a series of foreign policy disasters during the Carter and Reagan years. Support for the rebels was an egregious and ill-advised decision by the American government. 

Now, you can read some World War II history from Daniel: “Did World War Two Japanese Kamikaze Attacks have more Impact than Nazi V-2 Rockets?” here, and “The Navajo Code from World War Two: Was it Unbreakable?” here.

[1] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 42. 

[2] Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2012. 13. 

[3] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 50-51. 

6 Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial. 2009. 210. 

[4] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 40. 

[5] Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001.  New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 58-59.

11 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979 -89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012. 49. 

14 Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 176. 

7 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 178-179.

8 Normann, Michael . MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 152-153. 

9 Normann, Michael. MIL  MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present: Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 28. 

10 Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: The Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2012. 30. 

12 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 11. 

13 Normann, Michael. MIL MI-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present:Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 179-181. 

15 Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, From the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004. 336- 337. 

16 Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 43-44. 

17 Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Nuclear Reactor. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-oprea-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor

References

Barnes-Freemont, Gregory. Essential Histories: Soviet-Afghan War 1979-89. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing, Ltd. 2012.

Coll, Steve. GHOST WARS: The Secret History of the CIA, Afghanistan, and Bin Laden, from the Soviet Invasion to September 10th, 2001. New York: New York. Penguin Press. 2004.

Feifer, Gregory. The Great Gamble: The Soviet War in Afghanistan. New York: New York. Harper Perennial, 2009. 

Karsh, Efraim. Essential Histories: The Iran-Iraq War 1980-1988. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2002. 

Normann, Michael. MIL Mi-24 Attack Helicopter: In Soviet/Russian and Worldwide Service: 1972 to the Present. Atglen: Pennsylvania. Schiffer Publishing, Ltd. 2019. 

“Operation Opera-Raid on Iraqi Reactor”. Jewish Virtual Library. Accessed on January 31st, 2021. https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/operation-opera-raid-on-iraqi-nuclear-reactor. 

Michael Malloy – The New York Irishman who wouldn’t die

Remember the cartoons you saw as a child, where one character is the oblivious target and survivor of another’s constant scheming? In 1930s New York, that scenario played out in real life. Here, Tom Daly explains the extraordinary story of Michael Malloy.

Tony Marino’s speakeasy. Third Avenue, New York.

On a warm afternoon in July 1932, three New Yorkers cooked up a scheme to make themselves rich. Running a speakeasy in the last year of the prohibition on alcohol in the US, one of them had noticed an Irishman who would regularly visit his bar, drink himself silly and pass out. That afternoon, he and his accomplices observed the man, slouched over his glass and mumbling to himself. He looked old, sick and tired, and it seemed as if he was not far from dying. How hard could it be to give him a little help along the way? With two more accomplices, they took out several life insurance policies on him, plied him with free booze and waited for him to pass. But he would not go so easily – every morning he was back, cheerfully ordering another drink as he settled in for the day. Before long the gang was becoming increasingly desperate, trying to poison him and even running him over with a car, but the insatiable Irishman simply would not die. He rose every morning and carried on as normal, like a cartoon character who keeps accidentally surviving attempts on their life, blissfully unaware that they are the target of a terrible plot. 

The man was an immigrant named Michael Malloy, whose resistance to the murder attempts earned him nicknames such as ‘Iron Mike’ and ‘The Rasputin of the Bronx.’ He was eventually killed by the gang, but the plot had long since lost its guile. Their frustration had got the better of them and by the end it seemed as if they were more concerned with finally killing their man than they were with getting away with it. Swiftly arrested, four of them would be sent to the electric chair, where they would not cheat death in the way their victim had done.

Background

Michael Malloy was born in County Donegal, in the north-west of Ireland, probably in the 1870s. By the early 1920s he had emigrated to New York, where he worked as a firefighter for a while, but by the end of the decade he was homeless and alcoholic. He frequented the speakeasies – venues that served illegal alcohol during prohibition – in the Bronx and by 1932 was a regular in one that was run by 27-year-old Tony Marino. 

Marino had an eye for quick money-making schemes. Already raking in a considerable income from his alcohol operation, earlier that year he had befriended a woman named Mabelle Carson and convinced her to sign a $2,000 life insurance policy that named him as the beneficiary. On a freezing night soon after, he had got her blind drunk, soaked a mattress with icy water and left her lying naked on the mattress by an open window. She died overnight and no questions were asked as Marino picked up his money, leaving him to wonder – how many times could I get away with that?

The Plot

It was in July 1932 that he decided Michael Malloy would be his next target. Standing at the bar with his friends, 24-year-old Francis Pasqua and 29-year-old Daniel Kreisberg, Marino gestured at Malloy and complained that he owed him money. If he can’t pay his debts, Pasqua suggested, couldn’t you do to him what you did to Mabelle Carson? Marino paused, before agreeing that it would be a nice little earner. 

That December, the men presented Malloy with some papers that they said would help get Marino elected to local office, and promised to provide him with free drink for the next few days in return. The thrilled Malloy was unaware that the papers he signed were actually life insurance policies that named Marino, Pasqua, Kreisberg and their friend, Joe Murphy, as the beneficiaries in the case of his accidental death. The men stood to gain $3,500 (over $50,000 in today’s money) between them. 

For the next three days, Malloy was given all the drink he wanted, free of charge, and the gang was sure that it would tip him over the edge. But on the fourth morning, to their shock and annoyance, Malloy breezed back into the bar and ordered some more drink. One has to wonder what Malloy was thinking – how exactly had he gone from being in debt to the bar to being best pals with the landlord and having drinks on the house? But Malloy didn’t consider how suspicious it was: all he cared about was the free booze. As far as he was concerned, he’d already died and gone to heaven.

The gang gets desperate

As the trend continued into the new year, Marino was growing impatient and petulantly suggested it would be easier to shoot Malloy in the head. But, not wanting to attract any attention from the authorities, Joe Murphy instead suggested that they start replacing Malloy’s normal drink with wood alcohol. Wood alcohol could cause death even in small quantities and, in an era when it was not uncommon for people to die from poor quality illegal alcohol, Murphy figured that no foul play would be suspected. The gang agreed to go ahead with the plan and served Malloy with wood alcohol one afternoon, but their target just kept knocking the drinks back and ordering more, carrying on into the next day and the day after. Astonished, the gang was forced to think again. 

This time, Pasqua conceived a plan to feed Malloy rotten sardine sandwiches and raw oysters to compliment the wood alcohol, knowing that the mix of oysters and hard spirits would poison him. When this did not work, they filled Malloy’s sandwiches with broken glass and metal, but still the Irishman simply devoured the sandwiches, washed them down with wood alcohol and happily sat there asking for more. 

After this, the men decided that nothing Malloy consumed was going to kill him. The next plan was to carry a passed out Malloy into the freezing January night, cover him with icy water and wait for him to die of exposure. But when the sun rose the next morning, there was Malloy, waiting outside the door for another drink. 

February was now around the corner, which meant the gang would have to pay another monthly installment towards the insurance plans. Hoping to get him before then, they let another friend of theirs, 23-year-old Hershey Green, in on the plan and promised him a cut of $150 to run Malloy over with his car. One afternoon, Pasqua and Murphy held a drunk Malloy upright in a side road while Green raced towards them. Just before Green reached the men, Pasqua and Murphy jumped out of the way and got up to see if the deed had finally been done. Unbelievably, the man who had been too drunk to stand just a few seconds previously had managed to jump out of the way as well. The men immediately repeated the process, but Malloy managed to jump out of the way again. It was a case of third time lucky for the gang as Green finally hit Malloy at 45 miles an hour, but the noise alerted some passers by and the men were not able to make sure he was dead. For a few weeks they heard nothing from the Irishman and were busy trying to find which morgue his body was in so they could collect their money, but they were absolutely stunned in mid-February when a heavily bandaged Michael Malloy turned up at the bar declaring that he was desperate for a drink. He had no memory of the incident.

Getting more than they bargained for

By now the murder plot was not even going to make the gang a profit – they had already spent too much money on paying for the insurance plan, on buying wood alcohol and on giving Malloy free booze, and any money they did receive was going to have to be split five ways. Still, Malloy’s ability to cheat death had infuriated them, and he was going to have to die if only so they could salvage some pride from the whole venture. On the night of February 21, 1933, the gang waited for Malloy to pass out and carried him to a rented room near the bar, where they finally killed him by sticking a gas pipe down his throat. They then paid off a coroner to list his cause of death as pneumonia and set about collecting the insurance money. 

Francis Pasqua collected $800 from the first insurance company, but was shocked when an employee at the second company asked to see the body. Pasqua sheepishly replied that the body had already been buried, which aroused enough suspicion to get the police involved. The New York police had been hearing rumors about ‘Iron Mike’ for the previous few weeks and swiftly added the story up, exhuming Malloy’s body for proper testing. The tests showed that Malloy had been murdered, and Marino, Pasqua, Kriesberg, Murphy and Green were all arrested. They were dubbed ‘The Murder Trust’ by a fascinated press. 

Hershey Green was convicted of the attempted murder of Michael Malloy and sentenced to a minimum of 10 years in prison. The other four men, who all pointed the finger at each other during their trial, were each convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Marino, Pasqua and Kriesberg were all executed in the electric chair on the same day, June 7, 1934. All three of them were married, while Marino and Kriesberg were both fathers to young children. Joe Murphy was executed by the same method the following month.

Not much is known about Michael Malloy. Nothing is known about his family, his exact age when he died is not known, and he would have just been another anonymous alcoholic in New York if it hadn’t been for a murder plot against him and his bizarre ability to survive it. All that is known about him is that he used to be a fireman, he was very fond of a drink, and he absolutely earned his nickname, ‘Iron Mike.’

Now, you can also read Tom’s articles on the Princess Alice Disaster on London’s River Thames here, 14th century French female pirate Jeanne de Clisson here, and why Tom loves history here.

Finally, read more from Tom at the Ministry of History here.