The Cold War-era Guatemalan Genocide – And America’s Role in it

The Guatemalan Genocide, coined the Silent Holocaust, had a great impact upon the indigenous Mayan people of the mountainous regions of Guatemala; however, few have heard of it. Between 1981 and 1983 the CIA backed military dictatorship of Guatemala persecuted indigenous Mayans as a proxy in the war against socialist guerillas. Roy Williams explains.

Queqchí people carrying their loved one's remains after an exhumation in Cambayal in Alta Verapaz department, Guatemala. Source: Trocaire / CAFCA archive, available here.

Amid the backdrop of the Cold War and the Reagan administration’s newfound vigor in combatting Soviet style socialism in the western hemisphere, the United States funded the military dictatorship of Efrain Rios Mott. The rise of the Guatemalan dictatorship stemmed from the Guatemalan Civil War and the United States backed coup, which overthrew a democratically elected government in favor of a more easily controlled military dictatorship. From 1960 until 1996, the Guatemalan civil war raged as the military and the government sought to defeat leftist rebels. Amid this conflict, the Guatemalan military carried out cruel acts of genocide upon the indigenous Mayan population who were blamed for rebel activity regardless of their actual involvement. 

To understand the reasons behind the Guatemalan genocide, the history of Guatemala’s civil war remains tantamount. In 1944 Juan Jose Arevalo was democratically elected to the presidency and began instituting multiple reforms. These reforms included increased funding for education, a national minimum wage, and a maximum work week. While these reforms were ultimately beneficial for the Guatemalan people, they failed to recognize one of the most consequential determinants of Guatemalan poverty, land ownership.

The United Fruit Company

In 1951, Jacobo Arbenz was elected president of Guatemala and continued in the spirit of reform as his predecessor. Arbenz stood as a unique leader in the Latin American world as a proponent of freedom of expression and freedom of the press. At the time of Arbenz’s presidency, Guatemala stood as an ideological leader of the Latin American world in its quest for reform and modernization. On June 17, 1952, the Agrarian Reform Law was passed as a monumental move towards granting Guatemala’s people a chance at land ownership. At the time of passage, 40% of the Guatemalan economy was run by the American company, the United Fruit Company. The United Fruit Company owned large swaths of land and controlled all the country’s railways as well as the electrical infrastructure. Arbenz attempted to pay the United Fruit Company for their large swaths of land but they ultimately refused. Unbeknownst to president Arbenz, the current secretary of state of the United States during the Eisenhower Administration, John Foster Dulles, was a corporate board member of the United Fruit Company. John Foster Dulles’ brother, Allen Dulles, was also the head of the CIA at the time. 

Upon the conflict between the Guatemalan government and the United Fruit Company, a concerted effort began to paint president Arbenz as a communist for his reformist attitude. Slowly but surely public opinion in the United States began to go against president Arbenz and his attempted reforms. In June 1954, the CIA staged a coup of the Guatemalan government led by Colonel Carlos Castillo Armas, which sought to regain the lands of the United Fruit Company. Ultimately the CIA were successful and on June 27, 1954, Armas overthrew Arbenz and became president of Guatemala, marking the end of the 10 years of spring, the only time in Guatemalan history that any leaders were elected democratically without foreign interference.

War begins

Immediately after the coup, Armas began suspending civil liberties and accusing peasants of having communist sympathies. This cycle of military dictatorships continued until 1960 when the Guatemalan civil war began. Initially guerilla resistance began in the cities of Guatemala, but it soon became evident that the mountainous regions of Guatemala would be more effective as a base of operations in resisting the government. The sad coincidence of the movement of guerillas to mountainous regions such as El Quiche is that the indigenous Mayan populations lived there largely uninvolved with the revolutionary politics of Guatemala.

In March 1982, military leader Efrain Rios Montt assumed power - with the help of the military. Montt had strong ties with the Reagan administration in the United States and ultimately received foreign aid in the conflict with the Guatemalan people. Montt claimed that God had put him in power and began his reign by bringing law and order to the major cities of Guatemala. Every Sunday Montt conducted erratic sermons aimed at reducing crime in the cities. Ultimately Montt’s goals succeeded in reducing crime and gained him wild popularity in the cities. Montt then turned his mission towards wiping out all resistance in the rural areas of Guatemala. On May 28, 1982, the government announced a 30-day amnesty plan allowing any guerilla fighters to turn themselves in. The 30-day amnesty plan ultimately failed resulting in the mobilization of the Guatemalan Army against the countryside. Montt instituted the Frijoles y Fusiles program, which would be used to legally justify attacking indigenous populations.  During this period, the government and army systematically massacred the indigenous Mayan populations of mountainous regions such as El Quiche. The government of Guatemala made the horrendous decision that all indigenous populations were considered guerilla sympathizers and treated them as enemies. During this phase of the Guatemalan civil war, 200,000 native Mayans were massacred with 400 villages destroyed. Many of the massacres were committed in rudimentary ambush formats. When Mayan villagers would journey to the marketplace, the army would force as many people into large buildings, bar the door and burn them alive with the aide of gasoline. Other forms of genocide included forced disappearances, torture of suspected guerillas, and indiscriminate massacres.

War ends

The Guatemalan Civil War finally ended on December 29, 1996 when guerilla fighters signed a peace treaty with the government. Efrain Rios Montt was eventually found guilty of genocide in 2013 and sentenced to 80 years in prison. The sentence did not hold, as the Guatemalan constitutional court demanded a retrial and Montt died in 2018 without ever facing justice. Many officials in both the Guatemalan and American governments continue to deny the massacres as genocide, defending their actions as appropriate. The Guatemalan Civil War claimed the lives of some 200,000 people – including over 40,000 killed and disappeared as identified by the Commission for Historical Clarification (although the true figure is higher). Countless mass burial sites dot the landscape of the mountainous regions of Guatemala for which researchers continue to uncover the bodies of those murdered by their own government. 

While the genocidal killings have ended and dictator Efrain Rios Mott is dead, the United States has not atoned for its heinous actions in supporting the killings. The CIA is widely known to have understood its role in funding genocidal persecution whether intentionally or unintentionally. Regardless of the overarching goals of United States’ Cold War foreign policy in containing the spread of socialism throughout the world, the United States still bears responsibility in perpetuating genocide against the Mayan people of Guatemala. In combatting the denial of the Guatemalan genocide, citizens of both Guatemala and the United States must continue to stand up for the truth in remembering the atrocities of the past committed by both governments. By telling the stories of the Guatemalan Genocide and condemning the crimes against humanity perpetuated upon the Mayan people of Guatemala, further acts of genocide may be prevented in the battle against the violence of the state. 

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

Now, read Roy’s article on the Armenian Genocide here.

Politics in the Kitchen during the Cold War

The kitchen is the heart of domesticity; the home of the home where food and warmth are enjoyed by family members. But even the kitchen—this private realm in our life—can be part of everyday politics. Here, Liza Hadiz considers the role of the kitchen in the Cold War, including the famous ‘kitchen debate’.

US Vice-President Richard Nixon and Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev taking part in the ‘kitchen debate’ at the American National Exhibition in Moscow, 1959.

The Chamber

Before modern technologies were developed for the household, the kitchen was the drudgery of domestic labor; labor which was generally associated with women’s role. Not surprisingly, the Soviets once viewed the kitchen as a terrible chamber for women. After the Russian Revolution in 1917, the kitchen was part of the house that must be rid of for the full emancipation of women. Public dining spaces replaced the kitchen to free women from the derogatory labor and toil of the kitchen, to give women time for self-growth and development—more time to read as well as explore literature and the arts. 

When these public dining places didn’t take off too well and the growing industry brought more people to the cities, the government set up communal apartments for several families to live in. Called kommunalka, these living spaces had a shared kitchen. The kitchens in these homes were public space, where each family sharing the apartment cooked their meals in. 

Among the pots and pans and laundry of all the families living in the apartment, the kitchen was not the best place to be sitting down to enjoy your coffee. Not just because it was a potential hotbed for occupants to engage in conflict, perhaps over a missing kettle, but it was also a dangerous place to carry out the wrong conversation. In the communal kitchen, you would have to watch what you say, as information can be passed on to the government.

A Kitchen of One’s Own

From the 1950s, in the rush to provide housing for the increasing population, low ceiling two-bedroom apartments were developed for the masses—dubbed the Khrushchyovka, after the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev. This time, they were built for individual families, with their very own bathroom and kitchen too. As extended families of three generations cramped into these small apartments, there was barely space for family members to eat together. But at least they had their very own kitchen.

With families having their own privacy, the kitchen did not become any safer. Being a private space, the government needed to take an even closer look at the kitchen. Agents were watching and tapping kitchens. 

However threatening, families welcomed guests into their small kitchens, and they were the place where conversations about politics and the arts took place. Between the walls of the kitchen, underground self-published literature (samizdat) was shared and read. It was also a place for family and friends to listen to banned music, such as jazz and rock and roll. When a group of people hung out in the kitchen like this, it was considered a form of dissident activity.

Ironically, while freedom of art and freedom of expression were topics discussed at the kitchen table, the discrimination that Soviet women were facing was left out of the discussion.

While after the revolution, Russian women obtained legal, political, and economic rights, it was not long after Stalin came into power that he brought back the traditional gender division of labor. Women were defined as mother, wife, and communist. Women’s condition eroded. Between the neighboring walls of communal apartments, it was no secret that women were victims of abuse.

In 1979, a group of women (Tatiana Mamonova, Tatiana Goricheva, Natalia Malakhovskaya, and Yuliya Vesnesenskaya) self-published the controversial almanac Woman and Russia that revealed what women really faced in the Soviet Union: the double standard as proletariats and as wives and mothers, unequal pay, domestic violence, poor conditions of maternity clinics, and the state’s poor childcare quality. However, the dissident circles did not care to discuss these issues at their kitchen tables and it was not long after the almanac’s circulation that the KGB were after the authors, forcing them to flee the Soviet Union.

The Dishwasher

Twenty years before Woman and Russia was written, in 1959, during an American exhibition at Sokolniki Park in Moscow, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev had a heated debate with US Vice President Richard Nixon about women and kitchen design—one which would be remembered years on as part of Cold War history. Nixon proudly introduced the kitchen model of the “typical American house” and then particularly took the dishwasher as an example which he might have thought would represent women’s liberation in the US.  

While pointing at a dishwasher Nixon goes on to say:

“This is our newest model. This is the kind which is built in thousands of units for direct installations in the houses. In America, we like to make life easier for women.” 

In response, Khrushchev said, “Your capitalistic attitude toward women does not occur under communism.” 

Nixon replied, “I think that this attitude towards women is universal. What we want to do, is make life easier for our housewives.”[i]

The dishwasher conversation between the two leaders—dubbed “the kitchen debate”—is quite telling. Women’s wellbeing was some sort of a benchmark for assessing a political system. 

So if the Soviet Union had wanted to liberate women by getting rid of the kitchen, the US had opted for revolutionizing the kitchen. After World War II, women in America were encouraged to stay at home to make way for the employment of men returning from war. During this time, the old-fashioned American kitchen began experiencing a dramatic change. Listening to what housewives felt about their kitchen, in the late 1940s, architects, engineers, and home economics specialists began building modern kitchens. Using new technology, kitchens were turned into workshops to make cooking and washing convenient, less time consuming, and to give women freedom from drudgery. The architect of the successful suburban houses of the 1950s, Alfred Levitt, was quoted as saying: “Thanks to the number of appliances in our house, the girls will have three hours to kill every afternoon.”[ii]

With the new technologies aimed to boost efficiency and reduce domestic labor time, especially for women, couples could operate independently of extended family members. This was the time of the rise of the postwar nuclear family with the male breadwinner/housewife gender roles, from what advertisers and women’s magazines created the image of the postwar middle-class housewife. 

Although as a housewife a woman toils with unpaid labor daily, in the capitalist system Nixon was promoting, this was not considered demeaning. Her devotion to her family was what makes up the American family values of the time. US Cold War propaganda heavily focused on the family where the values of the ideal Western family were expected to sell democracy and capitalism abroad through the image of prosperity that the ideal family suggested.

Beyond the Kitchen

Interestingly, just four years after the kitchen talk with the Soviet leader—where Nixon attempted to use the domestic sphere to indicate the improvement of women’s life in the US—Betty Friedan’s research revealed the contrary. Her book The Feminine Mystique (1963) exposed what was not communicated over the kitchen table: the unhappy white middle-class housewife’s discontent with domestic life. 

Likewise, in contrast to what Khrushchev may have thought about communism’s attitude towards women, Soviet women faced discrimination in the private and public sphere and this fact was even overlooked by dissident circles. Banned over 40 years ago, the self-published Woman and Russia was in last year’s Leningrad Feminism 1979 exhibition. The exhibition allowed us to hear the once silenced voices of women who criticized the Soviet Union. These were the voices denied at the kitchen table.

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

Liza Hadiz is an editor and writer who lives in Jakarta. She writes on topics related to gender and history. Her blog is Some Thoughts from the Cappuccino Girl https://feministpassion.blogspot.com.

[i] Taken from The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union.

[ii] Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream.

Sources

Friedan, Betty (1973) ‘Up from the Kitchen Floor.’ NY Times. https://www.nytimes.com/1973/03/04/archives/up-from-the-kitchen-floor-kitchen-floor.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

GeoHistory (2015) The Evolution and Dissolution of the Soviet Kitchen. https://geohistory.today/soviet-kitchen/ [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Iber, Patrick (2017) ‘Cold War World.’ The New Republic [online] <https://newrepublic.com/article/144998/cold-war-world-new-history-redefines-conflict-true-extent-enduring-costs> [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Krasner, Barbara (2014) ‘The Nuclear Family and Cold War Culture of the 1950s.’ Academia. https://www.academia.edu/9926751/The_Nuclear_Family_and_Cold_War_Culture_of_the_1950s [Accessed December 21, 2019].

Levittown Pa. (2003) Building the Suburban Dream. http://statemuseumpa.org/levittown/three/kitchen.html [Accessed August 22, 2020].

NPR (2014) ‘How Soviet Kitchens Became Hotbeds of Dissent and Culture.’ The Salt. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/05/27/314961287/how-soviet-kitchens-became-hotbeds-of-dissent-and-culture [Accessed July 5, 2020].

Roache, Madeline (2019) ‘Is Capitalism or Communism Better for Women? How the Kitchen Debate Gave a New Meaning to the Cold War “Home Front”.’ Time. https://time.com/5630567/kitchen-debate-women [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Calvert Journal (2020) The Story Behind the 70s Samizdat that Launched Late Soviet Feminism. https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/11906/woman-and-russia-feminist-zine-samizdat [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Debate-transcript 24 July 959 Vice President Richard Nixon and Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev U.S. Embassy, Moscow, Soviet Union. https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/1959-07-24.pdf [Accessed August 16, 2020].

The Kitchen Sisters (2020) Communal Kitchens. http://www.kitchensisters.org/hidden-kitchens/communal-kitchens/ [Accessed July 5, 2020]. 

United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Library (n.d.) Step-Saving Kitchens. https://nalgc.nal.usda.gov/step-saving-kitchens [Accessed August 22, 2020].

How the Nazi Soldiers Used Drugs During Fighting in World War 2

During World War II, the Nazi war machine stormed through much of Europe. But did you know that some Nazi troops were taking the drug methamphetamine during the fighting? Jefrey Ramos explains.

An advert for Pervitin, now more commonly known as methamphetamine. Source: Onkel Dittmeyer, available here.

Methamphetamine: An Unlikely Factor in Hitler’s Destructive Blitzkrieg

Most history fanatics have heard the WWII stories. How Germany overwhelmingly invaded its European neighbors - they quickly took over countries using the Blitzkrieg strategy. We know they were ruthless, cruel, and unforgiving. Yes, they were taking orders from a maniac dictator, but they were not super humans. Sure, they were well trained, they had deadly war machines, but what further aided the Third Reich to stomp out its adversaries? You ever been to Hollywood past 10pm? That's right. Speed, or methamphetamine, better known during World War II as Pervitin, was a substance that was issued and used as an enhancer by Hitler’s Nazi regime.

The Commercialization of Meth In Germany and How it was Popularized

After World War I, drug use in Germany boomed. It is not hard to imagine such a thing would happen in a society that was ravaged by war. After all, Germany had lost World War I, and they were severely penalized for it. Many veterans and people felt defeated, punished, and humiliated. Drugs tend to be something that certain groups of people turn to when they experience these sorts of agonies. Germany was defeated, and many veterans began to indulge in drug use. Major pharmaceutical companies in Germany mass-produced various types of drugs such as methamphetamines. Temmler-Werke produced and sold methamphetamine under the brand of Pervitin in the 1930s. Pervitin became prevalent during this time thanks to a massive marketing campaign. People could access it without a prescription, even in the form of chocolates. It was a methamphetamine-based stimulant. German society began to use these drugs more openly. The campaigns even targeted housewives - they would promote the drug as an anti-exhaustion wonder drug, so Germans were no strangers to drugs and their effects.

Human Capabilities were not enough for Hitler’s Plans

Fast forward to World War II. Here we have Hitler trying to invade territory after territory. He’s ruthless and he wants the operations to be done and executed expeditiously. The obstacle that stood in front of Hitler’s conquest was simply human nature - and the limitations that came with it. For a rapid approach, Hitler needed continuous momentum and strength for his lightning war. However, soldiers were human, and they absolutely needed rest and time to heal. This is where meth came in. Pervitin made soldiers awake and in need of less rest. Thus, Germany began to issue Pervitin to its forces. The logic behind it was that it helped troops and personnel stay awake for long periods of time, but most importantly, not feel exhaustion. This would make the soldiers better - until the drugs came down. That's right. We don’t actually believe they became the Red Skull, Captain America’s super-powered nemesis, himself do we? Like any drug of such a nature, it was only logical and natural that meth was going to have catastrophic effects on the troops. 

The Consequences of Pervitin use on the Third Reich

Nazi soldiers did in fact experience withdrawals when there were shortages of the drug. Others suffered accidental overdoses. There was an incident where a group of soldiers surrendered to Allied forces without a fight. They were likely in a meth-influenced state the night before, and their paranoia caused them to exhaust their ammunition. When the real Allied forces came into contact, they turned themselves in. The chain of command became aware – such incidents combined with less funds eventually led to Germany cutting the distribution of Pervitin.

It is now known that Hitler was an avid drug user. His personal physician would administer various types of drugs throughout his life. It is only logical that someone who used drugs for so long would see it as acceptable for his armed forces to use them too.

Pervitin and Hitler’s Policies

It is important to note that Germany was not the only world power in World War II to administer drug stimulants to their forces. The Allies also used amphetamines to stand combat fatigue. It is a practice that was not unknown to other countries.

The reader should also remember that while the effects of Pervitin may have made some Nazi activities worse, it was not the underlying reason why the Nazis committed so many atrocities. Hitler’s ideology came about much earlier than Pervitin’s distribution in the 1930s. Hitler expressed his political and racist views in his book Mein Kampf. While the book was published in 1925, Hitler’s military drug distribution effort unfolded at scale during the fighting in the war.

What do you think of the use of Methamphetamine during World War II?

Finally, Jefrey writes on his personal site here.

A Brief History of the Growth of UFO Mythology Since World War 2

UFOs, or unidentified flying objects, have been seen in the sky for millennia. However, in more recent times there has been a growing interest in UFO sightings – and what exactly UFOs are. Nigel Watson looks at the growing interest in ‘flying saucers’ and UFOs since World War II.

Nigel has published several books, most recently 'Captured by Aliens? A History and Analysis of American Abduction Claims' (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

A Swediah officer searches for a "ghost rocket" in Lake Kölmjärv, Sweden, 1946.

Since ancient times, strange lights, objects and celestial wonders in the sky have warned of impending doom or the dawn of a new era of revelation.

In the early 20th century mystery lights over Great Britain were interpreted as being caused by German Zeppelins spying out the land in preparation for invasion. During WWI any unusual thing in the sky was regarded as an enemy aircraft and as a consequence they produced scares in South Africa, Canada, the USA, and Britain.

In the 1930s, ‘mystery aircraft’ were often reported, but with the coming of WWII strange objects viewed by Allied pilots, which followed their aircraft, were dubbed ‘foo fighters’. After the war there was a huge spate of ghost rocket sightings over Scandinavia, but sightings of odd things in the sky only became perceived as a truly global phenomenon with the arrival of flying saucers in June 1947.

Flying saucers

The term ‘flying saucer’ was coined by newspapers after civilian pilot Kenneth Arnold saw nine glittering craft flying over Mount Rainier, Washington on June 24, 1947. He described them as thin, nickel plated, tailless, pie plate shaped objects with a convex triangular rear section. The objects flew in an unusual fashion like saucers skimming across water, travelling at an estimated 1,200 mph, a speed much faster than any known aircraft of that time.

This story from a reliable witness soon triggered many more sightings throughout the world. Yet, most people described seeing a disc or saucer-shaped craft in-line with what the term flying saucer inspires, rather than bat-shaped or tadpole like craft described by Arnold.

This was ‘coincidentally’ at the beginning of the Cold War. One of Arnold’s first thoughts was that he was seeing US jet planes. Yet, his sighting was so troubling he reported it to the media in an effort to find out what he saw.

When he discussed it with fellow pilots, he said ‘Some of the pilots thought it over and said it was possible. Some of them guessed that I had seen some secret guided missiles. People began asking me if I thought they were missiles sent over the North Pole. I don't know what they were, but I know this - I saw them.’

Sonny Robinson, a former Army Air Forces pilot who was operating dusting operations at Pendleton, Oregon, told Arnold: ‘What you observed, I am convinced, is some type of jet or rocket propelled ship that is in the process of being tested by our government or even it could possibly be by some foreign government.’

However, a Washington, D.C., army spokesman said that guided missiles like the V2 rocket travelled too fast to have been responsible for Arnold’s sighting and in any case no experimental tests were conducted in that area at that time.

In secret the Army Air Force was worried about these sightings, and in July 1947, Army Air Force intelligence officers Lt. Frank Brown and Capt. William Davidson interviewed Arnold and were convinced that he was an honest witness.

Inquiries were made to see if the Soviets had developed a saucer or flying wing aircraft using captured Nazi designs and scientists, but this drew a blank and it was equally clear that it wasn’t a US secret weapon either.

UFO Hysteria

Debunkers soon turned to claiming such sightings as misperceptions or the product of Cold War hysteria; believers soon started thinking the saucers were extraterrestrial craft on a mission to save us from starting an atomic war.

Concerned that UFOs sightings would block essential channels of communication, and be used as a psychological weapon by foreign enemies, the policy of US government agencies soon turned to providing mundane explanations for sightings or covering them up, to prevent the outbreak of UFO hysteria.

The longest running official UFO investigation was Project Blue Book, which was set-up by the USAF on March 25, 1952. It had a policy of demystifying UFO reports.

Blue Book became the public face for official UFO investigations, but it mainly operated as a repository of information and an outlet for debunking cases. After collecting 12,618 sighting reports, of which 701 remained unsolved, it ended on January 30, 1970, based on the view that: “Careful consideration of the record as it is available to us leads us to conclude that further extensive study of UFOs probably cannot be justified in the expectation that science will be advanced thereby.”

At least 10,000 UFO reports collected by Project Blue Book have been put online and many other governments have released their UFO files. So we have an embarrassment of riches that have been largely ignored by UFO researchers, yet they could provide lots of information about types of sightings and their patterns over time and place.

Government Secrets

The problem is alien saucers and body parts remain as elusive now as they always have been, and it frustrates the hell out of conspiracy mongers and ufologists. To fill this gap there have been numerous whistleblowers about UFO secrets, plus various U.S. agencies have used the belief in UFOs to cover-up other nefarious or top-secret activities.

On the question of government cover-ups and the possibility that various authorities are spreading disinformation UFO researcher Kevin Randle agrees that the USAF has been involved in such activities. However, for him, ‘I think the real problem with tainted information is the UFO community." People can come along with impressive stories backed-up by documents just for the notoriety. It takes an enormous amount of time and effort to verify or disprove their claims that could be devoted to more productive areas of investigation. He added,  "I’ve said for some time that those running the cover-up don’t need to do anything. We do it to ourselves all the time.’

Randle complains that: ‘No one inside the UFO community will look at evidence that some of the top 'whistleblowers' were inventing their tales. UFO research will improve if they start vetting the witnesses and making sure that the stories told are credible or that the information is of great importance.

‘Ufology, at least what I consider the scientific aspect, comes at the problem from the point of view that we don’t really know what is causing all these mysterious objects and lights but we believe them to have a physical existence. It is the study moving toward an answer rather than an answer moving toward questions.’

Yet, there is a burning hope that in June 2021 the U.S. government will finally reveal all. There has been a frenzy in the media that U.S. Navy figure pilots and sailors have seen and tracked Unidentified Aerial Objects (UAPs). So far only fuzzy pictures of UAPs and inconclusive radar data has been released but UFO expert Dr Bruce Maccabee believes: ‘The new radar and observational data confirm what has been reported ever since the first UFO sightings in the late spring of 1947, namely that these objects can undergo extreme acceleration and reach very high speeds.’

He thinks, like many other UFO experts and influencers, that the forthcoming disclosures will prove UAPs are vehicles controlled by non-human intelligence (NHIs). He goes as far as to say:

‘The origin(s) of these NHI is (are) unknown but they may come from other planets using transportation technology based on very advanced physical principles. President Joe Biden of the U.S.A. and leaders of other countries may find it necessary to develop a single, uniform, world-wide policy for co-existing and interacting with NHI. The policy should be world-wide because allowing various countries to develop their own policies could result in some form of disaster.’

From a historical perspective, this is nothing new. Countless predictions have been made about the proverbial flying saucer landing on the White House lawn, to prove the existence of aliens from outer space or some other exotic origin.

The subject of flying saucers offers a valuable insight into the impact of social expectations on how we interpret odd things seen in the sky, and it also helps show how it has evolved and changed into the conspiracy led state of ufology today.

What do you think of UFOs in history? Let us know below.

Nigel Watson is the author of the UFO Investigations Manual published by Haynes, and UFOs of the First World War published by the History Press. His latest book is 'Captured by Aliens? A History and Analysis of American Abduction Claims' published by McFarland, 2020 (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

References

A Different Perspective. Kevin Randle blog site: www.KevinRandle.blogspot.com

Dr Bruce Maccabee Research Website: www.brumac.mysite.com/

Sirius Disclosure website: siriusdisclosure.com/

Exopolitics Journal: www.exopoliticsjournal.com

Russia’s 4 Great Resets: From the Romanovs to the End of the Cold War

Russian history has been beset with a number of seismic changes. Here, Daniel McEwen considers four key ‘resets’ in Russian history – the start of the Romanov dynasty, two early 20th century revolutions, and the end of the Cold War.

Vladimir Lenin, a beneficiary of one of Russia’s ‘resets’. A 1920 depiction by artist Isaak Brodsky.

“Reset” was the buzzword on speakers’ lips this past January during [an online version of] the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. In words as lofty as the Alps in the background, Klaus Schwab, the event’s impassioned founder hailed the Covid pandemic as “a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset our world." 

Ironically, his idea was swept overboard by Covid’s next wave and hasn’t returned, perhaps because its advocates have since checked their history books. Resets have a chequered track record at best, with the 1789 French Revolution revered as the most notable, the Russian Revolution as the most execrable. And it was only one of that country’s four attempts to exploit a “rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine, and reset their world ". Their failure explains why journalist Vladimir Pozner arguing Russia has never really been a democracy.

Reset #1 - 1613

Ivan the Terrible is dead. One third of the fledgling nation’s population has been wiped out in the internecine warfare known as “The Time of Troubles”. Weak and leaderless, the country is beset by enemies on all borders. Desperate to end the violence, the Zemsky Sobor, an assembly of the realm’s elites, gather to reset their system of governance. 

This was a mountaintop moment in the country’s history, never to be repeated; a singular chance for Russians to shrug off the yoke of autocracy and rule themselves. But not one of the gathered could spell democracy let alone run one. Self-rule sounded like a lot of work. Had Fyodor Dostoevsky lived then, no doubt he would have been heard telling his countrymen that: “to go wrong in one's own way is better than to go right in someone else's.” Not that anyone would have listened. Instead of a reset, they rebooted the old system. 

Historian Abraham Pailtsyn listened in on this assembly and was struck by what he didn’t hear – there was nobody speaking up for running the country for the people. Easier to just hand things over to the Romanov clan, the least objectionable of several candidates for the job. It was led by a 16 year-old teenager. His first official act was to hang a rival for the throne and his eight-year-old son, setting the tone for the next three hundred years.

Pailtsyn blamed this fateful lethargy on a deep national apathy.

Indeed it was. The appalling inhumanity of serfdom under the Romanov’s thumb approached can be compared to slavery. Nine tenths of the population lived in squalor, worked like beasts of burden to generate the unconscionable wealth enjoyed by the other one tenth. Little wonder the largest country in the world could do no better than a GDP barely equal to Spain’s! Quaintly embarrassing at first, this state-sponsored feudalism threatened the empire’s very survival when the forces of technological, social and political change began shifting the tectonic plates of world power. 

Had it been the best of times, czarist Russia would still have needed Paladins of Enlightenment to guide it along the perilous path to modernization. But it was the worst of times - disingenuous czars, amply aided and abetted by motley crews of corrupt cabinet ministers, sadistic secret police and a supine nobility used brutality and repression to manipulate modernization to their exclusive benefit.  

Typical of their tactics was the subverting of the abolition of serfdom, often depicted as the country’s ‘Great Leap Forward‘ to social and economic modernity. Some leap. Russia’s Emancipation Act of 1860 improved the quality of life for serfs about as much as the American Emancipation Act three years later improved the quality of life of slaves there. The czar and his minions retroactively limited, diluted and prolonged their people’s emancipation. At least freed American slaves did not have to pay compensation to their owners for the loss of their labor as was required of Russian serfs. In the end, emancipation offered the overwhelming majority of Russians basically two career options: over-worked, underpaid farmer or over-worked, underpaid factory worker.

Reset #2 - 1905

Still considered by many to be the ‘real’ Russian Revolution, this aborted reset was the high-water mark of Romanov duplicity. Japan had sent Czar Nicholas’ grand vision of a Pacific Empire to the bottom of Tsushima Bay in a naval defeat so shameful it nearly cost him his throne. Humiliated, he was forced to agree to a constitutional monarchy. Bells rang throughout the kingdom, people partied in the streets, and newspaper editors rhapsodized about the dawning on a new age of freedom. 

All the man had to do was keep his word and he, his family and some hundred million Russians would have lived happily ever after, never having heard of Vladimir Lenin. But always more a ruler than a leader, Nicholas stayed true to his family colors and cravenly reneged on the deal, dismissing the reformers behind it as deluded dreamers. Egged on by a witless wife in the thrall of a charlatan monk, Nicholas all but dedicated the last twelve years of his reign to giving those dreamers even more reasons to want to him gone – dead or alive!

Reset #3 - 1917

Three years into World War One, two million Russian soldiers are dead and five times that number of peasants have died of starvation or disease. Millions more face the same fate, caught between the scorched earth policy of their own retreating soldiers and the pillaging by the advancing German troops. In the cities, people are starving to death, if they don’t freeze first, awaiting trains of wheat that rarely arrive. Ever bereft of empathy or wisdom, Nicholas felt not the slightest obligation to feed his own people, breaking their three-hundred year near-religious faith in the Czar as an all-knowing, all-caring ‘Little Father’. Not surprisingly, none of them felt the slightest obligation to save him when mutinous troops stopped his train. He went without a whimper. The bang was still to come.

Free at last of their Romanov masters, there was none of the apathy of 1613 and no going back like in 1905. This time rank and file Russians knew exactly what they wanted: participation in power, a fairer share of the nation’s wealth and no more czars! Unlike 1613, this time there was lots of talk. And talk. And talk. And so enters a man author/historian Edward Crankshaw described as “one more bacillus let loose to spread infection in a tottering and exhausted Russia.” 

How Russians ended up with Vladimir Lenin and the tyrannical czars of Bolshevism is a question a library of books have attempted to answer. The most charitable explanation seems to be that a destitute, disillusioned people were simply too cold and too hungry to read the fine print on their deal with the Devil. 

However it happened, Vladimir Lenin played a ghastly game of bait-and-switch, promising ‘Peace, Bread, Land’, but delivering war, terror and death. For this unwitting lapse of judgment, another ten million citizens would perish in the civil war that followed World War One. Its hapless survivors were condemned to seventy years in the gulag of Soviet-style socialism, notorious for short trials and long bread lines. Tellingly, the USSR’s GDP did not rise above a third that of arch-rival America’s.

Reset #4 - 1991

The catastrophic Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 opened Russians’ eyes to the true magnitude of the corruption and incompetence inherent in the Soviet system. Profoundly shocked, they began publicly questioning their leaders’ fitness for office. Five years later the Berlin Wall fell, burying Leninism in the rubble. At that time, per capita GDP was $23,000 in the United States, $16,000 in Western Europe and $6,800 in the rapidly dissolving ‘workers’ paradise’.

The Soviet Union was formally dissolved on December 26, 1991 but much to their dismay, the long-suffering proletariat were no sooner free of the iron grip of communism than Mikhail Gorbachev attempted to shackle them to unregulated capitalism – and barely escaped with his life for his trouble! When the dust of Glasnost had settled, Vladimir Putin and his oligarch friends had installed themselves in the Kremlin. While he labors mightily to restore the nation to a dubious former glory, its inglorious GDP has now shrunk to one-fifteenth that of United States.

What’s next?

Speculation about when and how Reset #5 will occur keeps pundits’ tongues wagging. Incredibly, the notion persists that Russians actually like strongman rulers. No one likes being bullied, surely the Russians least of all.  

What do you think of Russia’s ‘resets’? Let us know below.

How Strong were Britain’s World War Two Alliances with France and the Soviet Union?

Britain had two major alliances in World War Two prior to the USA joining the war. These were with France and the Soviet Union. Here, Steve Prout considers their effectiveness, including how Britain fought with France and also overlooked several aggressive acts committed by the Soviets.

Vichy France leader Petain meeting Hitler in October 1940. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-H25217 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

For people who take the Hollywood pictures as gospel the Second World War was essentially one “set of good guys”, being the allies, versus one “set of bad guys”, being the axis.  The reality was far more interesting. Alliances were not as static as is what has been portrayed in such simplistic Hollywood war film formulae or the stories we all enjoyed in our childhood comics.

Not quite standing alone

At no point was Britain alone in facing the Axis threat from the European continent.  From the beginning the combined forces of the Dominions and Commonwealth were present but Britain also had two other principal allies that joined and left at various stages. These were France and the Soviet Union.  The former was an ally that that became for all intents an adversary and the latter started the war in collaboration with the Nazis to be later courted by the British.

France

By the middle of 1940 the allies were in full retreat.  A month after the Dunkirk evacuation France had signed an armistice with Nazi Germany that would establish a “new order” and new political climate in France and her overseas territories.  This new order saw a shift to an Anglo-phobic attitude and the establishment of pro-German authoritarian regime under Petain.

Britain and France: The pre-war alliance

There was always underlying tension in Franco-British relations. As recent as the 1890s both nations almost come to blows over the Fashoda incident due to colonial rivalry.  However, the Entente Cordiale of 1904 and the World War I alliance managed to put a plaster of sorts over such differences, but there still deep down remained the old suspicions as demonstrated in 1925 in the Treaty of Lausanne and disagreements over the treatment of Weimar Germany.  

However, these differences did not prevent these two nations from collaborating again in the face of a growing and repeat threat from Germany.  Britain and France were to form a military alliance to contain German aggression in 1939 but by June 1940 this came to an end with French defeat and subsequent armistice.

Tensions already existed and were growing even before the allied armies were awaiting evacuation from Dunkirk and considering surrender terms. During the life of the allied alliance, as France saw herself contributing most of the land forces compared to a smaller British contribution who had, by the time of Dunkirk, only contributed less than ten divisions, one tenth of the allied force.  Further reluctance to commit the RAF fighters as events turned even more impossible meant France saw Britain as only looking out for her own interests and not fully committed to the alliance. The actions and the clumsy rhetorical manner of some of the British high command, primarily Lord Gort, did little to persuade the French that the British had no other reasons than self-preservation.

French soldiers were repatriated from British shores back to their home soil less than a week after the mass evacuation, with no commitment of significant British forces. It was very much now seen as a separate battle of France and a separate battle of Britain with France being left to her fate.  Churchill, to restore faith and confidence, offered a union of the two nations but Petain likened it to being “fused with a corpse” and senior ministers considered “better a Nazi province at least we know what that means”.  To say it was a non-starter would be an understatement and so the Vichy Government was formed.

Life after the French Surrender - Vichy

Once the armistice was signed a defeated France adopted an Anglo-phobic stance and established a near fascist state seeking parity with Germany and a part in the New Order. British and French forces would soon clash in various areas of the globe.

The British were concerned that the French Navy and the French colonies would be utilized by the axis against Britain.  Churchill feared the Nazis would demand the surrender of the French Fleet.  Unbeknown to Britain, Germany at the time did not require the surrender of the fleet but German intentions offered no reassurances and so the British warned the French to surrender or face destruction of their fleet as a last resort, which the British navy high command were loathe to do.  The French refused to surrender the fleet and so hostilities commenced.

Fighting with the French – “an old and new adversary”

The first clash in July 1940 was in very limited scale and saw four casualties with three deaths (British) from small arms fire in Devonport, Plymouth as the Royal Navy boarded the destroyer Sarcouf which was docked in British waters.  A wider scale operation named Operation catapult a few weeks later saw the destruction of a large part of the French Fleet and the deaths of 1,300 French sailors at Mers-Al-Kebir, Algeria. The political damage was more severe and the propaganda value to the Nazis was invaluable. The French were in an unforgiving mood.

In September 1940 the loyalty to Vichy and unforgiving attitude to the British had reached the far reaches of the French Empire.  The British and a Free French force were repulsed at the French colony in Dakar, Senegal.  What was apparent was not only hatred for the British but also dislike for the De Gaulle’s Free French movement whom his countrymen seemed to largely view as a traitor.  In retaliation to this attack French bombers flew two sorties over Gibraltar, again causing limited damage.  This was enough to find favor with the Germans but minimal enough not to cause any British reprisals.

Dakar presented many oddities and revelations. It tested the resolve of Vichy and the real level of support of De Gaulle and his Free French movement.  It was set apart from the main theatre in Europe - French fought fellow countrymen and Vichy forces used US planes to fight French and British counterparts.  Nowhere in this were the axis forces, the principal enemies.  The British would fail in this operation.

Britain would find herself in conflict in Syria and the Middle East against significant Vichy French Forces. Admiral Darlan wanted to assist the Germans by offering the territory to oust the British from Iraq and take the Iraqi oil and resources, but the Germans had other ideas and both objectives were nevertheless unsuccessful. Meanwhile, in Europe, Petain, like Darlan would continue to win German favor to achieve equal status with Germany in the European New Order. 

France’s behavior was not helped by British actions like Dakar and Mers-El-Kebir, but on balance was understandable for the time in the face of nefarious Nazi intentions.  Admiral Darlan however alludes to a deep distrust he held to his former ally - in December 1941 he was quoted as saying “I worked with the English for fifteen years, they always lied to me. I’ve negotiated with the Germans for 3 months, and they have never misled me.”  It is said that Darlan was finding excuses retrospectively, however flimsy, to account for his collaboration tendencies. On close inspection of De Gaulle’s Free French army and the domestic resistance forces, several sources say this contribution and effectiveness has been inflated and exaggerated over time to hide the shame of collaboration by Vichy France, who had become effectively a co-operative and willing German vassal.

It is interesting also that twenty thousand servicemen chose to join the SS Charlemagne and were one of the last divisions to hold out tenaciously in 1945 in Berlin.  On top of the forty thousand personnel in Vichy Syria and West Africa, 200 Vichy airmen in Europe, a significant French force, had opposed their former ally.  The numbers even suggest that France was truly a co-operative German Vassal.

There were to be more twists and turns. In another bizarre yet tragic twist of fate, the French themselves in November 1942 scuttled their own fleet in Toulon when the Nazis attempted to take the French feet and hand it over to Italy. At the same time Darlan, conveniently forgetting his Anglophobia, also defected to the allies.

The USSR “Supping with the devil” – the unlikely alliance

In June 1941, a year after the French surrender, Britain entered an alliance with the USSR after the German invasion, Operation Barbarossa. There were pre-war efforts to bring the Soviets on the allied side, but Polish objections and allied deliberations derailed this.

It was a curious pairing when looking at the recent history of the USSR at the time, which was anything but reassuring. There are few who could argue with Churchill’s analogy about “supping with the devil” to achieve victory as the USSR was a totalitarian state equally as barbaric and ruthless as Hitler’s Germany.  The more divisions that were used on the Eastern Front, the fewer there would be on the Western Front.  The strategy for the west was simple - the human cost would be borne by the Soviets. Stalin saw through this, under no illusion and prepared to pay this. It was more an alliance of expediency and it would barely endure the end of the war itself.  Suspicion between the Allies and the USSR was present throughout.

British minds had been wary of Russia since as far back as the Crimean War, with an only a brief respite in World War One.  Despite royal family ties there was still an abhorrence of the “Russian Bear”. The communist revolution in 1917 and the subsequent events did little help this.

During Stalin’s purges in the 1930s Britain managed to ignore the fact that some her own subjects in the Soviet Union had become victims of the purge. On the economic front the USSR’s five-year plans had advanced her industrial capacity, becoming a rival for the Western industrial powers which at the same time inspired international supporters of communism.  The involvement of the USSR in the Spanish Civil War was also interpreted as a Soviet communist regime trying to impose itself on the Western sphere of influence.

Throughout the 1930s the Germans had been broadcasting venomous propaganda against the USSR. Then something very unexpected happened. Stalin in August 1939 signed the infamous Nazi-Soviet pact, which gave Hitler the open door to begin World War Two because he was no longer contained and fearing a war on two fronts.

As the Nazis invaded the West of Poland, Stalin took full advantage of the recent pact and invaded the Eastern Part and imposed a Soviet form of brutality that was not dissimilar to the Nazis’.  Soviet territorial ambition was not limited to Poland. In December 1939, Stalin began a bitter four-month Winter War with Finland where eventually the USSR took 11% of Finnish territory.  After worldwide condemnation, the USSR followed the example of other aggressor states such as Germany, Italy and Japan and left the League of Nations.

Not only had the USSR allowed the war to happen at this stage, they also violated further sovereign states by annexing Bessarabia, Latvia, Estonia, and Lithuania to their territorial gain, thus re-acquiring newly independent territories that she lost after the First World War.

Clearly a deal with the Nazis was more beneficial to the USSR and the excuse that these acquisitions offered a buffer against German strength was a weak one used in hindsight, as the USSR was a co-operative ally in all areas and cut from the same cloth as the axis powers.  There was little threat from the East due to a Neutrality Pact signed in 1941 between Japan and the USSR, freeing Japan to wage her own war. The USSR was in every event an Axis ally.  It is interesting to note that the two very pacts the USSR signed with Japan and Germany were highly instrumental in allowing both a European War and Pacific war to happen.  Was appeasement’s failure the only reason for the start of World War Two?

Curiously the pretext that drove Britain to declare war on Germany, namely the invasion of Poland, was not strong enough to provoke a similar action against Russia who did the same thing.  Interestingly the West at an early point in the war considered the USSR an enemy and considered military action in two arenas. Whilst the Winter War with Finland was in progress Britain and France considered bombing areas of Russia such as the oil fields of Baku. Also, during the Nazi’s Norwegian Campaign in 1940 the motive was not only to deprive Germany of Iron Ore from Scandinavia; it was also to assist the Finns by creating a supply route in their fight against the USSR. 

Katyn and Iran

This alliance, until close to the war’s end, would center only on Europe, with Britain and later America taking on Japan with minimal Soviet help. The benefit in this alliance meant the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Act enabled Stalin to move military resource from the eastern reaches of the USSR to the western theatre of war.  

The British would deliberately overlook Soviet perfidy as displayed with the discovery of a massacre of twenty thousand Polish officers in the Katyn Forest. They would help propagate lies that placed the responsibility on the Germans rather than the Soviets for the sake of the wartime alliance. They would at the same time pressure another ally, the Polish Government in exile, to accept these falsities.

The first military act with the USSR was a joint invasion of Iran to deny the axis powers access to the Middle East and allow an alternative corridor to supply the Soviet Union. This would not be to the Iranians’ benefit. Indeed, what the Soviets and British were prepared to do in other sovereign states show what the British would conveniently overlook once again. 

Both occupying powers commandeered much of Iran’s grain supplies for their own troops, which caused hyperinflation and starvation in Iran.  After the war the Soviets reneged on the promised withdrawal after Hitler’s defeat, and continued to occupy the country until 1946 after trying to set up two short-lived separatist and destabilizing republics on Iran’s border. 

Conclusion

The period of history from the beginning of the war until the German invasion of the USSR was an ever-changing political landscape of alliances and allies becoming foes and foes becoming allies.  This period has many other interesting oddities, peculiarities, and different perspectives but that is for another time.

What do you think of Britain’s World War Two alliances with France and the Soviet Union? Let us know below.

Now, you can read Steve’s article here on “Britain and the 1920 Iraq Mandate: Signs of the British Empire’s Decline?”

Was the Italian Military in World War 2 Really that Bad?

The Italian military has often been portrayed as having not performed very well in World War Two. But is that true? Here, Daniel Boustead looks at this by considering the Italian wars in the 1930s, their impact on Italy’s performance in World War Two, and how Italy fared during fighting in the war itself.

Italian Troops in Addis Ababa during the Second Italo-Ethiopian War in May 1936.

In the years following World War II, the Italian military has been satirized in popular culture as well as historical scholarship. The Italian military was weakened by military conquests in Ethiopia, Spain and Albania before World War II. Their equipment, weapons and leadership were inadequate which caused their numerous defeats. Furthermore, while the 10a Flottiglia MAS was the most successful unit, it pales when compared to British Special Forces and German Special Forces. The unpopularity of the war and lack of Italian military success resulted in Mussolini’s fall from power in July 1943. Civil war followed.  Was Italy’s Military the weakest Axis Power? Let’s examine the facts.

Wars in the 1930s

On October 2, 1935 Fascist Italy invaded Ethiopia (then Abyssinia) and did not conquer the country until May 5, 1936, when Italian troops entered the capital of Addis Ababa ([1]). The Ethiopian war cost the Italians about 1,500 men ([2]). The Italian support to Francisco Franco during the Spanish Civil War (from 1936 to 1939) cost the Italians 3,819 soldiers dead and 8.5 billion lire ([3]). The Italian military conquered the country of Albania in April 1939 ([4]). While the conquest of Albania was a success, it exposed the problems that plagued the Italian Army in the coming conflict. In Albania, the Italian military sent men who had never operated motorcycles to motorcycle companies (5). They sent men who did not even know Morse Code to signal units! (5) A member of the Italian Foreign Minister Ciano’s staff commented about the Italian military’s performance in Albania saying, “If the Albanians had possessed one well-armed fire brigade they could have driven us back into the Adriatic” (5).  By the time Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Italy had drained away the gold it had collected from its citizens during the Ethiopian war of 1935 to 1936 (6). This meant that Italy did not have enough gold to help finance a major conflict (7). These small conflicts combined with the Spanish Civil War debt would result in fatal consequences when Italy entered the war in 1940.

Entering World War II

The Italian military was not ready to go to the war by the time Mussolini declared war on France and Great Britain on June 10, 1940(9). The Fascist Italian military organization was so inept that the Army, Navy, and Air Force would frequently squabble, plot and sometimes spy on one another’s activities (8). Dictator Benito Mussolini’s belief that “Italy was an unsinkable aircraft carrier” and his decision to place all of Italy’s air power under the command of the Italian Air Force, deprived the Royal Italian Navy of an air force and aircraft carriers (8). The Italian Navy became dependent on the Royal Italian Air Force for both long-range reconnaissance and for air cover in its many battles in the Mediterranean (8). The Air Force would fail in their assigned duties at such battles as the Battle of Cape Spada and the Battle of Calabria (8). The military command was flawed because promotion came as often by political favoritism as by military skill (10).  Mussolini not only stifled debate in his military, but even fired one general on the spot for counseling him not to go to war, and he judged his military officers almost solely on “Fascist merits”(10). 

The Royal Italian Army had a lack of uniforms and equipment, which badly compromised their battle readiness (10). The recruits usually were trained less than the required 18 months that was prescribed by Italian law (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Army had rifles that dated back to 1891, horse drawn artillery, no heavy tanks, 70 medium tanks, and 1,500 light tanks that had armor that was so thin machine gun bullets could penetrate them (11). They were ill-equipped, ill-trained, and skeptical of Fascism’s propaganda (10). In 1940 the Royal Italian Air Force only had 3,296 fighters and bombers, and they had neither the speed nor the armament to match Allied Fighters (10). The Royal Italian Navy’s ships were also not equipped with radar, which would prove a fatal flaw in various battles to come (12).

1940 to 1941

The Italian military would suffer numerous defeats in 1940 and 1941. The combination of lack of radar, lack of aircraft carriers, poor reconnaissance and air support resulted in 1 out of 2 Royal Italian light cruisers being lost at the Battle of Cape Spada against the British Royal Navy in July, 1940 (13). The Royal Italian Army invaded Egypt on September 13, 1940 (14). The British forces launched Operation Compass to counter the Italian invasion on December 9, 1940 (15). By the time Operation Compass ended in February 1941, the British forces had pushed the Italians 500 miles back into Libya and taken 130,000 Italians as prisoners (16). The Italians were rescued in North Africa when the Germans sent the Afrika Korps commanded by General Erwin Rommel (16).

On October 28, 1940 the Italian Army invaded Greece (17). By the end of December 1940 the Greek Army drove the Italians out of Greece and were controlling more then one quarter of Albania (18). Hitler decided in November 1940, in the immediate aftermath of Mussolini’s invasion of Greece, to also invade Greece. This was not so much to bail out Mussolini but to protect and to prevent British Royal Air Force bombers from bombing the Ploesti Romanian oil fields that were supplying his forces for the invasion of the Soviet Union (19). Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was initially scheduled for May 1941 (19). Indeed, had Hitler invaded the Soviet Union in May 1941 the war in the east might have turned out differently.

On November 11 to 12, 1940 the British Navy launched an aircraft carrier raid on the Italian fleet at Taranto, Italy (20). This raid resulted in three battleships, two cruisers, and two destroyers being sunk or severely damaged (20). They were useless for months (20). The raid on Taranto also forced the Italian Navy to retire to Naples (20). This was too far to be a hindrance against British convoys in the Mediterranean (20). In late March 1941 the British Royal Navy, using intelligence from Bletchley Park’s Ultra and exploiting the Italian’s ship lack of radar, fought the Battle of  Matapan (21). Italy lost three cruisers, two destroyers, and 2,400 men (21). The defeat at the Battle of Matapan was so devastating for the Italian Navy that Mussolini ordered his fleet confined to waters under firm Italian control (22). Fascist Italy’s military also suffered a further defeat on May 5, 1941 when Haile Selassie and his British forces entered the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa (23).

A more successful attack

The 10th MAS Flotilla was formed on March 15, 1941 and consisted of Frogman, Manned Torpedoes, and Assault Motorboats and was renamed Xa Flotilla in autumn 1943 (24). This group in both incarnations sunk, between March 1941 and April 1945, 12 Allied ships and damaged two British Battleships (25). The 10th Flotilla MAS’s units’ greatest success came in December 1941 when their frogman severely damaged the British Battleships HMS Valiant and HMS Queen Elizabeth (25). This put them out of action for more than a year (25). This action left the British Royal Navy with only three light cruisers, and a handful of destroyers in the east and central Mediterranean, thus altering the balance of naval forces in favor of the Axis (25).

Later in the war

Mussolini was deposed in July 1943, in large part because the Royal Italian Military had suffered numerous defeats, first by the Fascist Grand Council on July 24, 1943 and then by King Victor Emmanuel III on July 25, 1943 (30). The aftermath of Italy’s surrender on September 8, 1943, split the Italian military into two sides, the Kingdom of Italy’s military, which fought for the King, and the other side for Mussolini’s Italian Social Republic (24). Following this, a group of German Paratroopers and SS Soldiers were sent on a raid to rescue deposed Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini at Gran Sasso massif (28). This German Special Forces raid was significant because it allowed Mussolini to rule as head of the German backed Italian Social Republic until his death in April 1945 (29).

The Royal Italian Military’s performance has been much maligned since World War II. Its military was weakened by pre World War II conflicts. Italy was not prepared to go to war in June 1940. The weakness of the Italian military is not a stereotype but an established historical fact. 

What do you think of Italy’s record in World War II? 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 and “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here.

[1] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 367. 

[2] Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia:  Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977. 158. 

[3] Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005. 402. 

[4] Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 18. 

6 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 39. 

7 Adams, Henry. Italy at War.  Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 33 to 39. 

9 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 21

8 Adams, Henry. Italy at War . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 53. 

10 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life- Books, Inc. 1982 59.

11 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 58. 

12 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time Life-Books, Inc. 1982. 61. 

13 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 52 to 53. 

14 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 8. 

15 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 26. 

16 Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 33 to 35. 

17 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. . Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 17. 

18 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 19. 

19 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 22

20 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 72 to 75.

21 Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981. 92 to 98. 

22 Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978. 24. 

23Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 101. 

24Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 8 to 42. 

25 Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 16 to 44. 

30 Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982. 156. 

28 McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew43, FG 42 and StG 44. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013. 43 to 44. 

29 Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under a Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books, 2005. 506. 

References

Adams, Henry. Italy at War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1982.

Bailey, Ronald H. Partisans and Guerrillas. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1978.

Battistelli, Pier and Crociani, Piero. Elite: 191: Italian Navy & Air Force Elite Units & Special Forces 1940-45. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Bosworth, R.J.B. Mussolini’s Italy: Life Under the Dictatorship 1915-1945. New York: New York. Penguin Books. 2005.

Collier, Richard. The War in the Desert. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977 and 1999. 

Elson, Robert T. Prelude to War. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1977.

Ford, Ken. Campaign: St. Nazaire 1942: The Great Commando Raid. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. 2001. 

McNab, Chris. Weapon: German Automatic Rifles: 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42, and StG 44. Osprey Publishing. 2013.

Whipple, A.B.C. The Mediterranean. Alexandria: Virginia: Time-Life Books, Inc. 1981.

Why was the Nazi’s Luftwaffe Air Force in Terminal Decline by September and October 1944?

The Nazi Luftwaffe air force played a key role in World War II, causing havoc as it rampaged through Europe in the early years of the war. However, by 1944 it was in terminal decline. Here, Matt Whittaker looks at the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s decline by focusing on September and October 1944.

Messerschmitt Bf 109 G-6 in September 1943. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-487-3066-04 / Boyer / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

Introduction

The Nazi air force, the Luftwaffe, was in a critical spot in September and October 1944. Germany was fighting a three-front war each with demands that put pressure on the economy. The Allied bombing campaign had grown since the start of the year, wreaking havoc with economic and oil industry targets. The D-Day landings in June increased the stresses that wrecked the Luftwaffe in the West.

By September, the Germans got an unexpected gift from the Allies: logistics problems. The Allies could not keep their forces sufficiently supplied. This led to a halt to most pursuit, giving their opponents some space. The air war did not slow, however.

The biggest three issues the Luftwaffe faced were:

1.     The Numbers Game

2.     Fuel Shortages

3.     Training Cuts

The Numbers Game

The battles above Normandy and the attempt to slow the Allied bombing campaign drained the Luftwaffe. Air defense squadrons sent west as reinforcements returned at half strength. Such was the ferocity of the battles from June to August that only 175 operational fighters were available to fight by mid-September (1). 

A big contributor was the change in American fighter tactics. Escort fighters were now freed from the bombers to range ahead, clearing any opposition. Luftwaffe groups were broken up before they organized. Airfields were strafed or fighters lurked, waiting to pounce as their opponents landed. The German pilots tangled with increasingly larger American fighter groups with inexperienced pilots and heavily armed, cumbersome bomber destroyers like FW-190s. Many were shot down before even reaching the bombers. 

On September 11, 1944 the Luftwaffe intercepted an American raid heading for oil refineries. 350 fighters were sent against 700 fighters and 1,100 bombers. 305 made contact with the bombers and escorts; 110 were shot down for a loss rate of 36% (2).  A number of bombers were destroyed, but the Americans could accept such losses. Since early 1944 raids of 1,000 plus bombers and escorts were the norm. Interceptions resulted in high losses with many pilots killed in action (KIA).

September and October were the best wartime production months for Germany, despite strategic bombing. Of 3,821 aircraft that were produced in September, 80% were fighters (3). Despite this increase, the loss rate stayed par with deliveries. Gas and pilot shortages kept many of the planes from being utilized.

Fuel Shortages

The worst predicament facing the Luftwaffe by the fall was the lack of fuel. Since the start of the war, the fuel supply was a great concern. Germany possessed few natural sources. Much of the supply came from the Soviet Union, other Axis governments like Romania or, later, synthetic production. Much has been written about the efforts to protect sites like Ploesti from Allied bombing. 

Beginning in January 1944 the American heavy bombers made a concentrated effort to target Axis refineries and synthetic oil plants. By May, the raids had reduced the output from most sources of aviation gas by 90 percent (4).  These deficiencies could not easily be made up due to the damage. The raids, which had only slowed to support the D-Day campaign, were renewed after August. Flight operations drew on existing fuel supplies which were not replenished quickly. Starting in September, the Luftwaffe grounded many squadrons, leaving mostly fighters because of the shortfalls. Spare ground personnel were formed into infantry units; some were used in the fight at Arnhem. 

The Luftwaffe had to operate with 10% of its fuel requirements for September and October. All manner of methods were undertaken to reduce usage. Pilots had orders not to taxi upon landing or takeoff. Planes were moved with teams of oxen to tow planes into position or hangars.  The shortages cut severely into operations, reducing interceptions and ground attack requests. During Operation Market Garden, more Allied aircraft were downed by flak, rather than in combat. Occasional attacks were made against bridgeheads or supply depots, but the Luftwaffe was seldom seen.

Training Cuts

The double problems of fuel scarcity and rising attrition led to increasing cuts in training hours for novice Luftwaffe pilots. Total hours were cut, starting in 1941. This only grew worse, especially as the war expanded further into Russia, Africa, and the Mediterranean. Losses started to exceed the number of pilots graduating flight schools for service. The increasing clashes with more numerous Allied fighters led to a high death rate. By fall, the average lifespan of a fighter pilot was between 8 and 30 days (5). In an attempt to increase the number of active pilots, bomber squadrons were converted to fighters and flight instructors were transferred to the front lines. The German flight schools reduced hours but even more so with the front-line types that were used. Novice pilots got basic and some advanced instruction but much less in the operational models. German pilots averaged 60 hours of training while British RAF pilots had 225 hours (6).  

As with frontline groups, training fuel allotments were cut, feeding the cycle. Perhaps the greatest hindrance was the introduction of fighters like the P-51, which meant that nowhere in Germany was safe for training. The escorts flew ahead of the bomber streams or in free flights, looking for opportunities. Training flights or their airfields were attacked which meant further reductions.

Conclusion

These two crucial months were when the Luftwaffe’s back was broken. Losses in the first six months of the year led to Allied air supremacy. Still, pressure was building on all fronts but more so in the West. The ramping up of the strategic bombing campaign and the consistent targeting of the fighter arm culminated in this timeframe. Airplane manufacturing reached all-time highs in the fall but increased losses, fewer replacement pilots and a dearth of fuel resulted in an unrecoverable spiral.

Despite the best efforts of its leadership, the Luftwaffe of September and October 1944 was outmatched and outgunned. The short respite while the Allies played logistical catch-up from their advance didn’t last. By the end of October, that spiral was too great.

What do you think of the reasons for the Luftwaffe’s weakening in September and October 1944? Let us know below.

References

1 Zaloga, Steven J., Campaign 270 Operation Market Garden The American Airborne Missions (London: Osprey Publishing 2014), p. 1.

2 Caldwell, Donald and Muller, Richard, The Luftwaffe Over Germany Defense of the Reich (Barnsley: Pen & Sword Books Ltd. 2014), p. 452.

 3 February 22, 2013 MILAVIA Military Aviation Specials - The Luftwaffe's Comeback in Autumn 1944

 4 May 24, 2016 Luftwaffe Lovers: The role of synthetic fuel in World War II Germany - implications for today by Dr. Peter W. Becker

 5 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 302

 6 Murray, Williamson, Strategy for Defeat 1933-1945 (Maxwell Air Force Base: Air University Press 1983), p. 452

The Origins of Sesame Street

Sesame Street is an American cultural institution. It started in 1969 and is produced to this day. Here, Douglas Reid looks at the origins of the show.

Then First Lady Barbara Bush on Sesame Street in October 1989.

Do you recall these lines in a song from 1965? 

Counting flowers on the wall,

That don’t bother me at all.

Playing solitaire ‘til dawn,

With a deck of fifty one

Smokin’ cigarettes and

Watchin’ Captain Kangaroo

So don’t tell me I’ve nothing to do”

It is certainly the case that Captain Kangaroo held sway in 1965 but a little green frog was in the wings and he and his muppet gang were about to sweep the clouds away and with them Mr. Bob Keesham, a.k.a. Captain Kangaroo. The prime sweeper was Jim Henson. His early main assistant was Frank Oznowicz, forever after to be known as Frank O. Early additions included Joe Raposo and Caroll Edwin Spinney, who was a child-like man both on and off the set. It can be no surprise that he was Big Bird. Two other major muppets were Cookie Monster (my favorite) and Grover. And the key non-muppet in those early days was Lloyd Morrisette. The next item to be looked at was a name for the show and here is a tale to tell.

A cluster of eight people who made up the Friday afternoon meeting had only one name considered at the time but nobody but nobody liked it – Sesame Street. It was being used tentatively only. Every one hated it. One board member thought it had too many ‘esses.’ Another found it unimaginative. And so on. Then it was decided that until something was agreeable to all they would go with the interim name. No one did and that begs the question, where did the name come from in the first place? 

The name

Just one week earlier Virginia Schoen, a representative of the Children’s Television Workshop (CTW), asked the children to suggest names for the new show and they submitted seven names for her to consider. One of the choices was Sesame Street. And so it prevailed. Virginia never was able to identify the five-year old name-giver. The group had a name for the production. Now it needed a set.

Earlier In the year the CTW had decided that its home base would not be Los Angeles. The unanimous choice was New York. It was felt that the sorts of people needed for this enterprise were to be more easily found here. First a locum was needed.

The board, when first formed, had decided on a set that was a mirror image of contemporary Harlem. A suitable faux Brownstone was erected; complete with stoop and the address for the Brownstone would be 123 Sesame Street. By now it was time to call on good old Joe Reposo for Sesame’s new theme music.

Theme tune

Joe composed the theme music for Sesame Street. It is melodic and simple enough for a child to recognize and even to sing along to but still revealed a musical sophistication. It underscored the footage of joyful children running and the recurring chorus – “Can you tell me how to get to Sesame Street?” So do you ever wonder where the Children’s Television Workshop finds its stories, banter, plays, etc.? Here is a typical “Solve” achieved by the muppets themselves:

Muppets are sitting around a coffee table pretending they are suits (executives).

“Alright, all right. How about this for a title. ‘The two and two are five show.’”

Conference Leader Muppet, ‘Are you crazy? This is supposed to be an educational show. Two plus two don’t make five.’

First Muppet: they don’t? Then how about the two plus two ain’t five show? 

Second Muppet: This is a show for kids. Right? How’s about we call it the little Kiddie show?

All: Sounds all right! We like it!

Third Muppet: But we ought to say something about the show telling it like it is. Maybe the Nitty-Gritty, Little kiddie Show! 

All: Not bad! Yeah! We like that! 

Fourth Muppet: Yeah but “Little Kiddie” can mean any child up to the age of seven or eight. I think we should aim the show right at the preschooler. 

First Muppet: Well then, how about the Itty – Bitty, Nitty – Gritty, Little Kiddie Show? 

Fifth Muppet: But we shouldn’t aim at either just the city kids, or just the country kids, so we call it the Itty – Bitty, Farm and City, Witty – Ditty, Nitty –Gritty, Dog and Kitty, Pretty Little Kiddie Show. 

Judy Collins

By the mid-seventies the Muppets were in full stride. If there ever was a perfect guest on Sesame Street it was Judy Collins. On the day in 1975 that Judy Collins recorded “The Fisherman’s Song” for Sesame Street, a gaggle of Muppets formed an “old salt chorus, some bedecked in yellow oil-skin slickers. It was a scene right out of Gloucester harbor, with nets and lobster traps strewn about and a lighthouse in the distance. Strumming an autoharp at tempo that recalled a sea shanty, Collins poured out the melody clear and true as the Muppets harmonized and danced about. The puppeteers were Jane Henson, Frank Oz, Richard Hunt and Jerry Nelson, invisible to the eye of the camera, but palpable in presence. 

It was an enchantment of a performance. There are other highlights of the visits of Judy Collins that I recall. There was the operatic-alphabetic duet she sang with Snuffleupagus. To a mock – Mozart score, Collins and Snuffy flowed around the street dancing a mini-minuet. 

Judy Collins credited Sesame Street for extending the depth and breadth of her fan base. “People would come up to me at concerts and tell me how much they loved the Yes and No song I did with Bert and Ernie. They were little children when it first aired. They grew up and started coming to my shows.” For them, during a critically important time in their childhood, Sesame Street was the best of all television. If there is, or has been, anything more in sync with a happy, wholesome, and funny childhood on television I have yet to meet it.

Conclusion

However, some teachers are not best pleased – not all by any means and seldom high school teachers. The perpetrators claim little kids come to them already familiar with basic arithmetic and quite at home with the alphabet. This is bad? Apparently they find it too difficult to blend with their own lesson plans. Neither am I a fan of “lesson plans” but that is for another essay on another day. They act the part of being at odds with something wondrous.

I loved Sesame Street as a little person and as a big person. Now that I have no choice but to always be thoughtful and acting like a serious big person I will attempt to leave this stage with all proper decorum:

Me Like Cookie

Me eat Cookie

UMM-UM-UM-UM-UM

What do you think of Sesame Street? Let us know below.

Now, you can read more from Douglas here, with an article on the man whose book may have led to the American Revolution.

The World War Two Japanese Soldiers who Kept Fighting Decades After the War was Over

In the period after World War II the military and the public became aware of Japanese soldiers fighting in the Pacific Islands. These soldiers were later named Japanese holdouts. They did not know that World War II had ended, leading to some intriguing stories. Daniel Boustead explains.

Japanese soldier Hiroo Onoda (on the right) offering his sword to Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos when he surrendered in 1974.

Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code contributed not only to Japan’s soldiers’ “fight to the death” spirit but also their refusal to surrender. In addition, Japanese military orders, training, and regulations further reinforced this attitude. Japanese soldiers believed that all surrender orders were a work of American propaganda. Thus, some Japanese soldiers held out years after World War II was over

In the Japanese religion of Shintoism the Japanese Emperor was a direct descendant of the Sun Goddess Amaterasu ([1]). This made Emperor Hirohito a Demi-God, who Japanese soldiers gave their lives to (1). This belief was further supported by the Imperial Receipt on Education of 1880, which stated that the Emperor of Japan is a “deity incarnate” and “…the climax of harmony is the sacrifice of the life of a subject for the Emperor” (2). The Japanese religion of Shintoism elevated dying for the Emperor of Japan to a state of grace (2). This reason is why so many Japanese Military service personnel died in multiple battles in the Pacific and Asian theatres - they fought to the death.

Bushido Code

The Bushido Code was also an important philosophy that dominated the Imperial Japanese Army and Imperial Japanese Navy’s way of thinking. Bushido (or the way of the warrior) evolved from the 9th to 12th centuries CE and was a mixture of Zen, Buddhism, Confucianism, and Shintoism and was followed by the Japanese Samurai (3). Bushido stressed martial spirit, self-sacrifice, loyalty, justice, a sense of shame if dishonored, refined comportment, modesty, frugality, and honor being more important than life itself (3). The Zen Buddhism aspect of Bushido also stressed an indifference to pain as an essential virtue (4). Bushido also strongly emphasized self-discipline, loyalty to one’s superiors, and fearlessness in the face of death (5). The philosophy of Bushido existed long after the Japanese Samurai went away, and it found a ready acceptance in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces (3). Bushido starting appearing in the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces during the reign of Emperor Meiji, who ruled from 1868 to 1912 (5). Captain Rikibei Inogichi elaborated on Bushido by saying “We must give our lives to the Emperor and Country, this is an inborn feeling. We Japanese base our lives on obedience to the Emperor and Country. On the other hand, we wish for the best place in death, according to Bushido”(2). The tradition of Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code is also captured in the Imperial Japanese Navy’s Anthem “Umi Yukaba”, which emphasized death in battle and no surrender to the enemy (6). Bushido also motivated some Japanese soldiers to disappear and fight years after the war rather then give themselves up. 

Surrender was not an option

The Imperial Japanese Armed Forces regulations, orders and rules also made death preferable and surrender not an option. The 1928 edition of the document Principles of Strategic Command, deliberately expunged the words defense, retreat, and most importantly surrender, because such words were considered detrimental to the morale and marital spirit of the Japanese soldier (3). The 1908 Imperial Japanese Army’s criminal code contained the following provision: “ A commander who allows his unit to surrender without fighting to the last man or concedes a strategic area to the enemy shall be punishable by death”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code contained an additional injunction: “Do not be taken prisoner alive”(6). The Imperial Japanese Army Field Service Code also stated “In defense, always retain the spirit of the attack and maintain freedom of action. Never give up a position, but rather die”(2). Indeed the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code was not just simple regulations for Japanese soldiers; it was the result of lifelong conditioning in a culture revering honor, loyalty, and obedience to superiors above all else (2). This meant that if a Japanese soldier was to surrender or be captured, according to the Imperial Japanese Army’s Field Service Code, it meant failure to the Emperor and dishonor to soldiers’ families (2). 

Special orders - Hiroo Onoda

In some cases Japanese soldiers were given special orders. The longest holdout soldier, Hiroo Onoda, was given such an order. It was right before Hiroo Onoda was sent to Lubang to conduct guerilla operations against the Americans (7).  His commanding officer of the Eighth Division Commander, Lieutenant General Yokoyama, conveyed this fateful order to Hiroo Onoda by telling him: “You are absolutely forbidden to die by your own hand. It may take three years, it may take five, but whatever happens, we’ll come back for you. Until then, so long as you have one soldier, you are to continue to lead him. You may have to live on coconuts. If that’s the case, live on coconuts! Under no circumstances are you to give up your life voluntarily” (7). Furthermore, while it was Hiroo Onoda’s superiors, Major Taniguchi and Major Takahashi, who instructed him to conduct guerilla operations on Lubang, they had no authority to alter Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order (8). Furthermore, Hiroo Onoda told Japanese adventurer Norio Suzuki in 1974 that he would only give himself up by the orders of his immediate superior Major Taniguchi (11). In addition since Hiroo Onoda was not sure that Norio Suzuki was not an enemy agent and thus he could not give away the officers who were above the rank of Major Taniguchi, who were Lieutenant General Yokoyama and Major Takahashi (11). When Major Taniguchi relieved Hiroo Onoda of his duties in 1974 he bypassed Lieutenant General Yokoyama’s no surrender order because Lieutenant General Yokoyama could not be found (9). Also, Hiroo Onoda was trained to view enemy surrender leaflets as tricks (10). Lastly because Hiroo Onoda was trained in unconventional guerilla warfare, his home was the battlefield and there was no going home (10). All these factors help explain why Japanese holdouts existed after the war.

Onoda finally surrendered to his “superior” Major Taniguchi at Wakayama Point, Lubang Island, Philippines on March 9, 1974 (18). Onoda fought a guerrilla war for many years on Lubang, which resulted in one of his fellow soldiers named Kozuka being killed in a shootout with Filipino Police in October 1972 (19).  After Major Taniguchi read Hiroo Onoda’s surrender order he was briefly in a state of shock because he could not believe Japan had lost the war and the war was over! (18)

Captain Sakae Oba

An early example of a Japanese holdout was Captain Sakae Oba. Oba and his 46 men formerly surrendered to the Americans on December 1, 1945 on the Island of Saipan (12). Sakae Oba had evaded capture by the U.S. Marines patrols for 512 days and was nicknamed “The Fox” by the U.S. Marines (12).  In the period of the battle, Sakae Oba was going to commit suicide after a failed attack against the Americans (13). He then realized that if every Imperial Japanese soldier killed himself there would be no Imperial Japanese Army left, which prevented him from doing so (13). Near the fall of Saipan, the vast majority of Japanese soldiers decided to kill themselves in a suicide attack on the American position, while a contradictory order was issued by Vice Admiral Nagumo, commander of Japanese naval forces assigned to Saipan, that said don’t participate in Lieutenant General Saito’s suicide attack and keep fighting because reinforcements were coming (14). Sakae Oba learned of these contradictory orders at Matansha, and decided and that he and his group of men would continue fighting using Mount Tapotchau as a base of operations - while the vast majority of men there decided to die in a suicide attack (14). On July 7, 1944, while 4,000 Japanese soldiers died in a suicide attack west of Matansha, Sakae Oba moved his forces south toward Mount Tapotchau (15). Captain Sakae Oba was persuaded to surrender in late November 1945, when Major General Umahachi Amo, the former commander of Japanese forces on Saipan, gave him documents from the defunct Imperial Japanese Army, that the war was over and that his group should surrender (16). Just before Sakae Oba was repatriated to Japan, he was feted by the U.S. Marine Officers Club on Saipan to honor him for his skill, courage, and tenacity (16). Captain Sakae Oba continued fighting because he believed the war was continuing and as he was cut off from his command, and therefore should continue the war until communication was reestablished and new orders received from his superiors (17). This was different from other Japanese holdouts who had the “fight until the end” mentality or persisted in disbelief that Japan had lost the war (17).

Conclusion

The Philippines became a notorious center of Japanese holdouts after World War II. Indeed during late 1940s there was a sign outside the capital Manila that warned about Japanese soldiers still in the hills (20). More broadly, the phenomenon known as the Japanese holdouts began in the aftermath of World War II. Emperor Worship and the Bushido Code gave the Japanese holdouts the ideological backbone to continue fighting. Japanese military orders, training, and regulations made surrender not an option. Surrender orders were viewed with much suspicion. The common theme of “fight to the death” and not to surrender permeated the Japanese psyche. This inspired the Japanese holdouts to continue to fight long past the end of the war.

What do you think of the World War II Japanese holdouts? 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 and “Japanese attacks on the USA in World War II” here.

[1] Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 30-31.

2 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005. 32 

3 Rottman, Gordon L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd. Inc, 2005. 31. 

4 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 32. 

5 Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books, Inc., 1980. 40. 

6 Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown and Company. 2003. 38. 

7 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland.  Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 42-44. 

8 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 44-45. 

11 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books; Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 200-202. 

9 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry.  Annapolis; Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 13-14. 

10 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War.  56. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

18 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 11-14. 

19 Onoda, Hiroo. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books. Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999. 174-175. 

12 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 13. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

13 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 17. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

14 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 18. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

15 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers  Who Refused  to Surrender After the War. 19. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

16 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 23. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com

17 Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 22. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com . 

20 “Japanese Holdouts:  Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

References

Bradley, James. Flyboys: A True Story of Courage. New York: New York. Little, Brown, and Company. 2003.

“Japanese Holdouts: Registry”. March 20th, 2021. https://wanpela.com/holdouts/registry.html

Onoda, Hiroo.  No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War.  Translated by Charles S. Terry. Annapolis: Maryland. Bluejacket Books: Naval Institute Press. 1974 and 1999.

Rottman, Gordon.  L. Warrior: Japanese Infantrymen 1937-45: Sword of the Empire. New York: New York. Osprey Publishing Ltd, Inc, 2005.

Simons, Gerald. Japan At War. Alexandria, VA. Time-Life Books Inc., 1980. 

Webb, William. Absolute Crime Presents: No Surrender!: Seven Japanese Soldiers Who Refused to Surrender After the War. 2014. www.absolutecrime.com