History Will Absolve the Cuban Republic, but Not Fidel Castro

In 1953, following his July 26 assault on the Moncada Barracks in Oriente province, a young lawyer and the mastermind of the attack in which many Cubans perished, named Fidel Castro, appeared in court to face prosecution. Out of as much desperation as revolutionary zeal, he delivered a powerful, hours-long speech in his defense. As of yet, no record of this speech has been found, and Fidel Castro was unsuccessful in avoiding conviction.

Here, Logan M. Williams considers Castro’s speech and looks at the history, successes, and failures of pre-revolutionary Cuba.

Fidel Castro under arrest after the 1953 attack on the Moncada Barracks.

Castro was sentenced to a term of 15 years imprisonment, of which he only ended up serving less than three, in Cuba’s Presidio Modelo on the Isle of Pines. During his time in prison, he gave newspaper interviews, and continued to participate in the organizing of Cuba’s anti-Batista efforts. While in prison, he also spent a great deal of time reconstructing a “record” – used loosely, because it was not an exact copy or a true record, due to the fact that it contained several embellishments and added phrases – of the speech that he delivered in court on that fateful day. One of the embellishments which he added to the recreated speech is one of the most infamous political phrases of the modern era, and it would become the title of his work: “History Will Absolve Me." The phrase was eerily similar to one used by the German despot, Adolf Hitler, who said when he found himself in a situation much like Castro’s, that the judgement of the “eternal court of history” would exonerate him.

Castro’s recreated speech would eventually transform into a manifesto for his future revolutionary activities and become required reading for militant leftists around the world. In it, Castro expressed the belief that the desperate conditions under which some Cubans suffered, provided justification for the radical nature of his actions. Castro described these conditions as follows: “the people have neither homes nor electricity” and those who were lucky enough to have shelter “live cramped [with their families] into barracks and tenements without even the minimum sanitary requirements.” He stated that “rural children are consumed by parasites which filter through their bare feet from the earth” and that Cuba had “thousands of children who die every year from lack of [medical] facilities.” Castro attributed these social conditions to an indifferent society as well as a corrupt and negligent government. Indeed, denigration of the Cuban Republic period is still a mainstay of Cuban regime propaganda today, which sees this sort of fear-mongering as the only way to justify its increasingly repressive regime.

Pre-Revolutionary Cuba

This propaganda may be effective, as most of today’s world now knows the Cuban Republic of 1902-1959 by its reputation for troubling and potentially neo-colonial relations with the United States or as a period of crime, graft, moral decay, political unrest, and total misery (if they know anything at all). However, this isn’t a complete representation of the era, as Castro himself alluded to in his speech before the court. Of the Cuban Republic, before the inception of the Batista dictatorship in 1952, Castro stated:

“It had its constitution, its laws, its civil rights, a president, a Congress, and law courts. Everyone could assemble, associate, speak and write with complete freedom. The people were not satisfied with the government officials at that time, but [the people] had the power to elect new officials and only a few days remained before they were going to do so! There existed a public opinion both respected and heeded and all problems of common interest were freely discussed. There were political parties, radio and television debates and forums, and public meetings. The whole nation throbbed with enthusiasm.”

He also noted that “the [Cuban] people were proud of their love of liberty and they carried their heads high in the conviction that liberty would be respected as a sacred right.” Within today’s Cuba, Castro’s pamphlet, “History Will Absolve Me,” is not easily found in its entirety.

While certain aspects of Cuban society (particularly the government and political class) may have earned the harrowing reputation presented by Castroist propaganda, the lived experience of the average Cuban who resided on the island in this era – which was actually a period in which Cuba underwent a remarkable transformation and made steadfast progress towards liberal development – tells a vastly different story. Due to the work of a few committed scholars, who have dedicated their time to chronicling the achievements of the Cuban people, we have brought light to the Cuban “Dark Ages.”

Cuban Republic in History

Traditionally, the Cuban Republic is identified as the form of government which existed between the years 1902 and 1959, although this is not entirely accurate, and it doesn’t do justice to the efforts of Cuba’s liberals and independence fighters. The Cuban Republic came into existence for the first time during the second half of the nineteenth century, during the Ten Years War, when the island revolted against Spain. However, it ceased to exist following the defeat of the Cuban separatists, and the complete reimposition of Spanish colonial rule. The Cuban Republic was revived during the Cuban War of Independence, and it experienced several early and remarkable successes in governance, whilst embroiled in a brutally destructive war with Spain. Horatio Rubens, a New York-based attorney who was a personal friend of Jose Martí and who served as a principal advisor to Martí’s Cuban Revolutionary Party as well as the U.S. provisional government during the brief occupation of the island, describes the accomplishments of this iteration of the Cuban Republic in an 1898 journal article for The North American Review. These revolutionaries, amid a war, had built a modern, representative government, based upon republican principles. This new government included a system for the collection of taxes, as well as significant checks and balances, especially upon military authority. In Eastern Cuba which, at this point, was largely poor as well as underdeveloped, and entirely in the control of the revolutionaries (except for major cities), newspapers were published frequently, which was a positive indicator for free speech as well as other democratic freedoms, and schools were even established. Most notably, the Cuban Republic experienced its first election in 1897, ostensibly free from the corruption and political violence which would plague future such elections.

After a brief period of initial occupation lasting from the end of the Spanish-American War in 1898 to 1902, the United States’ provisional government and most of its soldiers departed Cuba; the island nation had finally achieved a measure of autonomy (autonomy is used in this case to indicate the existence of a level of agency and self-government short of complete sovereignty). Most scholars of the Republic during this period in Cuban history stubbornly refuse to refer to it as sovereign Cuba, at least until the 1930s, due to the existence of the Platt Amendment, which formalized the continuation of U.S. dominance over Cuba by restricting the new island nation’s rights in the realm of international relations and by cementing the United States’ right to intervene militarily on the island under certain circumstances. Thus, Cuba’s sovereignty was so constrained until at least 1934, when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s “Good Neighbor” policy – and the persistence of Cuban diplomats – brought about the dismantling of the amendment.

The economy

After 1902, however, regardless of the existence of the Platt Amendment, the Cuban Republic was once again free to pursue liberalization and advancement in a Cuban manner. In spite of the many aforementioned plagues and hurdles faced by Cuba’s newly formed state, the Cuban Republic made extraordinary progress in the economic and social spheres; it was fully engaged in the crucible that is liberalization.

Economic data from this period indicate that the Cuban Republic was a middle-income (likely upper-middle income by modern standards) country, with living conditions comparable to some European countries, or to those in the southern United States (which were the poorest states in the U.S. at this time). Consumption rates at certain points during the Cuban Republic measured as high as 70% of most European economies and exceeded those of almost every other Latin American nation. The Cuban Republic’s income per capita before the Revolution of 1959, was well above the average for Latin America; in fact, it was equidistant from the European and Latin American averages. Several consumption-based economic indicators are especially useful in highlighting Cuba’s prosperity during the republican period, mainly those which relate to private ownership of technology and luxury items, as well as those which relate to food supply and nourishment. The Cuban Republic’s rate of private television ownership (measured by the number of televisions per 1000 persons) was nearly 7 times greater than the average for Latin American states, and approximately equal to the European average. Likewise, Cuban private ownership of radios was well above Latin America’s average, as was the rate of private ownership for passenger vehicles. Additionally, during the Cuban Republic period, Cuba regularly led Latin America in food production, as well as per capita daily caloric consumption; whereas, Cuba following the Revolution of 1959 has often lagged behind other Latin American nations in these regards. Finally, the rapid development of Cuba during the Republic era is evident by the fact that for much of that time period, Cuba led Latin America as the region's largest consumer of cement, a resource which is essential for the construction of new infrastructure. Additionally, Cuba’s investment in technology and mechanization during this period drastically exceeded that of its neighbors. In 1920, a time known as the “Dance of Millions” due to its especially high levels of prosperity, Cuba’s investment in these goods accounted for a quarter of the total investment in machinery for the entirety of Latin America (more of a cultural conception than a geographic region, “Latin America” has ill-defined borders, but for context can be estimated as containing approximately between 20-30 different countries.) After presenting many of the above statistics, and in light of the decidedly positive, albeit one-sided, perspective that they offer, authors of the above-cited paper in the Journal of Economic History, Marriane Ward and John Devereux concluded that “The story of Cuba during the twentieth century is therefore the story of how it has fallen in the world income distribution…. Over the last fifty years, Cuba has replicated the failings of command economies elsewhere albeit in a uniquely Cuban fashion.”

Infrastructure

The Cuban Republic’s remarkable success wasn’t limited to solely economic factors, Cuba also made remarkable progress in improving its transportation infrastructure. This helped the Republic to extend the rule of law, as well as healthcare and education opportunities, into the Eastern (largely rural and poor) portion of the island. During the republican period, railroads were constructed which spanned the entirety of Cuba, with the assistance of at least $60 million (likely over $1 billion in today’s currency) in American investment. The Cuban Republic’s relatively well-developed transportation is credited with facilitating much of the Republic’s incredible progress in healthcare. The same article notes that the Cuban Republic was exceptional by Latin American standards due to its ability to provide “relatively easy access to fairly high-quality healthcare for an unusually large share of the population…,” due partly to the government’s investment in social services, and aided by the government's drastic improvement of sanitation as well as water and sewer infrastructure. Before the Revolution of 1959, Cuba’s infant mortality rate was only 33 per 1000, less than a third of the average for Latin America and functionally identical to that of Europe. Additionally, the ratio of medical personnel to population in the Cuban republic was 2.5 times greater than the average for the region and virtually identical to the European average. Life expectancy in the Cuban Republic was 64 years, a full 14 years greater than the average for Latin America, and just five years below that of the United States. The Cuban Republic was also notably dedicated to matters relating to education, and the Cuban constitution – in its various iterations – always provided for free and compulsory education. As a result of this dedication, in 1955, Cuba’s literacy rate was 79 percent, amongst the highest in Latin America. Taking into account Cuba’s significant rural population, largely unreachable by the government at that time (not an unusual problem for developing nations), these feats in medicine and education are truly remarkable.

Human rights

Finally, and most importantly, the Cuban Republic continually made impressive advancements in human rights and liberalization. In Cuba’s 1940 Constitution, widely considered a bulwark of freedom and social justice, Cuban delegates included language which provided for anti-discrimination protections and other liberal principles. Notably, the constitution included unparalleled protections for Cuban women. The United States had, prior to the end of its provisional occupation in 1902, re-imposed the Spanish Civil Code upon Cuba as a stop-gap alternative to the difficult process of drafting a new body of law for the island. The Spanish Civil Code was heavily Catholicized, and thus, held regressive and prohibitive views of women and their role in society. During the short period of its existence, the Cuban Republic made remarkable progress in removing the religious influences from its body of law, and in elevating the status of women in the Cuban society. In the early 20th century, Cuban women catapulted from a position in which the law afforded them little autonomy and no property rights, to being able to own property, vote, divorce their husbands, and organize politically. Laws were also passed which attempted to abolish all forms of discrimination based upon sex, although their implementation proved difficult.

Cuba’s contributions to the cause of human rights during the republican period were not limited to the Constitution of 1940, or to Cuban domestic pursuits; Cuba was essential to the progress of the international human rights movement. In the latter years of World War 2, Churchill, Stalin, and Roosevelt communed to discuss the post-war order, and to construct a world order amenable to their respective interests. The notions underpinning the United Nations, as an international organization dominated by the great powers and designed to serve as the arbiter of their new world order, emerged from these discussions. It was the efforts of various Latin American nations which made the United Nations what it is today: not just an organization designed for ensuring security and stability, but a dedicated, efficacious bastion of human rights. More specifically, it was Cuba’s delegation that assumed a leadership role of the Latin American bloc, at that time the largest group of nations in the original 58-state body, and spearheaded an aggressive charge to re-define the nature of the United Nations as a body primarily dedicated to the defense of human dignity. During the first session of the United Nations, the Cuban delegation became the first to submit a proposal that the United Nations consider issuing an authoritative statement demonstrating its commitment to human rights, a suggestion that ran counter to the immediate interests of the United States and other major members of the body. When the original motion failed the Cuban delegation resolved to pursue it with the United Nations’ Economic and Social Council which, due to the Republic of Cuba’s tenacity, established the Commission on Human Rights for the purpose of drafting an “international bill of rights.” Cuba also submitted a draft such declaration, which inspired the final document, serving as a model in both substance and form. If it were not for Cuba’s novel idea that universal human rights should be listed, so that they might be easily understood, attained, and defended by persons of every walk of life, the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights might never have come into existence. Throughout most of the modern era, outside of religious doctrine and certain areas of academia, rights were seldom discussed in the context of “humankind,” “international,” or “universal.” Rather, rights were seen as the prerogative of the nation-state and were outlined in national contexts or documents (e.g., state constitutions.) Cuban, and larger Latin American influence over the United Nations assisted in shifting that paradigm, and it is perhaps the most incredible part of the Cuban Republic’s legacy.

Conclusion

It is important that the presentation of these facts not be mistaken as an effort to obscure the serious shortcomings of the Cuban Republic. It is especially critical that the aforementioned economic statistics not be misused to obscure the gross income inequality under which a segment of the Cuban Republic’s poor languished, or to exonerate those responsible for the political instability which plagued the era. Rather, knowledge of this period is crucial for two major reasons. First, the Cuban regime often boasts about spectacular achievements (particularly in the fields of health care and literacy), and these “achievements” form a central pillar of revolution propaganda, but the above data illustrate that most of these regime “successes” were largely achieved by the Republic which came before. Second, and even more important, this story of the Cuban Republic is the story of a brave people who fought for countless years to achieve some measure of freedom and liberalism, only to have it snatched away from them by a revolution – and revolutionaries – steeped in perfidy. Unfortunately, irony abounds in present-day Cuba which, once a key drafter of the original document, now bans the distribution of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on the island and severely punished those in possession of the document. Additionally, while Fidel Castro was given the chance to defend himself in open court on July 26, 1953 – in front of relatively fair-minded judges and the press – those who live on the island in the present day are denied that right. While Castro was released from prison after organizing an amnesty campaign from his cell, having served less than 3 years of his 15-year sentence, Cubans are now subjected to draconian prison sentences in medieval prisons. Perhaps this is why many Cubans prefer to refer to the Republican period as “free Cuba,” drawing a powerful juxtaposition with present-day, “un-free Cuba.”

History has yet to absolve Fidel Castro, or the brutally oppressive regime that he left behind, but it seems to be in the process of absolving the principles of the Republic which Castro worked so hard to topple.

What do you think of pre-revolutionary Cuba? Let us know below.

What was the Rhodesian Bush War?

The Rhodesian Bush War raged in the mostly unrecognised African nation of Rhodesia, modern-day Zimbabwe, a nation that had been unilaterally declared independent by the Prime Minister Ian Smith in 1965.

Smith defied calls from the British and international governments to implement a policy known as NIMBAR (No Independence Before Majority Rule). This led to a bloody guerrilla conflict between Smith’s government and militant pro-independence groups known as the Bush War from 1974-79. This was also a proxy battle within the Cold War. The war eventually culminated in the Lancaster House Agreement which reestablished the country as present-day Zimbabwe.

But why did Smith choose to pursue independence?

The origins of Smith’s decision and the Bush War lay within Rhodesia’s complex history.

Matthew Davey explains.

Rhodesian African Rifles on Lake Kariba in December 1976. Source: Ggwallace1954, available here.

Southern Rhodesia

Rhodesia was originally known as “Southern Rhodesia” and was part of a federation of nations which had become colonies of Britain in the 19th century following expeditions by the British South Africa Company. White settlers emigrated to the new colony seeking opportunities in mining and farming and established rooted communities.

Southern Rhodesia was also unique through being granted responsible government status in 1923, allowing colonial politicians to make decisions without deferring to London. This arrangement continued through the Second World War up until the 1960s when European authorities began to relinquish former colonies.

Who was Ian Smith?

Smith was born on April 8, 1919 in the mining township of Selukwe (now Shurugwi) to parents from the United Kingdom. His father was John Douglas Smith and his mother Agnes. John worked variously as a butcher, rancher, miner and a garage owner, but the family were known for their involvement in local politics.

Although Southern Rhodesia had self-governing status, it entered the Second World War by default when Britain declared war on Germany. The war was a turning point for Smith who suspended a place at university to enlist in the Royal Air Force in 1941.

Smith was posted to the Middle East as part of a Hurricane squadron. While performing a flight over Egypt he survived a crash and had plastic surgery performed on his face as a result.

Upon returning to Africa, Smith resumed his studies at Rhodes University in South Africa. It was around this time that his interest in politics began when he became leader of a campus veterans association.

Although Smith was a reluctant politician, preferring to devote himself to a farm he ran with his wife, he decided to run for office and was elected to parliament in 1948 for the Rhodesian Liberal Party.

He later founded the Rhodesian Front which won the 1962 election and Smith became Prime Minister of Rhodesia in 1964.

Declaring UDI

In 1960, British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan gave the “Wind of Change” speech, arguing that Britain should not hinder the process of independence for African nations.

The British were concerned that violence seen in other former European colonies could spill into British colonies while the United States argued communism would expand into Africa through nationalist groups if European governments denied them independence. The British government endorsed the policy of NIMBAR; independence could not be granted unless a majority native government was in place.

This posed complications for Rhodesia.

By this stage, Rhodesia had a significant white population, many of whom feared a repeat of the violence which had targeted Europeans in the Congo and Algeria under native governments. Smith himself believed that the sudden emergence of an unprepared black government would lead to civil war and economic strife. On a personal level, he also felt a sense of betrayal at Britain having fought in the war before being told to give up his position as Prime Minister.

Although white Rhodesians made up a smaller percentage of the population, economic and social disparities between the black and white citizens were significant. Although all racial groups were allowed to vote in elections, most black Rhodesians did not enjoy the same property ownership or financial status which were required for political participation.

Spurred by economic grievances and political exclusion, African nationalist groups called for an uprising against the Rhodesian government and for independence with a majority government.

In 1964, Harold Wilson was elected Prime Minister of Britain and took a firm stance on NIMBAR. Although calls for independence were growing, Smith maintained that an experienced white government was the best way for all Rhodesians to experience security and a path to equal partnership, and claimed the British were too hasty in granting independence to countries that had descended into conflict. Wilson countered that the Rhodesian system was discriminatory and the solution for independence was black participation in a majority government. Smith and Wilson met for a series of negotiations in London but failed to reach an agreement.

Smith decided to call an election in 1965. He campaigned to declare Rhodesia independent with his government in charge. The Rhodesian Front won a majority and Smith issued the Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI).

The UDI was not recognised by the British who imposed sanctions but Smith was determined to continue.

Bush War

A major consequence of the UDI was that militant action by two major groups opposed to the Smith government intensified.

Before the UDI, the Zimbabwe African People's Union (ZAPU) was formed by Joshua Nkomo to oppose the Rhodesian government. The group adhered to socialist and anti-colonial beliefs but saw an ideological split when Robert Mugabe and Ndabaningi Sithole left in protest at Nkomo’s leadership to form the rival Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU).

The two groups at first engaged in low-level tactics including arson and sporadic killings of white Rhodesians before the UDI and both were subsequently banned by the government.

Although under sanction, the Rhodesian government received supplies from apartheid South Africa and Portugal. The ZANU and ZAPU factions were divided on tribal lines, with the Shona tribe supporting Mugabe and the Ndebele and Kalanga people rallying for ZAPU. However, tribal rivalry was supplanted by Cold War politics; Mugabe declared himself a Maoist which angered the Soviets who responded by exclusively supporting ZAPU while China backed ZANU. The Bush War escalated into a proxy conflict of the Cold War, although Western governments did not wish to collude with Smith directly and urged him to hold peace talks.

From 1966, the Rhodesian army, ZANU and ZAPU began to engage each other directly in combat. Both ZANU and ZAPU engaged in terrorism and guerrilla tactics while the Rhodesian military responded with cross-border raids into Mozambique and Zambia to destroy their camps.

The war also saw civilians caught in the crossfire; native Africans in rural areas who refused to join either militia groups or were accusing of spying were killed while ZAPU and ZANU fought each other for political dominance with factional Cold War support. In 1977, a Woolworths store was bombed, killing eleven people. In 1978 two Air Rhodesia flights were shot down by ZAPU militants, in the first shootdown surviving passengers were massacred on the ground. The attacks prompted uproar but posed difficulties for international governments who did not want to compromise peace negotiations.

The independence of Mozambique from Portugal complicated matters for Smith as militants could now operate freely across the border. At the same time, the government of South Africa wanted to build credibility as global opposition to apartheid grew and decided supporting Smith was untenable.

By 1978, it was apparent that militants were entering the country faster than the army could intercept them and with lifelines cut off, the Smith government was now forced to compromise.

Compromise

Smith concluded that his best opportunity was an internal settlement with more moderate opposition forces.

In 1978, the country was renamed Zimbabwe-Rhodesia and elections were held in 1979. The first black Prime Minister Bishop Abel Muzorewa was elected. However, the election and internal settlement were not recognised by foreign governments.

In December 1979, Muzorewa was persuaded to attend the Lancaster House Agreement. The Agreement nulled the UDI and temporarily returned Zimbabwe-Rhodesia to British rule with the UK and United States agreeing to drop sanctions after fresh elections. The British government re-declared the country independent as free elections were held. ZANU led by Robert Mugabe won the vote.

Conclusion

The war concluded with an estimated 20,000 people killed overall.

Although international governments hoped for reconciliation after the 1980 election, violence continued with Cold War politics leaving its mark. Mugabe initially included white politicians and his former rival Nkomo in government but later fired them after disagreements and consolidated his power.

Mugabe then sought to purge opponents under what was known as the Gukurahundi; members of the Zimbabwean army trained by North Korea carried out bloody pogroms against the Ndebele and Kalanga who had mostly supported ZAPU.

What do you think of the Rhodesian Bush War? Let us know below.

The San Francisco Earthquake of 1906: A History

The San Francisco earthquake of 1906 had huge impacts on the city. The earthquake measured 7.9, with over 3,000 lives lost and some 80% of the city destroyed. Richard Bluttal explains.

Fire in San Francisco following the 1906 earthquake.

At the turn of the twentieth century, San Francisco’s most striking physical feature was the great multitude of boats and ships crowded along the city’s waterfront and extending far into San Francisco Bay. Communication, transportation, and above all trade and commerce had been the key ingredients in transforming barren, wind-swept hills and sand dunes into a bustling metropolis.

The newspaper correspondent Jack London was relaxing in his home when word was delivered to him from his employer Colliers Magazine. He was requested to go to the scene of the disaster and write the story of what he saw. London started at once, he sent the dramatic description of the tragic events he witnessed in the burning city.

“The earthquake shook down in San Francisco hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of walls and chimneys. But the conflagration that followed burned up hundreds of millions of dollars' worth of property  There is no estimating within hundreds of millions the actual damage wrought. Not in history has a modern imperial city been so completely destroyed. San Francisco is gone. Nothing remains of it but memories and a fringe of dwelling-houses on its outskirts. Its industrial section is wiped out. Its business section is wiped out. Its social and residential section is wiped out. The factories and warehouses, the great stores and newspaper buildings, the hotels and the palaces of the nabobs, are all gone. Remains only the fringe of dwelling houses on the outskirts of what was once San Francisco.

Smoke

Within an hour after the earthquake shock the smoke of San Francisco's burning was a lurid tower visible a hundred miles away. And for three days and nights this lurid tower swayed in the sky, reddening the sun, darkening the day, and filling the land with smoke. “

On Wednesday morning at a quarter past five came the earthquake. A minute later the flames were leaping upward in a dozen different quarters south of Market Street, in the working-class ghetto, and in the factories, fires started. There was no opposing the flames. There was no organization, no communication. All the cunning adjustments of a twentieth century city had been smashed by the earthquake. The streets were humped into ridges and depressions and piled with the debris of fallen walls. The steel rails were twisted into perpendicular and horizontal angles. The telephone and telegraph systems were disrupted. And the great water mains had burst. All the shrewd contrivances and safeguards of man had been thrown out of gear by thirty seconds' twitching of the earth-crust….”  

George Bernard Musson, captain of the S.S. Henley, a British steamer was at port in San Francisco at the time of earthquake. The ship served as a floating refugee camp for many displaced by the earthquake and subsequent fires that engulfed the city. He wrote this letter to his mother on April 21, 1906, three days after the quake.

          “My dearest Mother,

...If you picture the scenes described and imagine the horrors a thousand times greater you will still know less than I have personally witnessed. The shock threw me from side to side in my bed and I thought our engines were blown up until I reached the deck and even in that short space of time smoke was breaking out from 100 places in the town and of course all water conduits were destroyed so that little could be done to save the city from the terrific sea of flames which swept and roared from block to block....

This is the most hideous catastrophe that has ever happened to any city and thousands still be buried beneath the smoldering ruins. I have got a large number of homeless people aboard and the tales of woe are fit to break any human heart….

One sweet old lady onboard saved only her umbrella and a cage of pet canaries together with the clothes she wears. Others have nothing but what they had time to put on, motherless children and childless women are here, the old and aged and young are all here, high born and low are all one class and I shame to say it, but the women are more cheerful in all their grief than the men....

I have been condensing day and night and have supplied tens of thousands with water to drink. Fancy people walking miles and miles through blazing streets to get a drink of water and a bite to eat....

Oh, the brave deeds will never be all known and neither will the despicable nature of others. Justice is swift and sure now and all are shot down on sight who refuse to work when called upon, or thieves, or for molesting women.

From Poor Old Burns. “

5:12 a.m. April 18, 1906

At almost precisely 5:12 a.m., local time, a foreshock occurred with sufficient force to be felt widely throughout the San Francisco Bay area. The great earthquake broke loose some 20 to 25 seconds later, with an epicenter near San Francisco. Violent shocks punctuated the strong shaking which lasted some 45 to 60 seconds. The earthquake was felt from southern Oregon to south of Los Angeles and inland as far as central Nevada. The highest Modified Mercalli Intensities (MMI's) of VII to IX paralleled the length of the rupture, extending as far as 80 kilometers inland from the fault trace. One important characteristic of the shaking intensity noted in Lawson's (1908) report was the clear correlation of intensity with underlying geologic conditions. Areas situated in sediment-filled valleys sustained stronger shaking than nearby bedrock sites, and the strongest shaking occurred in areas where ground reclaimed from San Francisco Bay failed in the earthquake.

Duration: 45 to 60 seconds -Fault: The San Andreas Fault – earthquake Damage Cost: more than $400 million in 1906 dollars –  Strength: 7.9-8.3

The shock was violent in the region about the Bay of San Francisco, and with few exceptions inspired all who felt it with alarm and consternation. In the cities many people were injured or killed, and in some cases persons became mentally deranged, as a result of the disasters which immediately ensued from the commotion of the earth. The manifestations of the earthquake were numerous and varied. It resulted in the general awakening of all people asleep, and many were thrown from their beds. In the zone of maximum disturbance persons who were awake and attending to their affairs were in many cases thrown to the ground. Many persons heard rumbling sounds immediately before feeling the shock. Some who were in the fields report having seen the violent swaying of trees so that their top branches seemed to touch the ground, and others saw the passage of undulations of the soil. Several cases are reported in which people suffered from nausea as a result of the swaying of the ground. Many cattle were thrown to the ground, and in some instances horses with riders in the saddle were similarly thrown.

In the inanimate world the most common and characteristic effects were the rattling of windows, the swaying of doors, and the rocking and shaking of houses. Pendant fixtures were caused to swing back and forth or in more or less elliptical orbits. Pendulum clocks stopped. Furniture and other loose objects in rooms were suddenly displaced. Brick chimneys fell very generally. Buildings were in many instances partially or completely wrecked; others were shifted on their foundations without being otherwise seriously damaged. Many water tanks were thrown to the ground. Springs were affected either temporarily or permanently, some being diminished, others increased in flow. Landslides were caused on steep slopes, and on the bottom lands of the streams the soft aluminum  was in many places caused to crack and to lurch, producing often very considerable deformations of the surface. This deformation of the soil was an important cause of damage and wreckage of buildings situated in such tracts. Railway tracks were buckled and broken. In timbered areas in the zone of maximum disturbance many large trees were thrown to the ground and in some cases, they were snapped off above the ground.

Cause of the Earthquake

The 1906 earthquake preceded the development of the Richter magnitude by three decades. The most widely accepted estimate for the magnitude of the quake on the modern moment magnitude scale  is 7.9; values from 7.7 to as high as 8.3 have been proposed. According to findings published in the  Journal of Geophysical Research, severe deformations in the Earth’s crust took place both before and after the earthquake’s impact. Accumulated strain on the faults in the system was relieved during the earthquake, which is the supposed cause of the damage along the 280-mile-long (450 km) segment of the San Andreas plate boundary. The 1906 rupture propagated both northward and southward for a total of 296 miles (476 km). Shaking was felt from Oregon to Los Angeles, and as far inland as central Nevada.

The only aftershock in the first few days of near M 5 or greater occurred near Santa Cruz at 14:28 PST on April 18, with a magnitude of about 4.9 M. The largest aftershock happened at 01:10 PST on April 23, west of Eureka with an estimated magnitude of about 6.7 MI , with another of the same size more than three years later at 22:45 PST on October 28 near Cape Mendocino.

Remotely triggered events included an earthquake swarm in the Imperial Valley area, which culminated in an earthquake of about 6.1 MI  at 16:30 PST on April 18, 1906. Another event of this type occurred at 12:31 PST on April 19, 1906, with an estimated magnitude of about 5.0 MI , and an epicenter beneath Santa Monica Bay.

The Structural and Human Damage

The massive earthquake that struck San Francisco on April 18, 1906, destroyed hundreds of buildings in a little over a minute. When the shaking stopped, most of the city was intact, though damaged. That would soon change as one of history’s greatest urban firestorms swept over San Francisco. In the course of three days, 28,188 buildings burned. Virtually all of these buildings were totally destroyed. Nearly 25,000 wood buildings burned to the ground. Fire gutted the interiors of brick buildings. Many of these buildings collapsed completely. Others were reduced to burned-out shells. Although a great many brick buildings came through the earthquake relatively unscathed, losing perhaps cornices or parts of their facades, when fire burned through their floors and internal framing, their walls fractured and fell. Only the most stoutly constructed brick buildings remained structurally intact. Some of the city’s steel-frame and supposedly fireproof buildings also succumbed to the fire. They suffered severe structural damage as under-fireproofed steel buckled and deformed in the intense heat. When the fire finally burned itself out, the commercial, financial, and residential core of the West Coast’s leading city was in ruins.

The earthquake and fires killed an estimated 3,000 people and left half of the city's 400,000 residents homeless.

The earthquake and fire hit the poorest San Franciscans the hardest. On the eve of the quake, the poorest workers lived in old, run-down boarding houses and apartments. Employment was scarce and poorly paid. Working families, especially those living in the south of Market Street neighborhood, often stretched their incomes by taking borders into their already crowded homes. The flimsy construction of these neighborhoods guaranteed their destruction by the quake and fire. With most housing burnt to the ground, rents immediately soared 350%, and in 1910 were still 71% higher than pre-fire rates. Women faced especially severe problems, as their manufacturing and service employments disappeared along with the income they had received for cooking, cleaning, and laundering for lodgers. Asian San Franciscans faced additional barriers to survival. In the weeks following the disaster, Chinese refugees remained segregated and were relocated four times by city and military officials in response to whites who refused to share space with the much-despised Asians. Although ultimately unsuccessful in their efforts, city developers seized upon the destruction of Chinatown, located on some of the most valuable property in the city, as the perfect solution to ridding the city of Asians once and for all. Asian San Franciscans were totally excluded from official relief efforts.

Although the impact of the earthquake on San Francisco was the most famous, the earthquake also inflicted considerable damage on several other cities. These include San Jose and Santa Rosa, the entire downtown of which was essentially destroyed.

The Cleanup

Despite its utter devastation, San Francisco quickly recovered thanks to the help of some mighty machinery. Considered modern technology at the time, steam-powered equipment helped clean up the mess caused by the quake. Large Holt and Best steam tractors helped clear the immense amount of rubble, in an effort to help people and businesses reclaim what was lost. The use of these machines, in its own small way, led to the rebirth of San Francisco.

The survivors slept in tents in city parks and the Presidio, stood in long lines for food, and were required to do their cooking in the street to minimize the threat of additional fires. On April 19th, Lieutenant Colonel George H. Torney, commanding officer of the Presidio’s Army General Hospital, telegrammed Washington, D.C. with the alarming news, “Medical Supply Depot was destroyed totally.” He requested immediate shipment of first aid supplies. The Army General Hospital fared better than those in the city and opened its doors to civilians. An Army Field Hospital sent from the East and 26 medical dispensaries also provided free medical care to thousands of civilians throughout the city. Based on the army's experience in the 1906 disaster, clear and formal policies were developed regarding civil relief and the Army's relationship with the Red Cross was formally defined. Food donations began arriving in San Francisco almost immediately. However, prohibitions against fires forbade people from cooking.

By April 23rd, less than one week after the earthquake, the Citizen's Relief Committee was overcome by the food distribution efforts and the mayor asked the army to take over. General Greely, now back in San Francisco, initially refused Mayor Schmitz's request to manage food distribution. It was only after prodding by members of the Committee of Fifty that Greely agreed to set up nine food depots. Each civilian was fed the equivalent of three-quarters of an Army enlisted man's rations. On April 30th more than 300,000 people were fed at these commissary food stations. The Army commissary later assisted in organizing and opening relief restaurants.

In the aftermath of the earthquake, an estimated 75,000 citizens simply left San Francisco. The remaining homeless population of 250,000 established makeshift camps in park areas and amidst the burnt-out ruins of city buildings. As fires burned across the eastern side of the city, refugees migrated west towards Golden Gate Park and the Presidio seeking food and shelter. Eventually, the Army would house 20,000 refugees in military-style tent camps—including 16,000 at the Presidio.

Soon, the refugee camps became small and highly organized tent towns, where, according to some reports, "The people are well cared for and are taking things as happily and philosophically as if they were out on a summer's camping trip." Despite their recent hardships, refugees in the camps quickly established routines of regular life. Children formed playgroups in the camps and dining halls became a center of social gatherings. These camps emptied as the city was rebuilt. The Presidio camps were dismantled first, closing in June 1906.

Immediately following the 1906 disaster, risks to public health were very real. The lack of clean water supplies, the broken sewage system, and accumulating garbage and debris led to high rates of typhoid and smallpox. To avoid a panic that could harm relief efforts, health officials dealt with the problem of disease discreetly. Those disease outbreaks were controlled by late 1906.

Response and Aftermath

Almost immediately after the quake (and even during the disaster), planning and reconstruction plans were hatched to quickly rebuild the city. Rebuilding funds were immediately tied up by the fact that virtually all the major banks had been sites of the conflagration, requiring a lengthy wait of seven to ten days before their fire-proof vaults could cool sufficiently to be safely opened. The Bank of Italy (now Bank of America) had evacuated its funds and was able to provide liquidity in the immediate aftermath. Its president also immediately chartered and financed the sending of two ships to return with shiploads of lumber from Washington and Oregon mills which provided the initial reconstruction materials and surge. During the first few days after news of the disaster reached the rest of the world, relief efforts reached over $5,000,000. London raised hundreds of thousands of dollars. Individual citizens and businesses donated large sums of money for the relief effort: Standard Oil  and Andrew Carnegie each gave $100,000; the Dominion of Canada made a special appropriation of $100,000; and even the The Bank of Candad in Ottawa gave $25,000. The U.S. government quickly voted for one million dollars in relief supplies which were immediately rushed to the area, including supplies for food kitchens and many thousands of tents that city dwellers would occupy the next several years.

Congress responded to the disaster in several ways. The House and the Senate Appropriations Committees enacted emergency appropriations for the city to pay for food, water, tents, blankets, and medical supplies in the weeks following the earthquake and fire. They also appropriated funds to reconstruct many of the public buildings that were damaged or destroyed.

Other congressional responses included the House Claims Committee handling claims from owners seeking reimbursement for destroyed property. For example, the committee received claims from the owners of several saloons and liquor stores, whose supplies of alcoholic spirits were destroyed by law enforcement officers trying to minimize the spread of fires and threat of mob violence. In the days following the earthquake, officials destroyed an estimated $30,000 worth of intoxicating liquors.

Conclusion

The earthquake, despite its tragic destruction, birthed our modern understanding of earthquakes in the United States. Extensive research in the aftermath of the 1906 earthquake led to the formulation of the elastic-rebound theory related to earthquake source by Reid (1910). With the theory of plate tectonics coming more than 50 years after the earthquake, it’s appropriate to say this event helped to motivate and develop a better understanding of how such earthquakes come about.

A commission of over 25 geologists, seismologists, and other scientists worked to provide The Report of the State Earthquake Investigation Commission, published in May of 1906, with a subsequent report published by Lawson in 1908. The 1908 publication is widely believed to be the most extensive and influential single earthquake reports.

Do you have any thoughts in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake? If so, let us know below.

Now read Richard’s article on the role of baseball in the US Civil War here.

The Thunder of Silence: Oklahoma City Bombing

In April 1995 a shocking event took place in Oklahoma City. Here, Jennifer Dawson looks at the Oklahoma City Bombing and what happened in the years after.

The aftermath of the Oklahoma City Bombing in April 1995.

Imagine your typical Wednesday morning. The sky is clear, the city's hustling, and it feels like any other day. Then, at exactly 9:02 a.m. on April 19, 1995, the clock stops. A massive boom echoes, like a terrifying thunder clap in the heart of downtown Oklahoma City. The nine-story Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building shatters into a thousand pieces.

From Normalcy to Nightmare

On this grim day, a truck packed with explosives erupted in front of the building, ripping off its entire north wall. It wasn’t special-effects magic for a movie scene; it was painfully real. The terrifying blast caused a domino effect, damaging and destroying more than 300 buildings in the vicinity. The echo of the blast was not just heard--no--it was felt, reshaping the lives of countless individuals.

Race Against Time

Later that day, and for the agonizing two weeks that ensued, emergency crews from all over the United States swarmed to Oklahoma City; a unified mission to search, rescue and heal tightly wrapped around their hearts. When the dust finally settled, the catastrophic toll was horrific--168 people tragically lost their lives in the blast. Among the victims, 19 were young, innocent children, a day care center their final playground.

Legal Aid Arrived 

Amidst the cardiac trauma, physical injuries weighed heavily on survivors. More than 650 people endured the searing agony of burns and injuries; the scars etched on their bodies a permanent reminder of the nightmare. This isn't just important, it’s crucial to know that in this sea of chaos, the Oklahoma City Burn Injury Attorneys emerged as unsung heroes. They fought tooth and nail for survivors and families affected, against the negligence that led to such life-altering burn injuries.

Journey of Justice: From the Boom to the Gavel

Fast forward to 1997; Timothy McVeigh stands trial, with a storm of 11 counts brewing against him. A gauntlet of charges for the mastermind behind the heinous act, the darkest day of '95. On June 2, the ax fell – guilty on all accounts, and by August 14, the bell tolled for McVeigh as the death penalty was formally imposed. A chilling message echoed through the courtroom: justice isn't just served, it's etched into history.

The Silent Spectator

When the dust settled, another player emerged from the shadows: Fortier, an Army buddy of McVeigh. His crime? Spectating the gruesome plan from the sidelines, never once warning the boys in blue. By 1998, Fortier was sporting a not-so-fashionable jumper, sentenced to 12 years behind bars. He walked out a free man in 2007, slipping into the shroud of the witness protection program – a Phantom of the Oklahoma Opera.

Nichols: From Conspiracy to Convictions 

Meanwhile, Terry Nichols waited for his moment in the spotlight. December 1997, guilty as charged on one count of conspiracy and eight counts of involuntary manslaughter. Nichols, however, was not done with the courtroom battles. A 2004 state trial ended with him facing a mountain of convictions – 161 counts of first-degree murder, including fetal homicides. He was handed down a lifetime behind bars – well, 161 to be precise.

McVeigh's Final Bow

Backstage, McVeigh had his own finale planned. In December 2000, he requested termination of all appeals of his convictions and an execution date. The federal judge granted this final act, and on June 11, 2001, McVeigh exited the world's stage via lethal injection. He was the first federal prisoner to be executed since 1963 – a fitting end to the puppet master of terror.

The Phoenix from the Ashes

The demolished Murrah Building became a silent witness to the dark chapter of '95. In its place now stands the Oklahoma City National Memorial Museum – a beacon of hope, resilience and testament to the indomitable spirit of Oklahomans.

Let us know your thoughts below.

When did the First World War Really End?

The very question as to when the First World War ended may appear an unnecessary question as the accepted date as November 1918 is firmly imprinted on our memories in those nations that gather for Remembrance Sunday to observe a respectful two-minute silence. However, the intention is not to rewrite history or challenge historians. When we examine other factors in some more detail the answer may not be so definitive. There may be alternative dates that can stretch the timeline as to when the Great war finally was concluded.

Steve Prout explains.

The so-called ‘Big Four’ at the Paris Peace Conference, May 27, 1919. Left to right: Prime Minister David Lloyd George (Great Britain), Prime Minister Vittorio Emanuele Orlando (Italy), Premier Georges Clemenceau (France), President Woodrow Wilson (USA).

Continuing battles

The armistice of November 1918 did not bring the fighting to an immediate end. It continued for limited periods elsewhere around the world and in isolated pockets in Europe. The First World War in terms of battles and bloodshed was mainly fought on European soil, but it did extend because of colonial extension on a more limited scale in the Pacific, Middle East, and Africa. The African theatre continued days after the November armistice. A typical telegram sent to east Africa from Europe could take up to a full day to arrive before it could be actioned upon, and this was what exactly happened in German East Africa.

The allies had anticipated that there would be delays and therefore in advance of the armistice, on 10 November, the British General Staff sent a telegram to east Africa asking them for the quickest way to get a message to Von Lettow-Vorbeck, the commanding officer of the German colonial army. He was an exceptional German officer who had been successfully fighting and evading the Allies for four years. Vorbeck had his forces scattered over the vast territories of German East Africa and so reaching him and co-ordinating a truce would be a logistical challenge. On November 12, the day after the armistice, the two sides clashed again, and on that day Von Lettow-Vorbeck only received the telegram that the war had now ended after the battle. The two sides declared a truce, and Von Lettow-Vorbeck formally surrendered at Abercorn, Zambia on November 25, 1918, therefore extending the accepted end date by two weeks.

The Peace Treaties

An armistice is only a ceasefire and only a when a treaty is signed with the conditions determined can war be formally concluded - at least formally. Another interesting angle is to consider the dates and the timelines that these actual treaties were signed. Treaties for multiple participants and belligerents take time to finalize. The debates and negotiations for some of these treaties stretched into the early 1920s.

The treaties for the remainder of the Central Powers such as Bulgaria, Austria and Turkey were concluded long after November 1918 - and in fact the very last treaty was signed in 1923 extending diplomatically at least World War One by a further five years. Once Versailles set its uneasy peace with Germany in 1919 the rest of the Central Powers needed to be reckoned with. The order ran as follows: Austria was addressed at St. Germain-En-Laye in September 1919 and in November 1919 at Neuilly Bulgaria followed suit. In June 1920, a treaty was set with Hungary in Trianon and the first of two treaties with Turkey followed in August of that year in Sevres. It would not be until July 1923 at Lausanne that the Turkish matter would be finally settled and with that finally bringing the war to its diplomatic and formal conclusion.

The peculiarities continue because in the case of Costa Rica, who declared war on Germany, a peace agreement for the First World War was not signed until 1945 due to a diplomatic oversight. It is interesting how many of our past wars are technically continuing in forgotten diplomatic archives.

Demobilisation and preparing for war?

The announcement of the armistice did not bring a settling feeling to post war Europe. Underlying tensions still existed and in the forefront of the allies minds there was a prospect of the war being resumed. Although the German Army was at the point of exhaustion in November 1918 it had not actually been decisively beaten. There was only a tentative ceasefire in place until peace terms could be settled. The demobilization of British, colonial, and imperial troops did not finish until 1920 so in a sense a war footing was maintained. This was much longer than service members had anticipated and was not welcomed by many, causing mutiny in some instances. They did realize they might be called upon to fight again but fortunately the hostilities did not resume.

However, it was not just the fear of a return to arms in Europe that delayed demobilization. There were huge challenges like transporting millions of dominion troops home. There was the immense administrative burden on a scale never seen before that contributed to the enormity of the task. Events abroad also influenced the issue as Britain and France required a military presence to maintain order in their wider Empires, especially for Britain in the Middle East and Ireland where dissent was growing and needed containing. There was also the question of Russia and the fear of the spread of Bolshevism from Lenin’s revolutionary fervour. The fear was so great that a combined allied force from Britain, Commonwealth, US, Italy, France, and Japan were deployed between 1919 and 1920 in strategic areas of Russia in what is known as the War of Intervention. Interestingly the armistice agreement also included the requirement for German troops to remain in the Baltics to also assist and contain the Bolshevik spread. Europe was still not free from the effects and uncertainties of the war and Poland would soon join the fight against Russia in a grab for territory. Old allies and adversaries were still fighting in various limited forms.

Conclusion

The post war settlements were far from being settling and they planted the seeds for future wars as the likes of Germany, Poland, Hungary, and other newly formed states would be dissatisfied with their new borders. This was also suspected and known by the participants of the time. Some diplomats such as Smuts, and preceptive journalists and intellectuals like John Maynard Keynes could almost predict this happening. Perhaps the best example was as the famous illustration by William Orpen who produced the famous cartoon depicting a child crying at the prospect of a war within twenty years of the 1919 Versailles Treaty.

In answer to our question as to when World War One ended symbolically it will always remain with November 1918 when the general desire for peace brought about in the main a cessation of hostilities - but if we want to be technical we can stretch that date anywhere between 1918 and 1923 (although there are also unreconciled declarations of war sat lost in diplomatic archives). The case of Costa Rica signing her treaty in 1945 brings forth an interesting point as to how many other conflicts sit in a similar state of limbo? Are there any nations still technically at war since 1918 with the central powers due to diplomatic oversight? This is certainly true of modern times. Citing a study of war, Quincy Wright observed that from the end of World War Two up to 1970 (when the actual study was conducted) that over thirty-four conflicts just ended with an armistice or ceasefire and not by formal treaty. It makes an interesting trip into the annals of our accepted history - and perhaps history is not as absolute as we imagine.

When do you think the Great War ended? Let us know below.

Now read about Britain’s relationship with the European dictators during the inter-war years here.

Sources

AJP Taylor - English History 1914-45 and Origins of The Second World War

British policy and Bulgaria, 1918-1919. Treanor, Patrick Joseph; (1999) British policy and Bulgaria, 1918-1919. Doctoral thesis (Ph.D.), University College London. 

Europe of The Dictators 1919-1945 -Elizabeth Wiskeman- Collins 1966

Chronicles of Twentieth Century – 1987 - Longman

The Battle of Blair Mountain: Mine Wars

The Battle of Blair Mountain was the result of years of bitter labor disputes between miners and coal companies of southern West Virginia. Here, Richard Bluttal explains what caused the dispute and how it evolved.

A coal miner with his rifle at the Battle of Blair Mountain.

Since the late 1800s, the coalfields of the West Virginia’s Mingo, Logan and McDowell Counties had operated under a repressive company town system. Workers mined using leased tools and were paid low wages in company currency, or “scrip,” which could only be used at company stores. Safety conditions were often deplorable, yet despite the efforts of groups such as the United Mine Workers (UMW), the mine operators had kept unions out of the region through intimidation and violence. Companies compelled their workers to sign so-called “yellow dog contracts” pledging not to organize, and they used armies of private detectives to harass striking miners and evict them from their company-owned homes.

The hostilities only ramped up in 1920, when the UMW finally started to organize workers in Mingo County. On May 19 of that year, members of the Baldwin-Felts detective agency arrived in the town of Matewan to evict union miners from houses owned by the Stone Mountain Coal Company. After catching wind of the detectives’ activities, Matewan Mayor Cabell Testerman and a pro-union sheriff named Sid Hatfield raised a small posse and confronted them near the local train station. A verbal argument quickly escalated into a gunfight, and when the smoke cleared, seven Baldwin-Felts agents had been killed along with Mayor Testerman and two local miners.

The so-called “Matewan Massacre” galvanized support for the UMW, which collected new members and organized a strike in the summer of 1920. The coal companies responded by bringing in non-union replacement workers, and over the next several months, the two sides engaged in a fierce guerilla war. “Murder by laying in wait and shooting from ambush has become common,” Mingo County’s sheriff wrote in May 1921.

Tipping point

The tipping point in the “Mine War” finally came on August 1, 1921, when Sheriff Sid Hatfield was shot dead by Baldwin-Felts agents as he entered the McDowell County Courthouse. The assassination outraged the miners, who considered Hatfield a hero for his involvement in the Matewan shootout. Within days, thousands of union supporters had flocked to the outskirts of Marmet, a small town located near the state capital of Charleston. Led by UMW organizers Frank Keeney and Fred Mooney, they resolved to march on Mingo County to confront the coal companies and free the union men imprisoned in the area. Many of the marchers were World War I veterans, and they came armed to the teeth with military-issue Springfield rifles and shotguns. “It is time to lay down the bible and take up the rifle,” miner and Baptist reverend John Wilburn declared.

The miners’ route to Mingo required them to pass through Logan County, a coal company stronghold ruled by an anti-union sheriff named Don Chafin. Upon learning of the march, Chafin scraped together a 3,000-strong army of state police, deputies and citizen militiamen and prepared for a fight. “No armed mob will cross the Logan County line,” he proclaimed. Chafin and his supporters had soon constructed a network of machine gun nests and trenches around Blair Mountain, a 2,000-foot peak that stood directly in the miners’ path.

On August 24, the main body of coal miners set out from Marmet and headed south toward Mingo County. Keeney and Mooney made a last-minute attempt to call off the march after meeting with the War Department’s General Harry Bandholtz, who warned that any violence would prove disastrous for the union, but the proposed ceasefire collapsed when two miners died in a skirmish with Chafin’s forces. By August 28, some 10,000 union men had massed near the border of Logan County and begun trading gunfire with company supporters. To distinguish one another in the dense forests, many of the miners tied red handkerchiefs around their necks. They soon became known as the “Red Neck Army.”

The first heavy fighting in the Battle of Blair Mountain began on August 31, when a group of around 75 miners led by Reverend Wilburn stumbled across some of Chafin’s “Logan Defenders” on a wooded ridge. Each side asked the other for a password and received the wrong answer, prompting a shootout that killed three deputies and one miner. That same day, the main army of miners commenced a two-pronged assault on Chafin’s trenches and breastworks. Scores of union men streamed up the mountainside, but despite their superior numbers, they were repeatedly driven back by the defenders, who riddled them with machine gun fire from the high ground.

The miners made more progress when the battle was renewed on September 1. That morning, a detachment of union men assaulted a spot called Craddock Fork with a Gatling gun looted from a coal company store. Logan forces fought back with a machine gun, but after three hours of heavy fire, their weapon jammed. The miners surged forward and briefly broke the defensive line, only to be repulsed by a fusillade of bullets from a second machine gun nest located further up the ridge.

For the rest of the day, the hills and hollows echoed with gunfire as the union men repeatedly attacked the defenders’ lines. “Machine guns cracked up there so you would think the whole place was coming down on you,” miner Ira Wilson later recalled. At one point in the battle, the din also included the sound of falling bombs. Sheriff Chafin had chartered three private biplanes and equipped them with teargas and pipe bombs loaded with nuts and bolts for shrapnel. The planes dropped the homemade explosives over two of the miners’ strongholds but failed to inflict any casualties.

End of the siege

In the end, the miners’ siege of Blair Mountain was only ended by the arrival of federal troops. A squadron of Army Air Service reconnaissance planes began patrolling the skies on September 1, and by the following day, General Bandholtz had mobilized some 2,100 army troops on the orders of President Warren G. Harding. Scattered fighting continued between the miners and the Logan Defenders until September 4, but most of the men welcomed the government intervention and laid down their weapons. Roughly 1,000 exhausted miners eventually surrendered to the army, while the rest scattered and returned home. It was later estimated that some one million rounds had been fired during the battle. Reports of casualties ranged from as few as 20 killed to as many as 100, but the actual number has never been confirmed.

The Battle of Blair Mountain is now cited as a pivotal chapter in American labor history, but in the short term, it proved to be a crushing defeat for the miners. The state of West Virginia charged Keeney, Mooney and some 20 other union men with treason, and hundreds of others were indicted for murder. Nearly all were later acquitted, but the legal battles emptied the UMWA’s coffers and hindered its organizing efforts. By the end of the decade, only a few hundred miners in West Virginia were still members. The union wouldn’t reclaim the coalfields until the mid-1930s and the Great Depression when workers’ rights to organize were enshrined in New Deal legislation such as the National Industrial Recovery Act.

What do you think of the Battle of Blair Mountain? Let us know below.

Now read Richard’s series of articles on trauma and medicine during war, starting with the American Revolution here.

The Ever-Changing Nature of Britain’s Health

Britain’s health has changed throughout history and what was considered healthy in the past has been proven to be unhealthy today. Some stark examples are that the average life expectancy at a time in nineteenth century Britain for wealthy adults was around 45, while this was lower in the poorer classes, and the percentage of children reaching the age of 5 was much lower in the 19th century than now.

Amy Chandler explains looks at how health and diet has evolved over time.

Sir William Beveridge in 1943.

In society today, individuals are able to take control of their health, if they wish, through the development of apps and trackers that monitor health and lifestyle. The World Health Organisation (WHO) states “social factors, including education, employment status, income level, gender and ethnicity have a marked influence on how healthy a person is”. (1) While the development and innovation of the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain has offered opportunities of free and equal access to medical services, the strain on the economy still limits the capabilities and progress of creating accessible medical treatment for all in Britain. The NHS celebrated 75 years this July and despite the innovations of the health service, the need for funding, treatment and staff equality, limits the good that the service can provide in Britain. This article explores the social, political and economic changes that impacted Britain’s health throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth century to the emergence of the NHS.

Diets, health and lifestyle

The industrial revolution between the years 1760 to 1840 created a boom in industry and manual labour employment in major cities such as Manchester, Liverpool and London. This industrial revolution increased social mobility into the cities and a rise of poverty and disease for the working classes. Despite the rise of infectious diseases and poor living and working conditions, the diet of the working class was not as unhealthy as historians once believed. Those who worked in manual employment, such as factories and docks, were constantly active and needed to consume more calories to sustain themselves during long working hours. The majority of the poorer classes ate food that was in season such as fruits, vegetables and less fatty meats. In comparison, wealthy classes weren’t as active and had access to an abundance of food, alcohol and sugary sweets causing rotten teeth and gout.

For the poor, food supplies were uncertain, basic in diet and didn’t provide the nutrients for a healthy body creating a prevalence of malnourished adults and children. Few had access to personal ovens and relied on open-fires, buying hot food out or eating cold meals. There was limited access to cooking utensils, with many households only using one pot for their cooking. This meant that the access and availability of hot food was scarce or expensive.(2) Many relied on buying off-cut pieces of meat that were rotting or poor quality, and these meals were small and far between. The upper classes indulged in dinners with several courses and had access to the freshest qualities of meat. Usually, household cooks would order their meats, fish, vegetables and other ingredients on the day that they were needed to ensure fresh meals, whereas the poor did not have access to the same expensive food. Furthermore, the overindulgence of rich and decadent food created a rise in obesity amongst the men of the upper class. The obese, rich male figure was seen as a symbol of high status and a display of their wealth because they could afford an abundance of sweet and fatty foods. Wealthy women were not usually obese due to the beauty standards of society, where women wore tight corsets and were expected to be fragile and thin. In modern society, the rise and health implications of obesity are impacting on the NHS.

The British Empire increased the transportation and access to many new foods, sugars and a variety of ingredients such as canned fruits and condensed meat. These new foods became widely available and impacted the health of all classes in Britain. Sugar and fatty foods were only previously available to the wealthy, who could afford the price. (3) The rise in consumption of sugar caused damage to the nation’s teeth and a frequent dental complaint reported by 1900 was the inability to chew tough foods, nuts, vegetables and fruits. The fall in nutritional standards impacted future generations, especially during times of army conscription. Furthermore, the living conditions in poverty-stricken areas created a decline in health with poor sanitary conditions, unclean drinking water and the lack of sunlight in urban slums creating a Vitamin D deficiency. The slums had dense, thick fog as a result of pollution and poor air quality, cramped, filled with rubbish, unsanitary living conditions and contaminated drinking water. These areas were also subjected to communicable diseases such as tuberculosis (TB), cholera and smallpox, to name a few. This also created a large gap between the health of the poor and the wealthy. The wealthy were not immune to these illnesses, but were less susceptible to dying of consumption or poor living conditions, but were more likely to suffer heart attacks from their rich and fatty diets. Therefore, the lives of the working class are considered healthier in terms of fitness levels, eating less fatty and sugary foods, but on the flipside many lived in unsanitary housing, likely to become unwell from the spread of fatal diseases in crowded areas and many could not access medical care.

London’s pollution also contributed to a number of respiratory health conditions coupled with the turn of the century popularity of smoking. The rise of smoking in the 1880s with the growth of industrial cigarette production created accessibility to cigarettes. The preference to using snuff declined and was replaced with cigarettes which was only encouraged during the first and second world war when soldiers were sent cigarettes in their rations. The commercialisation of smoking was seen as a good habit for people and was most commonly used by King George VI to overcome his stutter. The lack of medical knowledge on cancers and what caused these diseases meant that many became addicted to smoking without knowing or understanding the impact on their health. It is only in recent history that the UK government has attempted to tackle smoking in the population, with their strategic plan towards a ‘smoke-free generation’ in England.

The formation of the NHS

After the devastating impact of the Second World War, the health of the nation was deteriorating with rationing, war injuries and the economic burden of the war effort. These factors emphasised the long-term need for a strategy to strengthen the country. The British government needed to find a solution to improve the nation’s health, strengthen the economy and navigate post-war life. In December 1942, Sir William Beveridge compiled a report, Social Insurance and Allied Services, on the health of the nation. Beveridge’s report identified the five evils that permeated society; disease, want, ignorance, squalor and idleness.(4)  In a Parliamentary debate in 1944, Members of Parliament (MPs) suggested the NHS would be a “comprehensive and unified health service for the people”, which is part of a “process of reshaping the background of individual life” in Britain. (5) The NHS was seen as a “counter-process to all the destructiveness of war”. (5)

Throughout history, class and wealth defined people’s health, diet, lifestyle and quality of life and these differences were a continual reminder of social hierarchy. However, war was an equaliser that did not discriminate. Every member of society was impacted from conscription, bombing raids and the emotional and physical scars of war. Arguably those with money could live comfortably and safely, but everyone was equal with a collective desire for the war to end. Services that offered medical treatment like charities were fragmented and not unified. Therefore, there was a sense of openness to the idea of a national health service that was for the many not the few, however there was still opposition to a free health service. As stated in a Parliamentary debate, the service was “no scheme [designed] for giving charity to individuals or state help to particular classes or groups” and it “does not concern itself with poverty or wealth.” (5) This was a scheme that aimed at raising the nation’s health to a “higher plane and keep it there.” (5) This was a step towards equality in post-war Britain under the Welfare State. Under the umbrella of the Welfare State, each member of society was expected to pay a contributory amount of money as National Insurance. (4) The reason that Beveridge insisted on National Insurance was to ensure that the NHS did not damage an individual’s sense of pride, independence and personal responsibility. (4) The NHS created a sense of accountability for one’s health and offered the opportunity for those in poverty to better themselves.

The NHS was officially formed in July 1948 and 75 years later, the NHS is still providing a variety of care and treatment to the public. However, the nation’s health is not where it could be, the COVID-19 pandemic placed a strain on public health services and was economically struggling. NHS workers are striking for better pay and working conditions, while patients are placed on waiting list months in advance. Health issues such as smoking, obesity and mental health are areas that still need improvement, coupled with the changes in lifestyle. Many people work remotely and are not commuting in the same way causing a change in routine and in some cases causing a negative impact on their health. The introduction of the NHS in 1948 was a massive step forward in improving the nation’s health that came after education and housing reforms that cleared the slum areas, that were bombed heavily during the blitz.  Since 1948, many have benefitted from the treatment, care and expertise of health care professionals.

Conclusion

The perception of health has changed throughout history and one treatment that was once seen as effective is now seen as poisonous or ineffective. Illness was prevalent in all areas of society but the type of diseases differed depending on the living conditions, diet, lifestyle and access. What was once seen as healthy, such as smoking is now widely acknowledged as severely damaging to health and quality of life. The advancement in technology in identifying risks to increasing disease and health implications is far greater than in the past. The formation of the NHS was a changing point for Britain’s health and the desire to offer medical treatment to all classes of society in a bid for health equality. Historians often present the poor and working classes as malnourished and in poor health, however in the modern standards exercise and eating less sugar is seen as ideal and due to their lack of accessibility to fatty foods and sugar they were less susceptible to high cholesterol and other illnesses. The health and lifestyle of the working class should not be romanticised as a healthy way to live, as they were far from healthy. A digital age has allowed for more accountability, responsibility and opportunity to take our health into our own hands through fitness apps, healthy recipe boxes and ways to monitor our bodies through forms of artificial intelligence (AI). Progress is still slow in solving major health issues such as cancer, but the rise of technology can provide new ways of treating, curing and progressing our health.

What do you think of Britain’s health over time? Let us know below.

Now read Amy’s article on the history of medicine at sea here.

References

1. WHO, ‘Health inequities and their causes’, 22 February 2018, World Health Organisation, Available at < https://www.who.int/news-room/facts-in-pictures/detail/health-inequities-and-their-causes > [accessed 27 July 2023].

2. A. Whol, ‘What the Poor ate’, July 2022, VictorianWeb, Available at <        https://victorianweb.org/science/health/health8.html >[accessed 27 July 2023].

3. P. Clayton., and J. Rowbotham, ‘How the mid- Victorians worked, ate and died’, Int J Environ Res Public Health, vol. 6 (2009). Available at < https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ >[accessed 31 July 2023].

4. The National Archives, ‘1940’s origin of the Welfare State’, 2023, The Cabinet Papers, Available at < https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/cabinetpapers/alevelstudies/1940-origins-welfare-state.htm >[accessed 1 August 2023].

5. HC Deb, 16 March 1944, vol 398, cols 428 - 429.

The German Revolution of 1918: A Failed Revolt

The origins of the 1918-19 German Revolution, or the November Revolution, can be traced back to the face of hubris of the German hereditary system: Wilhelm II. A fierce arms race with Britain covered in German chauvinism threatened the might of the Royal Navy and escalated World War One into the global conflict that it was, whilst defeat in the Great War divided the Kaiser’s subjects. Plagued with mutinies and insubordination, contrasting with the pride of soldiers spouting the stab in the back myth, the First World War provided an intense battleground for an intense battle between democracy and autocracy that fundamentally transformed the German political society.

Tom Cowling explains.

Leftist soldiers during fighting in the Berlin City Palace in 1918 as part of the German Revolution. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 146-1976-067-30A / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

World War One

Armed with 5 naval laws aimed at threatening British dominance of the seas, the Kaiser and his court were gearing up for war. Totalling hundreds of new ships, and an increase of 136,000 in the army in 1912 (1), the naval laws forced Britain and her allies into creating formal alliances in the face of German hostility. Britain had alliances with Japan, Russia, and France. War was inevitable. Victories in the east against a flailing Russian Empire proved irrelevant by the time the American Expeditionary Forces landed in Europe. With hundreds of thousands of men entering Europe each month from the US, the German army was simply awaiting its fate. On the domestic front, the origins of a revolutionary movement were brewing as it became evident that this war was one of imperialism, with Germany occupying vast swathes of Eastern Europe. A split in the SPD, which had initially supported the war effort, saw the establishment of the Independent Socialists, fundamentally opposed to war. Led by the far-left Spartacists, there was a wave of strikes in January 1918, forcing a declaration of martial law (1). The age of insubordination had begun, and a fierce sense of chaos had swept across Germany.

At President Wilson’s indirect request, Germany made itself a constitutional monarchy and kickstarted the Revolution from Above. Governmental positions were granted to members of the Reichstag rather than the Kaiser’s comrades (1). The chancellor was made responsible to the Reichstag, whilst war could not be declared without parliament’s approval (1). His abdication came in November, at the insistence of Wilson’s men (1). The empire had shifted from a feared titan in Europe to a republic at the mercy of democracy. Friedrich Ebert, moderate SPD politician, was named chancellor (1). Wilson and his 14 points had established upheaval in Germany.

The start

Indiscipline marked the beginning of the Revolution from below; the new republic’s first threat to its existence. The left had an insatiable appetite for dictatorship, authoritarianism and control – the gravity of the situation was profound. Orders for an arrogant, and unwinnable, attack on the Royal Navy inevitably culminated in mutinies, which spread unstoppably to numerous ports on the Baltic Sea. With the military refusing to accept orders of the state, revolution was imminent. Communists seized power in Bavaria and workers’ councils snatched control of fourteen cities within days (2). Germany was on the brink of collapse, and submission to the left. Masses gathered in the capital as Karl Liebknecht, a key antagonist of democracy and prominent figure in the Spartacist League, stood on the Reichstag balcony and unabashedly called for a socialist republic (2). In a flurry of panic, the Freikorps, a paramilitary group of veterans desensitised by the experiences of war with loyalties firmly resting on the Kaiser, were sent in by Ebert to quell such left-wing dissent (1). Spartacist leaders Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Liebknecht were executed for their revolutionary crimes (2). Their revolution had failed completely to build up the necessary foundations of an undemocratic, communist system. But efforts to change Germany into the ultra-democratic state it existed under in the Weimar Republic were successful enough that the political, governmental and constitutional framework of Germany was revolutionised following the events of 1918.

Success or failure?

From a Marxist perspective, the revolution was an abject failure. Capitalist institutions remained firmly in place, and the bourgeois tendencies of the army raged on. Democracy was entrenched in the new Weimar constitution, with proportional representation and universal suffrage (1). The results of 1918 were a far cry from Marx’s ideal of a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Germany was well and truly a liberal state with institutional rejection of communist beliefs. Capitalism was central to the workings of Weimar democracy, with unions making agreements with industrialists not to cause disruption to production – the German workers were barred from seizing the means of production. Industrialists such as Hugo Stinnes presided over a huge amount of German industrial production in the new Germany, much to the dismay of Marxists. To the far-left in Germany, the events of 1918 served only to be scorned at as useless incremental change.

To the social democrats amongst the left in Germany, the revolution and its impact was a resounding success. They had swept away an antiquated system that kept people under the thumb of the monarch, and truly suppressed the will of the people that social democracy so desires. The left, in the form of the SPD, had power, with Ebert as chancellor, and the political extremes had been dealt with. The military system in Germany was committed to upholding democracy, having made deals with Ebert in return for the suppression of violent, extremist uprisings. The Freikorps were a reliable group to counteract left-wing rebellions, albeit through near insanity, but they would never let Germany fall to the communists, as they proved in the crushing of the rebellion that they contributed so significantly to. Democrats across Germany were undoubtedly intoxicated by the newfound democracy the new republic had in such abundance.

The right was naturally infuriated by the news of political change. The conservative doctrine couldn’t accept such sweeping changes, and such a rejection of ‘stability’. They had lost their deity in the form of the emperor, and had surrendered control and power to their natural enemy in the form of the centre-left. Despite this attack on the conservative order in Germany, they begrudgingly accepted the new political framework. They were protected from democratization of the army (1) which meant the most adored, to conservatives, institution was left alone from the transformation underwent in 1918. In spite of the rejection of nationalism by the new government, and the armistice, the conservative right more or less accepted the position they found themselves in.

Conclusion

To many aligning themselves with the political extremes, the revolution was something to look upon with great disdain. Marxists and conservatives alike were sworn enemies of democracy, and both looked upon the revolution as a ‘failure’. But the democrats won. They won democracy and they won freedom from the Kaiser, whilst winning power. To them, the revolution was a blessing, and saw them get what they wanted. As Marxists didn’t get enough change, and conservatives got far too much, social democrats in Germany were granted their wish of democracy and accountability as a direct result of the 1918 revolution.

What do you think of the 1918 German Revolution? Let us know below.

Bibliography

1. Kitchen, M. (2006) A History of Modern Germany 1800-2000. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing

2. Sewell, R. (2018) The German Revolution of 1918, In Defence of Marxism. Available at: https://www.marxist.com/the-german-revolution-of-1918.htm (Accessed: 24 July 2023)

The Longest Railway in the World: How the Trans-Siberian Railway was Built

The Trans-Siberian railway was an 8,400km track that was built upon the desire to unite Russia under a single culture and to strengthen the autocratic rule of the Tsar. The idea of building a railway into Siberia was toyed with in the mid-1870s, mainly proposing short routes into Siberia. The Russo-Turkish War put a halt on the development of any railways as funding was diverted to the war effort. Then 10 years later and after the finances of Russia had recovered from the war, discussions had returned. The proposed ideas however were much grander; a train route spanning the entire continent connecting east to west. This was fueled by a new director and the Tsar’s desire to make sure his autocratic rule reached every corner of his empire. This led to the idea of the Trans-Siberian railway coming to fruition.

Kyle Brett explains.

Construction work on the Eastern Siberian Railway near Khabarovsk, circa 1895.

Origins of the Idea for a Railway

The idea of a railway connecting East and West Russia was proposed in the 1870s to connect Siberia to European Russia. This idea was proposed by an American entrepreneur Perry McDonough Collins, to the Minister of Transport Communications, Konstantin Nikolayevich Posyet. Collins wanted to connect America to Russia via telegraph and proposed a route to do that to Posyet. Posyet liked this idea as he was ambitious to develop the far east, but the state had neither the finances nor the infrastructure to facilitate this project.

The Russian state in the latter half of the 1870s decided that the minerals and political benefits of building a railway into Siberia were beneficial and had decided on a short route from Nizhny Novgorod to Tyumen. Posyet had originally proposed a similar length railway to the north and saw this as the Russian state disregarding his position as Minister of Transportation. None of this would matter in the end because of the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish War in 1877 which shut down all state-sponsored railways. The state diverted a majority of its finances to the war effort, which left Posyet with the satisfaction of not having to build the railway he disagreed with. The unfortunate side effect of this war was that the war spending combined with the poor harvests in the early 1880s hurt the Russian ruble delaying discussions about a Trans-Siberian Railway until 1884.

In 1881 Alexander III would take power from his father Alexander II after he was assassinated by a socialist terrorist group. His father had passed many radically liberal laws and that had made him a target. Alexander III would spend his time as Tsar undoing many of these liberal reforms and reestablishing Autocratic rule over Russia. One of his main focuses was on Siberia and how he could unite and spread Russification and Autocratic rule throughout Russia. Upon hearing Posyet’s proposal for a Trans-Siberian railway stretching from Samara to Vladivostok he decided that was the best way to accomplish his goals.

The Borki Train Disaster

On October 29, 1888, Alexander III and his family were traveling on the Kursk–Kharkov mainline from Crimea to St. Petersburg when a combination of speeding and faulty track line caused the train to derail from the track at a high speed. After the dust had settled Alexander saw that his family was trapped under the collapsed roof of his dining car. He lifted the collapsed roof of his train car allowing his family to escape with none of them injured. In total around 20 people died and around 15 more were injured in the derailment. The trauma from this crash is what caused Alexander’s kidney failure and his eventual death.

The blame for the crash did not go to the railway manager Sergei Witte, but rather to the Russian government. Alexander wanted to close this case as quickly as possible, and this led to Posyet stepping down from his position as Transportation Manager. The man to replace him would be Sergei Witte. Imperial officials had chastised him prior to the crash, telling him that only the lines he manages are slow and all the other lines run at express speed. His response was he would prefer to not bash in the head of the emperor by increasing the speed of his rail lines. This interaction is why he was chosen to replace Posyet as Minister of Transportation.

The Project Begins

In March 1891 the Russian government announced its plan to build a railway that spanned all of Siberia. They broke ground in Vladivostok a few months later and the building of the railway was underway. The head of the project was Sergei Witte who in the years after the Borki Train disaster had risen in popularity in the government, moving his way up the chain of command. In 1892 he was selected to become the Minister of Finance, on top of being the Minister of Transportation. He would use these positions of power to turn the clunky and slow bureaucracy of the Russian government into a well-oiled machine.

His first order of business was to create the Committee for the Siberian Railroad. This committee was created with one goal in mind; to fast-track decisions that would have been slowed by the clunky bureaucracy. It would accomplish these goals by getting approval from a higher power, like the Tsar, and would then go around local administrators to keep the project moving. This ensured that the project would be kept going at a steady pace.

Witte, as Finance Minister, also had a great way to finance the building of the railway; he could raise taxes as high as the project demanded. As a result, he neglected his position as finance minister, disregarding complaints, and concerns from the peasantry as he was laser-focused on building the railway. Alexander would also turn a blind eye to these affairs as Witte got results which were good enough for him to not intervene.

The Material Cost of the Largest Railway

The Committee for the Siberian Railway had a massive challenge in solving the problem of how to get this immense amount of materials to the far reaches of Siberia. Their solution was to utilize rivers to Transport the materials to the building sites. Many of the rivers would not support the size of the boats used to move the materials. The Committee decided that the rivers were to be widened and strengthened to accommodate these boats. There was a lot of special attention placed upon Lake Baikal because of its immense size, being the deepest lake in the world, and because it would also be used to Transport materials in the near future. They surveyed weather conditions, all the port facilities on the lake, and how the ice formed on the lake to better understand how to utilize the lake for material Transportation.

Production of the railway parts was originally to be done in Siberia for convenience. Witte soon discovered that Siberia had nowhere enough infrastructure to accommodate a project of that size. The production was outsourced to Western Russia, the UK, and Poland. This meant that it took longer for the materials to arrive at the rail lines as they had to travel as far as the UK to make it into deep Siberia.

The Labor committed to the project was also quite immense, estimated by the Committee for the Siberian Railway at anywhere between 57,000 to 80,000 workers that migrated to Siberia to assist in the building. Much of the labor was from Russia, but some of it came from China. There was a good amount of convict labor utilized as well. These convicts were not treated fairly, however, and would be harassed by their leaders routinely. As for bad conditions, many of the laborers would sleep on the cold ground right up until the ground would freeze. Then when it got too cold the Committee would send people out to build mud huts for people to live in. This, as one can imagine, led to many deaths from the harsh elements. It also made it hard for laborers to do complex tasks like building bridges and utilizing dynamite to make way for tracks to be placed.

The Final Stretch

Through all the harsh conditions by 1898, the track was mostly complete. The track began in Moscow, ran to Lake Baikal then a 4-hour ferry ride across the Lake to the next station which was in Ulan-Ude. From here the train went straight through Chinese Manchuria to Vladivostok. To solve the problem of the rail line going through China a different route from Ulan-Ude to Vladivostok was built along the Amur River. This rail line did not leave Russian territory and allowed for passage to Vladivostok without the need of entering Chinese territory in the event of a territory dispute. The desire to keep the railway in Russia resulted in the Amur River route being completed in 1904.

Then in 1904 development of the Railway would hasten with the outbreak of the Russo-Japanese War. The Circum Baikal route around the lake was still being brainstormed, some ideas had been played around with getting around the treacherous terrain that surrounds the lake, but nothing definitive had come to fruition. With the outbreak of the war, the need to utilize the railway to move troops and supplies around lake Baikal became apparent. The only way to circumnavigate the lake was with 2 steam ships that took 4 hours to cross Lake Baikal. However, the 2 steamships, one a freight car hauler and one a passenger vessel, were not enough to accommodate the large amount of movement needed to move an army across Russia. The ships were also stuck when the water froze over, rendering them useless. Some solutions to this problem were presented, the most popular being sledges that towed supplies to the Ulan-Ude station on the other side of the lake. There were attempts to build a track straight on the ice, but the first attempt to put a locomotive on the ice caused it to go straight through, plunging into the depths of the lake. This further reinforced sledges as the solution to the problem.

The terrain on the shores of Lake Baikal was treacherous to build a track onto. It was rocky and rigid and had cliffs that were very dangerous to work on. The original plan was to make tunnels through the rocks to the other side, but when it was decided it would take around 30 tunnels to have a place to lay track it was decided that the track would be built along the shore. To make enough progress to lay track along the rocky terrain in one day it took an entire cart of dynamite. This ground down progress to an extremely slow pace, even with the hastening of progress from the Russo-Japanese War. The track, however, was eventually completed in 1905, finally connecting East and West Russia and completing the largest Railway in the world.

What do you think of the Trans-Siberian Railway? Let us know below.

Sources

Marks, Steven G. Road to power: The Trans-Siberian railroad and the colonization of Asian Russia: 1850-1917. Cornell University Press, 1991.

Tupper, Harmon. To the Great Ocean: Siberia and the Trans-Siberian railway. Brown & Company, 1965.

Why are China and Taiwan even Separate? A Tale of Two Chinas - Part 2

A rival nationalist government formed on the island of Taiwan following the Chinese Civil War in 1949. This separation from the communist controlled mainland China has been a source of International tension ever since. Here, Victor Gamma looks at how and why mainland China separated from Taiwan. He continues the series by looking at the Chinese Civil War and how China and Taiwan grew apart.

Chiang Kai-shek and Mao Zedong meeting in 1945 in Chongqing, China.

Initially the political left (communist) & right (nationalist) wings of the KMT continued to cooperate in the United Front. But it wasn’t long before the conflict which would ultimately lead to the current China-Taiwan conflict began. On May 30, 1925, a crowd of Chinese students in Shanghai staged an anti-foreign protest at the International Settlement at Shanghai. The incident turned deadly when the Shanghai Municipal Police opened fire on the protesters. This sparked outrage throughout China, including the Canton/Hong Kong Strike. The CCP reaped the greatest benefit from these events and attracted many members. Conservatives and moderates grew alarmed at the growing power of the leftists. Right and left also clashed over policy: the left pushed the strike while the Nationalists wanted to end the strike because much of their financial support was coming from foreign trade. Moreover, Chiang was trying to consolidate his control in anticipation of the coming campaign to unify China and did not want political disunity in the ranks. For this reason, as well as suspicion of a possible communist take-over of the Nationalist movement, on March 20, in what is called the Canton Coup, he purged communist elements from the Nationalist army. Chiang moved to limit the fallout from the purge by taking actions to conciliate the Soviets and the remaining leftists. He still desired Soviet support as well as help from the CCP for the campaign fight against the warlords.  

Shortly thereafter, Chiang launched his long - awaited campaign against the warlords. By March, 1927 Chiang had taken Nanjing. Here the fall of the city was accompanied by widespread looting and rioting with foreign warships bombarding the city. This led to conflict between Nationalists and communists. Chiang believed that the Russians and communists instigated the riots and stirred up anti-foreign feelings deliberately to increase their own power and weaken the KMT. Therefore, on April 12, 1927 he ordered the violent purging of communists in Shanghai. This marked the official beginning of all-out war against the communists and the start of the Chinese Civil War. In addition to Nanjing, the nationalist government had moved to Wuhan. Here leftists took control, acting largely independent of Chiang’s authority. By April the Wuhan government had gone beyond that to actually acting against Chiang. They issued a series of edicts reducing Chiang’s authority. They also began to construct a parallel government in KMT territory.  Chiang clearly could not move forward against the warlords and felt it necessary to halt his advance in order to deal with the communists. This marks a pattern which appeared throughout Chiang’s career; no matter how great the problem, he always placed the communists or internal threats as his greatest threat and would cease all other operations to deal with them. And so in the spring of 1927, he halted the anti-warlord campaign and violently turned on the communists. He began with a purge of communists in Shanghai. 

On August 1, 1927, the Communist Party launched an uprising in Nanchang against the Nationalist government in Wuhan. Around 20,000 communist members of the Kuomintang revolted and took over the city of Nanchang. This incident is called the Nanchang uprising. It resulted in the formation of the People Liberation Army and is still celebrated today as “Army Day.” Ultimately, however, the communists withdrew into a remote location to rebuild their strength. Chiang launched several offensives in an attempt to destroy the communists once and for all, but they managed to elude his pursuing armies to reach the safety of a remote city in Shaanxi Province called Yenan. Once settled in their new base, the communists carried an intensive training and indoctrination program to “correct unorthodox tendencies,” mold the peasantry into the communist model and become an effective force.

Anti-communism

Scholars have debated the reasons that Chiang turned on the communists. There are multiple reasons. Chiang was a reformer but also a traditionalist. Although recognizing the need for modernization, he was deeply connected to the past. He was, in fact, a neo-Confucianist. He was an ardent admirer of Tseng Guo Fan, the 19th century paragon of Confucian virtue. In addition to that, like Chiang, Tseng also was involved in leading the government forces in restoring unity to China through quelling the Taiping Rebellion. One of Tseng’s superiors said  “Taiping Rebellion is a disease of the heart, Russia is a disease of the elbow and axilla, England is a disease of skin; We should exterminate Taiping first, then Russia and England.” Chiang repeated this phrase almost word for word in an interview years later, substituting “Taiping” with “communist” - “Remember, the Japanese are a disease of the skin, but the communists are a disease of the soul.” He was alarmed at ideologies that he felt threatened traditional Chinese culture. Chiang had a chance to observe a communist regime up close when he was in Russia for training and rejected it as an appropriate system of government for China. He felt it to be an alien ideology that undermined Chinese traditions. He attempted to unify China both politically and ideologically. Part of his ideological effort would become the “New Life Movement.” This would be a civic campaign that promoted confucian values as well as cultural reform. It was partly launched as a counter to communist ideology. He also was not interested in sharing power. He believed one of China’s greatest needs at this time was one leader firmly in control. The communists had demonstrated that they would not submit to Chiang. One of the first objectives the communists focused on when they gained power in Wuhan during the Northern Expedition, for instance, was an attempt to strip Chiang of his power.

World War II

The state of civil war continued until 1937, when the Japanese invasion forced the two sides into the Second United Front for the duration of the Second Sino-Japanese War (1937- 45) Although technically allies in the struggle against Japan, the Front never functioned as a firm alliance, even at times resembling more a hostile competition than an alliance. In practice, though, cooperation between the two factions was minimal. Chiang, in fact, instead of an aggressive strategy against the Japanese, hoarded his forces for the post-war showdown with the communists.

At the end of World War II, although technically on the winning side, the Nationalists were psychologically the losers in the eyes of many Chinese, especially peasants. They were seen as putting more energy into trying to exterminate the communists than fighting the rapacious foreign invader. Some even blamed Chiang for Japanese depredations by using forces against his internal political foes that could have been used against the Japanese. Chiang, in fact, had to be forced at gunpoint to agree to the Second United Front in the first place. Even before the guns fell silent in 1945, he had lost the war for the hearts and minds of the peasants, who were 90% of the population. His alliance with the mercantile and landowning class helped tie Chiang to conservatism. He had little understanding of the plight of the peasants.  His communist rivals, meantime, worked feverishly and brilliantly to build a powerful following, based largely on peasant support. This included a military force that numbered into the 600,000 range by 1945. While Chiang’s Nationalist movement was riddled with corruption and lack of real reform, the communists won the hearts and minds of vast numbers through the training, land reform and fierce, consistent commitment to the struggle against Japan and whatever injustice the peasants had been traditionally subjected to.

In 1945 both Nationalist and communist forces accepted the surrender of Japanese forces. Sovereignty had been restored, but not unity. Both Chiang and Mao knew that the long-awaited showdown was about to commence. After a brief period of post-war cooperation, the old animosities erupted into civil war again. This time, the communists were the winners. The Nationalists retreated to Taiwan but never surrendered, just as the communists had refused to surrender despite a succession of defeats in the late 1920’s and 1930’s.

After the Civil War

For some time after the Nationalists fled to Taiwan both sides insisted that they were only the official government of China. A strict policy of no contact  followed. Chiang reformed the corrupt Nationalist Party and, with American aid, set Taiwan on the path of economic modernization and growth. After Chiang’s death in 1975, political reforms also took place. By the 1990’s, Taiwan was not only an economic powerhouse but full-fledged democracy. Meanwhile, Taiwan has largely given up its claim to the mainland. In 1991 Taiwan declared that the war with the PRC was over. 

In 2000 Taiwan transitioned to a multi-party democracy when the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) won the presidency. Although the KMT is still important, it now shares power with other parties. The DPP backs full independence so Beijing viewed the election results with alarm. The PRC backed up its disapproval with the "anti-secession law." The law flatly states that Beijing will use force if Taiwan "secedes" by declaring full independence. The DPP returned to power as Tsai Ing-wen, became Taiwan's first female president in 2016. More importantly for the mainland, she is a firm supporter of independence. In words that are sure NOT to warm the heart of Beijing, Tsai declared "Choosing Tsai Ing-wen... means we choose our future and choose to stand with democracy and stand with freedom."   

China has offered a "one country, two systems" scenario in which Taiwan would enjoy significant autonomy while still under Beijing's control. The mainland also would promise not to use force in resolving the issue. Taiwan turned down the proposal.

Differences

Why doesn't Taiwan want to be under Beijing's control?  it has seemed that the two Chinas have drawn closer together, for example beginning in the 1970s the mainland began economic reforms thus it seemed was becoming more similar to Taiwan. However, the mainland did not change the political one-party state and authoritarian regime which is not a democracy. Taiwan, along with the whole world, watched the 1989 Tiananmen square massacre. Hong Kong was promised a "one country, two systems" arrangement in 1997 as China prepared to take back the British Colony. Included was a 50 year promise that Hong Kong would enjoy its capitalist system as well as political freedoms. In 2020, though, Beijing cracked down on basic freedoms with a Security Act that allows the government to punish or silence critics or dissenters. As of this writing, well over a hundred individuals have been arrested for political reasons. Taiwan at one time was an authoritarian dictatorship, it has now diverged even more from communism, evolving into now a free market and a genuine democracy. 

This contemporary dispute reflects China's painful journey from its time-honored ways of old to modernity. A struggle for stability and prosperity and self-respect consumed that nation in the 20th Century. This journey involved the fundamental question of how China should be organized: the nationalist/traditionalist view - which eventually evolved into today's democratic Taiwan, and the communist (with a semi-capitalist economy) vision, now ruling the mainland. These two paths represent the right and left ideologically, one which looked to the West and its liberal traditions and traditional Chinese culture and the other which turned to distinctly antiliberal doctrines of Marx and hostility towards the past. These two approaches struggled over who's vision would succeed. In a sense, then, this struggle has never truly ended and continues to threaten global stability. The world watches to see how far Beijing will go in achieving its goal of one China. 

What do you think of the China and Taiwan separation? Let us know below.

Now read Victor’s article on the explosive history of the bikini here.

References

CHIANG ATTACKS WARLORDS AND REDS - 11. Chiang Attacks Warlords and Reds

Timeline: Taiwan’s road to democracy - Timeline: Taiwan's road to democracy | Reuters