What if Mohandas, “Mahatma” Gandhi had not been assassinated?

On January 30, 1948, the world mourned the loss of one of its greatest advocates for peace and nonviolence, Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, affectionately known as Mahatma Gandhi. His assassination sent shockwaves through India and the rest of the world, leaving many to ponder the question: What if Gandhi had not been assassinated?

Terry Bailey considers this question.

Mahatma Gandhi in 1942.

Before delving into the hypothetical, it's crucial to understand the profound impact Gandhi had during his lifetime. His philosophy of nonviolent resistance, or Satyagraha, not only played a major role in India's independence movement but also inspired countless civil rights and freedom movements worldwide. Gandhi's teachings on ahimsa, (nonviolence) and his emphasis on social justice continue to resonate with people across generations.

If Gandhi had not been assassinated, his presence would have significantly influenced post-independence India's political landscape. At the time of his death, India was grappling with religious and political tensions, particularly between Hindus and Muslims. Gandhi's vision for a united, pluralistic India would have likely shaped policies and initiatives aimed at fostering harmony and inclusivity.

Gandhi was a staunch advocate for economic self-sufficiency and rural development. His promotion of khadi, (hand-spun cloth) and cottage industries was aimed to empower rural communities and reduce dependence on imported goods. Had Gandhi lived longer, he might have spearheaded initiatives to strengthen India's rural economy and bridge the urban-rural divide, emphasizing sustainable development practices.

Reforms

Another area where Gandhi's prolonged presence could have made a significant impact is in social reforms and equality. He championed the rights of marginalized communities, including Dalits, (formerly known as untouchables) and women. Gandhi's advocacy for social justice would likely have continued, influencing policies and societal norms to address caste discrimination, gender inequality, and other social injustices.

Beyond India's borders, Gandhi's influence on international relations and peace building would have been profound. His principles of nonviolence and dialogue could have played a crucial role in resolving conflicts and promoting peaceful coexistence among nations. Gandhi's leadership on global platforms would have amplified calls for disarmament, human rights, and environmental stewardship.

However, it's essential to acknowledge that Gandhi's continued presence would not have been without challenges and opposition. His ideologies faced criticism from various quarters, including radical factions and those advocating for more aggressive approaches to governance and conflict resolution. Navigating these differing viewpoints while staying true to his principles would have been a delicate balance for Gandhi.

Legacy

Even without the hypothetical scenario of Gandhi surviving beyond 1948, his legacy has endured, albeit in different ways. His teachings and philosophy continue to inspire movements for justice, equality, and peace worldwide. Gandhi's emphasis on individual and collective responsibility for social change still remains relevant in addressing contemporary challenges.

It cannot be more over stated that the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi robbed the world of a visionary leader whose influence extended far beyond his lifetime. Imagining a world where Gandhi had not been assassinated offers interesting insight into the potential trajectories of India's development, global peace efforts, and social justice movements. While we can only speculate on what might have been, Gandhi's teachings continue to guide and inspire people in their quests for a better world, reminding us of the enduring power of nonviolence, truth, and compassion.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What if President John F. Kennedy had not been assassinated?

What if? In this case, (what if?), refers to John F Kennedy. As we ask this  question; what if John F Kennedy had not been assassinated? This intriguing question suggests an immense train of thought.

Terry Bailey considers the question.

President John F. Kennedy just before being assassinated.

Certain events in history stand out as key periods in time, especially for those individuals who lived through those times when particular events actually took place. The assassination of John F Kennedy is one such moment in time. It is said that many individuals can tell you where and what they were doing when the news broken.

The assassination of John F. Kennedy, the charismatic leader of the United States of America, (USA), on that fateful day in 1963, remains etched in collective memory. Yet, what if the tragic event had never occurred? What if Kennedy had continued to guide America through the tumultuous decade that followed?

In this speculative exploration we take a journey into a possible alternate scenario where Kennedy's leadership endured, thus able to ponder the potential ramifications and the enduring legacy of a leader untouched by an assassin's bullet.

To envision a world where John F. Kennedy survives, we must first grasp the landscape of his presidency. Kennedy, renowned for his eloquence, charisma, and vision, steered the USA, through a period marked by Cold War tensions, economic upheaval, and social transformation. His presidency was defined by initiatives aimed at fostering international cooperation, advancing civil rights, and navigating the intricacies of global politics.

Had Kennedy not fallen victim to assassination, his continued leadership would have undoubtedly left an indelible mark not only on American society but also the world stage.

His commitment to diplomacy and dialogue might have ushered in a new era of détente, easing tensions between East and West and laying the groundwork for more peaceful coexistence. Moreover, his advocacy for civil rights could have spurred further progress in addressing systemic injustices and promoting equality both at home and abroad.

Global influence

Economic policies under Kennedy's stewardship might have focused on bolstering infrastructure, investing in education, and fostering innovation, thereby fueling economic growth and prosperity. His ambitious vision for space exploration, exemplified by the lunar landing mission, could have inspired renewed scientific and technological advancements, shaping the future of humanity's exploration of the cosmos, which has only been realized today.

The ripple effects of Kennedy's continued leadership would have reverberated far beyond America’s borders, influencing geopolitical dynamics and reshaping international relations. His emphasis on diplomacy and multilateralism might have led to greater cooperation among nations, averting conflicts and forging alliances based on shared interests and mutual respect.

In the realm of nuclear disarmament, Kennedy's unwavering commitment to arms control agreements could have hastened progress towards a safer, more secure world, reducing the specter of nuclear annihilation that loomed large during the Cold War era. His adept handling of national and International dilemmas, such as the Cuban Missile Crisis, could have set a precedent for defusing tensions and resolving conflicts through dialogue and negotiation.

Moreover, Kennedy's advocacy for human rights and democracy may have inspired movements for freedom and self-determination around the globe, challenging authoritarian regimes and promoting the spread of democratic ideals. His leadership would have provided a beacon of hope for those striving for liberty and justice, amplifying the voices of the oppressed and marginalized.

Conclusion

In contemplating the hypothetical continuation of Kennedy's presidency, one cannot overlook the enduring legacy he would have left behind. His vision, courage, and charisma captured the imagination of millions, inspiring future generations to pursue noble ideals and strive for a better world. His tragic and early death robbed the world of a leader whose potential remained largely untapped, leaving behind a legacy tinged with unfulfilled promises and lingering questions of what might have been.

Yet, even in the realm of conjecture, Kennedy's legacy endures as a testament to the power of leadership in shaping the course of history. His words still resonate, his deeds still inspire, and his vision still beckons us forward towards a brighter future. In the end, whether in reality or in speculation, John F. Kennedy stands as a towering figure in the pantheon of great leaders, reminding us of the boundless possibilities that await those who dare to dream and strive for greatness.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What if Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria had not been Assassinated?

Few events in history have had such far-reaching consequences as the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria on June 28, 1914, in Sarajevo. This single act of violence set off a chain reaction that led to the First World War, reshaping the geopolitical landscape of the world. However, what if Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated? What alternate course might history have taken? Delving into the speculative realm of "what ifs" we can consider the potential ramifications of a world where the Archduke either was not assassinated or survived the assassination attempt.

Terry Bailey considers this question.

Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

The first and most immediate consequence of Franz Ferdinand's survival would have been the avoidance or delay of the First World War. His assassination served as the catalyst for the conflict, prompting Austria-Hungary to issue an ultimatum to Serbia, which in turn led to a series of alliances being invoked, drawing Europe into a devastating war. Without this trigger, the delicate balance of power that existed among the European nations might have persisted, potentially averting the catastrophic conflict that claimed millions of lives.

With the potential avoidance of the First World War, the geopolitical landscape of Europe would have remained vastly different than we understand it today. The collapse of empires such as the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman, Russian, and German would not have occurred in the same manner, altering the course of history for countless nations and peoples. The rise of communism in Russia, the Treaty of Versailles, and the subsequent economic turmoil that paved the way for the Second World War, all these pivotal events might have been drastically different or potentially avoided altogether.

One of the key factors in Franz Ferdinand's assassination was the simmering ethnic tensions within the Austro-Hungarian Empire, particularly in Bosnia and Herzegovina. The Archduke, who was heir to the throne, advocated for a federalist solution that would grant greater autonomy to the empire's various ethnic groups. Had he lived, Franz Ferdinand may have pursued these reforms more aggressively, seeking to defuse the ethnic tensions that ultimately led to his assassination. His vision of a more inclusive and decentralized empire could have laid the groundwork for greater stability and harmony within Austria-Hungary.

Diplomacy

Furthermore, Franz Ferdinand was known for his pragmatism and skepticism towards war. Unlike some of his more hawkish counterparts within the Austrian government, he favored diplomatic solutions over military intervention. His survival could have shifted the course of Austrian foreign policy towards a more conciliatory stance, reducing the likelihood of conflicts that could escalate into global wars.

Beyond Europe, the survival of Franz Ferdinand could have had significant implications for the fate of the Ottoman Empire and the Middle East. With Austria-Hungary's focus redirected towards internal reforms and diplomatic solutions, the empire might have been less inclined to support the Central Powers during the First World War. This could have weakened the Ottoman Empire's position and altered the outcome of events such as the Armenian Genocide and the subsequent partitioning of the Middle East by European powers.

Moreover, the survival of Franz Ferdinand could have influenced the trajectory of the United States' involvement in global affairs. Without the impetus of the First World War, the United States might have remained more isolationist, avoiding the entanglements that ultimately drew it into the international arena. The absence of American intervention could have altered the balance of power during the war and shaped the subsequent peace negotiations in unforeseen ways.

Technology and culture

In the realm of technology and culture, the avoidance of a World War could have led to different innovations and artistic movements. The war,  as all wars do, spurred advancements in military technology and medicine, but it also brought about immense human suffering and destruction. In a world where the First World War never occurred, resources that were diverted towards military efforts could have been invested in other areas, potentially accelerating scientific progress for peaceful means, in addition to, cultural developments.

Naturally, it is impossible to predict with certainty how history would have unfolded if Archduke Franz Ferdinand had not been assassinated. The interconnectedness of events and the myriad factors at play make any speculation inherently hypothetical. However, by examining the potential consequences of a non-assassination or his survival, we gain insight into the pivotal role that individuals can play in shaping the course of history and the profound impact that seemingly small events can have on the world stage.

In conclusion, the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria set off a chain reaction that led to the First World War and its far-reaching consequences. However, by considering the hypothetical scenario where Franz Ferdinand survived, we glimpse a different path, one where war and upheaval might have been averted, and the course of history irrevocably altered. While we can only speculate on the details of such an alternate reality, the exercise serves as a reminder of the fragility and complexity of human history.

Did you find that piece interesting? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Polish Army’s World War 2 Bear Soldier

World War 2 has many unpleasant tales, but occasionally a tale isn’t so unpleasant. Here, Lior Bouchnik looks at how a bear came to be part of the Polish Army – and even helped in a major battle.

Wojtek the bear with a Polish soldier during World War II.

It all starts at the opening shot of the Second World War. 1939 - the invasion of Poland by Germany and the USSR and the following annexation left millions of formally Polish citizens under Soviet authority. In 1942, amid the deportation of thousands of Polish civilians, the Ander’s Army was formed, a common name for the Polish armed forces in the east. Ander’s army accompanied the deported Polish citizens to Iran which became a refugee camp that received up to 2,500 people per day, and in total 116,000.

On April 8, 1942, the Polish soldiers stationed in Iran brought with them was the 18-year-old niece of General Bolesław Długoszowski who persuaded her uncle to buy a small Syrian bear cub from a young Iranian boy. The boy claimed that he found the cub after the bear's mother was shot by hunters. The young cub accompanied the soldiers and was given the name Wojtek, an old Slavic name that loosely translates to “happy warrior”. The cub grew into a bear on the campaign and as he grew, he became more than just a mascot to the Polish soldiers. The cub learned to adapt as he lived among them, imitating their actions. Wojtek learned to salute and he even started standing on his hind legs and marching beside them. Wojtek also developed a love for drinking beer and eating cigarettes, but he would only eat lit ones otherwise he would refuse to consume them. He and the soldiers enjoyed wrestling together and on cold nights he would sleep with them.

Battle of Monte Cassino

Wojtek moved with the 22nd Artillery Supply Company all around the Middle East. First, they moved to Iraq then Syria, Palestine, and finally Egypt, and when it came time for his major contribution in the Battle of Monte Cassino, he weighed 90 kilograms (200 pounds). The Polish soldiers of the 2nd Polish Corps were tasked with joining the British 8th Army in the campaign to liberate Italy. By now Wojtek developed a close bond with his human companions, who treated him like a fellow soldier, and when they were told that the designated ship that was supposed to carry them to Italy forbade mascots and pets, they did what they felt was the only natural step. To account for his rations and transportation Wojtek was officially enlisted as a soldier. He was listed among the soldiers with his given name, he had his own serial number and pay book. He lived with the other soldiers in tents or in a special wooden crate, which was transported by truck.

In the 1944 Battle of Monte Cassino, Wojtek continued to showcase his learned behavior by helping his unit move heavy ammunition onto trucks. Wojtek helped the soldiers by carrying himself 45 kg (100 Ib) crates of 11 kg (25 Ib) artillery shells that normally required four men. Wojtek helped to speed up the loading process, and the positive effect on the soldier's morale did not go unnoticed. His efforts earned him a promotion to the rank of corporal. Wojtek was later immortalized by the 22nd Artillery Supply Company by becoming their official emblem, showcasing a depiction of a bear carrying an artillery shell.

After the war

 After the war in 1947, Wojtek was given to Edinburgh Zoo where he spent the rest of his life. He was often visited by his former Polish comrades who threw him cigarettes to eat like he used to do in their shared time in the army. Wojtek died on December 2, 1963, aged 21, weighing nearly 500 kg (1,100 pounds) and being over 1.8 m (5 ft 11 in) tall. Wojtek's legacy is one of family. In the war ridden world of the 1940s, Wojtek was much like the Polish soldiers who lost their homes, and what started as a mere amusement to the soldiers became real comradery. The Polish soldiers gave Wojtek a family and he returned the favor in equal measure, by boosting morale, by being one of them. In what must be one of the most unique stories of the war, soldiers found a true comrade who didn’t have a flag or a nation to fight for, just a group of Polish soldiers who became his only family.

Now read about the cat that survived 3 ships sinking during World War 2 here.

More from Lior can be found here.

Myron Taylor: A Man on a Mission

Thomas Carlyle once opined that “the history of the world is but the biography of great men.”  And that is certainly true in the case of Myron C. Taylor, whose consequential life helps explain a great deal about the 20th Century.

Taylor was born in 1874, and grew up in the small, upstate town of Lyons (in Wayne County), just south of Lake Ontario. Taylor went to the Cornell Law School in Ithaca, graduating with a Bachelor of Laws degree in 1894.  Returning to Lyons, he established a small law practice, but shortly transitioned to helping his father’s tannery business.  That quickly led to bigger things.

Taylor soon became America’s leading industrialist: first as the “czar” of the textile industry; and later, in the 1920s and 30s, as CEO of U.S. Steel.  Thereafter, he became a key diplomatic participant in some of the most important geopolitical events of the World War II era.  Taylor is little remembered today, however, because of his intense personal dislike for self-promotion and publicity; for much of his business career, the national media called him “the man nobody knows.”

C. Evan Stewart explains.

Myron Taylor in the Vatican. Image provided by the author.

Ambassador Extraordinary

Having literally saved U.S. Steel from ruin during the depths of the Depression and then restoring it to its position as the country’s most important corporation, Taylor stepped down as CEO in April of 1938; he hoped to enter a “sabbatical period of life” with his wife, Anabel.  But his friend, President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asked him to take on an assignment: could Taylor help solve the crisis of Jews who were attempting to flee persecution in Nazi Germany.  Taylor’s efforts actually led to a deal with Hitler and Germany, whereby 150,000 “able-bodied” Jews were to be permitted to emigrate, with their dependents to follow later.  Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles told the president it was “better than we hoped for.”  Unfortunately, with the Nazi invasion of Poland (which led to World War II), that deal came to naught.

Then, right before Christmas 1939, FDR called on Taylor again, asking him to be the president’s personal representative to Pope Pius XII (with the rank of “Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary”). This very controversial appointment, which FDR undertook for multiple reasons (e.g., domestic politics; his wanting a third term; trying to influence Church policy (and its internal politics) in the United States; getting international-diplomatic information at the Vatican; influencing the Vatican on geopolitical issues; etc.), led to what was widely known as the “Taylor Mission.”  And in fulfilling that Mission over the next eleven years, Taylor was at the heart many of the era’s critical matters, including: (i) efforts to keep Italy, Spain, and Portugal out of the war on the Axis side; (ii) ensuring that Lend-Lease aid got to the Soviet Union in 1941, which at that point was about to be overrun by the German army; (iii) bringing the first documented proof of the Holocaust to the Vatican in September of 1942; (iv) ensuring that the Church would support the Allies’ policy of unconditional surrender (and later, not break with that policy); (v) helping to broker Italy’s surrender and Mussolini’s departure; (vi) blocking German attempts to have the Vatican broker a peace; (vii) helping to godfather the Bretton Woods agreement and the United Nations; (viii) almost single-handedly helping Italy recover from the war; and (ix) under President Truman, engaging in an effort to have all the world’s religions unite against atheistic communism (i.e., the Soviet Union).

Lend-Lease to Russia

To cover all the foregoing (and more), readers will have to pick up Myron Taylor: The Man Nobody Knows (Twelve Tables Press).  For the remainder of this article, the focus will be on Taylor’s critical role in ensuring Lend-Lease aid got to Russia in 1941.

On March 11, 1941, FDR signed the controversial Lend-Lease legislation. Premised on the president’s campaign pledge in 1940 for America to be the “great arsenal of democracy,” it was understood - by Congress and the American public - to apply only to providing assistance to Great Britain, then isolated and under the German attacks known as the “Blitz.”

On June 24, 1941, the geopolitical world was up-ended when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union.  The German army’s advance through Russian territory was swift; FDR and his top advisors feared that the if the USSR were to be overrun and conquered, then stopping the Nazi regime when (not if) the United States became a belligerent might well provide impossible. (Henry Stimson, the Secretary of War, told FDR that Russia might not last three months.)  The president was determined to provide substantial military assistance to Joseph Stalin, but there was a very significant roadblock.

In 1937, the Vatican had issued the Encyclical Divini Redemptoris - issued by Pope Pius XI (but authored by his Secretary of State, who would succeed him as Pope Pius XII).  That Encyclical condemned in no uncertain terms the Soviet Union and expressly forbade all Catholics from having anything to do with supporting that nation-state. Given the 1937 Encyclical and the strong isolationistic sentiments of many American Catholics, FDR feared that the political backlash would prove too great if he tried to extend Lend-Lease aid to Russia.  (For example, the Bishop of Buffalo had publicly stated that Catholics would be justified in not serving in the U.S. military if the country were allied with the Soviet Union.)  In the words of Robert Sherwood (an FDR speechwriter and later biographer), “[a]s a measure for coping with serious Catholic opposition to aid for the Soviet Union, Roosevelt decided to send Myron C. Taylor … on another mission to Rome.”

Myron Taylor shares a letter from FDR with the Pope. Image provided by the author.

Threading the Needle

Before his trip, Taylor, together with two Church officials in the United States and Sumner Welles, devised a strategy to thread the needle of the 1937 Encyclical: that any U.S. aid would not constitute supporting communism, but would instead be directed at alleviating the suffering of the Russian people, for whom the Pope and the Church always had special affection.  But that nuanced approach to the problem got off to a rocky start at Taylor’s first meeting with the Pope on September 9, 1941.  FDR had asked Taylor to present a hand-written letter to the Pope, a document which went to great lengths to assure him that “the churches in Russia are open” and that “freedom of religion” was a likely outcome of the Nazi’s invasion.  The Pope and his advisors were incredulous; at least seven Vatican memoranda were prepared in response to FDR’s letter, many of them questioning the president’s mental state and his grasp on reality.

Notwithstanding FDR’s blunder, Taylor, over a number of days and multiple sessions with the Pope and his advisors, was able to get the Vatican to agree to the concept of delinking the Russian people from the Soviet Union; but this message could not be seen as being issued from or dictated by the Pope or the Vatican.  Instead, guidance would be sent to the Apostolic Delegate in Washington to have the message delivered by a high-ranking member of the Church in America.

Once Taylor returned to America, in consultation with the Apostolic Delegate and other Church officials, it was decided to effectuate the Vatican’s hidden-hand strategy by having an outspoken isolationistic Church leader - Archbishop McNicholas of Cincinnati - deliver the message.  With time of the essence - not only were German troops closing in on Moscow, but a second Lend-Lease appropriations bill was pending in Congress and over 90% of available Lend-Lease funds had already been allocated - McNicholas was summoned to Washington and given his marching orders.

On October 30, 1941, McNicholas published a pastoral letter (which received broad national coverage and was printed in toto in the Congressional Record) explicitly endorsing the need for America to help the “persecuted people of Russia, deprived of freedom and put in bondage.”  That same day, FDR cabled Stalin that he had approved $1 billion of war materials to be shipped to the USSR.  But the president waited a week for the McNicholas letter to sink in and take effect in the American body politic (and Congress).  As Sherwood wrote: “It is an indication of Roosevelt’s concern for public opinion that he did not formerly include the Soviet Union among the recipients of Lend Lease until November 7.”

In the words of the leading historian on the decision to aid the USSR in 1941, because of “Myron Taylor’s special mission to the Vatican” - which had secured the Church’s overt approval of such aid, “[s]o perished the great dread of the President that the encyclical of Pius XI would provide a sanction for equating aid to Russia with aid to communism and thereby permit his opponents to insist with telling force that his program was in conflict with the doctrines of the Church.”  Ultimately, eleven billion dollars in aid was sent to the Soviet Union to help them repulse the Nazis.  And at the Tehran Conference, Stalin toasted that, without the U.S.’s war materials, the USSR would have been overrun.  In reflecting upon Taylor’s contribution to this historic result (which was “given no great amount of publicity”), Sherwood wrote: “Taylor was one who truly deserved the somewhat archaic title of ‘Ambassador Extraordinary.’”

The Taylor Archives

Myron C. Taylor donated his papers to his alma mater, Cornell University, and I drew upon these papers (in the University’s Olin Library) for this article.  Other archival sources with important Taylor documents include the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library in Hyde Park, New York; the Harry S. Truman Presidential Library to Independence, Missouri; the Library of Congress in Washington, D.C.; and the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, Maryland; in addition, the Baker Library at Harvard University (papers of Thomas Lamont) and the Oral History Project at Columbia University (including oral histories of Frances Perkins, George Rublee, etc.) contain many valuable materials on Taylor’s life and career.  The Vatican has made many, but not all, archival materials covering the World War II era available for scholars.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What If Leon Trotsky had not been Assassinated?

Throughout history, certain moments stand out as pivotal turning points, altering the course of nations and shaping the destiny of millions. One such moment occurred on August 20, 1940, when an ice pick-wielding assassin attacked, Lev Davidovich Bronstein, better known as Leon Trotsky, the fiery revolutionary and one of architects of the Bolshevik Revolution. Trotsky died of his injuries the next day August 21, 1940.

However, what if fate had taken a different path? What if Trotsky had not met his untimely demise in Mexico City? The ripple effects of such a scenario would have undoubtedly reshaped the landscape of the 20th century, altering the trajectory of communism, world politics, and the course of countless lives.

Terry Bailey considers this alternative history.

Trotsky in Mexico, January 1937 with his wife Natalia Sedova. The artist Frida Kahlo is behind them.

The Rise of Trotsky

To understand the profound impact of Trotsky's hypothetical survival, we must first delve into his revolutionary legacy. A brilliant orator, strategist, and ideologue, Trotsky played a pivotal role in the overthrow of the Russian Tsarist regime in 1917. Alongside Vladimir Lenin, he galvanized the masses, leading the Bolsheviks to victory and laying the groundwork for the world's first communist state.

Had Trotsky survived the assassination attempt, he would have remained a formidable force within the Soviet Union. His intellectual prowess and unwavering commitment to Marxist principles would have posed a significant challenge to Joseph Stalin's consolidation of power. Unlike Stalin, whose brutal tactics and cult of personality alienated many within the party, Trotsky garnered widespread respect and admiration among the rank-and-file Bolsheviks. With his continued presence, the internal power struggle within the Communist Party would have taken a drastically different turn.

The Trotskyist Vision

Trotsky's vision of communism differed fundamentally from Stalin's authoritarian regime. While Stalin advocated for "socialism in one country," prioritizing the consolidation of power within the Soviet Union, Trotsky championed the concept of "permanent revolution." He believed that true socialism could only be achieved through the international spread of proletarian uprisings, challenging the global capitalist order and ushering in a new era of worldwide socialism.

Had Trotsky maintained his influence within the Soviet leadership, his emphasis on internationalism would have profoundly shaped Soviet foreign policy. Rather than pursuing a policy of isolationism and realpolitik, as Stalin did, Trotsky would have actively supported revolutionary movements abroad. This stance would have likely intensified tensions with capitalist powers, particularly the United States, leading to a more confrontational Cold War dynamic.

The Fate of Communism

One cannot ignore the impact Trotsky's survival would have had on the global communist movement. In the aftermath of Stalin's purges and the rise of authoritarian regimes in Eastern Europe, many disillusioned leftists looked to Trotskyism as a beacon of hope for a more democratic form of socialism. With Trotsky at the helm, the Fourth International would have emerged as a formidable challenger to both capitalist imperialism and Stalinist dogma.

Moreover, Trotsky's continued influence could have averted some of the excesses and atrocities committed in the name of communism. His commitment to democratic centralism and workers' democracy stood in stark contrast to Stalin's autocratic rule. By promoting a more decentralized and participatory form of governance, Trotsky may have prevented the worst abuses of state power, preserving the integrity of the socialist project.

The Legacy of Trotsky

In exploring the counterfactual scenario of Trotsky's survival, we are confronted with a multitude of possibilities and uncertainties. Would he have succeeded in his quest to overthrow Stalin and establish a more democratic socialist order? Or would he have met the same fate as countless other dissenters crushed by the machinery of the Soviet state?

Regardless of the outcome, one thing remains clear: Trotsky's legacy endures as a testament to the power of revolutionary ideals and the enduring struggle for social justice. His writings continue to inspire generations of activists and intellectuals, offering insights into the nature of power, oppression, and resistance. While his physical presence may have been extinguished on that fateful day in 1940, his spirit lives on in the ongoing quest for a world free from exploitation and inequality.

Conclusion

In contemplating the hypothetical scenario of Trotsky's survival, we are compelled to confront the complexities and contradictions of history. The assassination of one man irrevocably altered the course of world events, unleashing a chain reaction of consequences that continue to reverberate to this day. Yet, amidst the uncertainty and speculation, one thing remains certain: the enduring legacy of Leon Trotsky serves as a reminder of the transformative power of revolutionary thought and the indomitable spirit of those who dare to challenge the status quo. As we reflect on the road not taken, we are reminded of the countless possibilities that lie ahead, waiting to be shaped by the actions and aspirations of those who refuse to accept the world as it is and strive to create a better one in its place.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

What You May Not Know About the History of U.S. Election Campaign Trains

Whistle-stop campaign trains were an effective way for politicians to connect with voters in large cities and small towns for more than 185 years. Unfortunately, memories of the pivotal role that trains played in elections fade a bit more with the passing of each generation.

In researching the history of the trains for my new book, Whistle-Stop Politics, I came across dozens of stories and largely forgotten pieces of information about candidates who sought votes from the back of trains at railroad stations across the country.

Here are a few examples that will likely be new to today’s voters.

Edward Segal explains. Edward is the author of Whistle-Stop Politics: Campaign Trains and the Reporters Who Covered Them (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

President Franklin D. Roosevelt on the Ferdinand Magellan train in April 1943. Source: White House History, available here.

Some Presidential Candidates Were Impersonated on the Campaign Trail

To provide candidates respite from the rigors of the campaign trail, stand-ins would occasionally deceive people into thinking they had seen the whistle-stopping politicians. The list of those who were impersonated by their staff, family members, and reporters includes William Jennings Bryan, Eugene Debs, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower.

During his 1936 campaign train tour, FDR said he was tired of sitting by the window of his railcar and waving to the crowds at every town the train passed through, according to Bernard Asbell, author of When F.D.R. Died.

That’s when Roosevelt asked White House usher William D. Simmons, “How would you like to be President for a while? Only for a little while. Maybe an hour or two,” Asbell recounted.

“With a flourish, [Roosevelt] turned over his cigarette holder to Simmons and showed him how to wave a big, open-fingered hand in the Rooseveltian manner and how to smile a big, open-jawed smile,” Asbell wrote in his book. ‘Fine! Fine!’ the President said again. ‘Now, every time we pass a town, just sit there and wave. I’m tired. I’m going to take a nap.’”

All across Arkansas, “Simmons sat by the President’s window. At each town, the train slowed, not too little, nor too much, just enough so the local townsfolk could experience the incomparable thrill of seeing someone who appeared to be Franklin Roosevelt waving to them,” Asbell noted.

Whistle-stopping Politicians Were Not Always Well-Received

Democratic running mates John Kerry and John Edwards faced a divided and raucous crowd when their campaign train pulled into Sedalia, Missouri, in 2004. “Holding candles, flashlights and posters, the people of Sedalia engaged in a shouting contest: Some called out ‘Four more years’ and ‘We want Bush,’ while their neighbors chanted, ‘Three more months’ and ‘Kerry! Kerry!’”

“The candidates could barely get a word in,” the Chicago Tribune reported. “Posters held aloft competed for attention too. There were signs that read ‘Give ’em hell, Kerry’ and others that simply said ‘W.’ “‘Will you let us speak? Will you let us speak, please?’ Edwards urged the jeering Republican section of the crowd.”

Lyndon Johnson Planned His 1960 Trackside Rallies

Lyndon Johnson designed the format of his 1960 vice presidential campaign train tour, according to historian Robert A. Caro, author of The Passage of Power: The Years of Lyndon Johnson.

As the LBJ Special approached towns, its public address system would be switched on, and over it would come the stirring strains of “The Yellow Rose of Texas.”  The music was turned up as the train neared the towns, until the song could be heard for several surrounding blocks.

Once the train arrived at depots, the music and the locomotive’s engine would stop simultaneously, a dark blue curtain that had been hung over the doorway onto the rear platform would be pulled aside, and the tall figure of Lyndon Johnson, waving a ten-gallon hat, would step through to address the crowd.

Johnson choreographed his departures, according to CBS News reporter George Herman. The candidate would signal an aide for the train to pull out of stations before he finished speaking, yelling to crowds that “They’re taking me away from ya! Bye, everybody! Vote Democratic! They’re taking me away from ya!”

A Candidate’s Train Was Ticketed

California governor Edmund G. Brown (father of future governor Jerry Brown) rode the “Progress Special” train during his losing battle for reelection in 1966 against his challenger, actor Ronald Reagan.

At a trackside gathering in downtown Inglewood, a Los Angeles suburb, the campaign special became the first whistlestop train to receive a ticket when local police issued a citation to the engineer for blocking a traffic intersection.

Will one of this year’s presidential or other candidates seek votes from the back of a railroad car? If so, it would be a fitting way to help celebrate the 188th anniversary of the first whistle-stop campaign train trip.

As a reminder, Edward is the author of Whistle-Stop Politics: Campaign Trains and the Reporters Who Covered Them (Amazon US | Amazon UK).

The Story of the Person who Founded the World’s First Anti-War Museum

In today's world, marked by escalating conflicts and geopolitical tensions, the principles of pacifism hold more significance than ever before. As wars once again ravage regions like Eastern Europe and the Middle East, the urgent need for nonviolent solutions and peaceful resolutions to international disputes becomes glaringly evident. Pacifism, rooted in the belief that violence and war are inherently destructive and counterproductive, advocates for the pursuit of peace through dialogue, diplomacy, and nonviolent resistance. Originating from various philosophical, religious, and cultural traditions, pacifism emphasizes the inherent dignity and worth of every human life, rejecting the notion that violence can ever be justified in achieving noble ends. One individual who epitomized the essence of pacifism and paid a heavy price for his unwavering commitment to nonviolence was Ernst Friedrich. Ahead of his time by a significant margin, Friedrich's steadfast refusal to participate in World War I and his unyielding opposition to militarism even led to his confinement in a mental institution.

Matti Geyer explains.

Ernst Friedrich.

Childhood & Youth

Ernst Friedrich was born on February 25, 1894, in Breslau (now Wrocław). Despite his humble beginnings as the thirteenth child of a washerwoman and a saddler, Friedrich's journey was marked by a relentless pursuit of justice and a commitment to pacifism. His parents imparted values of compassion and resilience that would shape Friedrich's lifelong dedication to humanitarian causes.

His early life was marked by the struggles of working-class existence. Despite limited formal education, he displayed a voracious appetite for knowledge and social activism. After a brief stint as a factory worker and an aborted apprenticeship as a book printer, Friedrich embarked on a journey of self-discovery, traversing Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Switzerland as a "journeyman." It was during this period of exploration that Friedrich's encounters with anarchist thought and socialist principles ignited the flames of rebellion within him. In 1911 he joined the Social Democratic Party, but it was the outbreak of World War I that catalyzed his transformation into an ardent pacifist.

First World War: Confrontation with Conscience

The outbreak of World War I in 1914 thrust Friedrich into the heart of a moral quandary. Confronted with the prospect of military service, he steadfastly refused to partake in the bloodshed, citing conscientious objection as his guiding principle. His refusal to don a uniform led to his confinement in a psychiatric observation station, where he endured the harsh realities of wartime incarceration. Not wanting to serve for one's fatherland was simply unimaginable at the time. In 1917, he was further sentenced to prison in Potsdam for sabotage in a war-critical enterprise. He was released at the end of 1918 due to the November Revolution.

Friedrich's activism took various forms, from his involvement with illegal anarchist groups to his founding of the "Freie Jugend" (Free Youth), an anarchist group with a publication of the same name, advocating for anarchist principles and antiauthoritarian socialism. His publications were frequently banned or confiscated, and Friedrich repeatedly found himself in court. Lawyer Hans Litten defended him in numerous trials. After several previous convictions, on November 14, 1930, he was once again sentenced to one year in prison for his political activities, specifically "preparation for high treason." He was alleged to have been involved in distributing antimilitarist texts among the police and the Reichswehr. Friedrich's commitment to peace ultimately found expression in his establishment of the International Anti-War Museum in Berlin in 1925, which served as a testament to the horrors of war and a rallying point for peace activists.

The Anti-War Museum

At the heart of Friedrich's activism lay the Anti-Kriegs-Museum, a pioneering institution dedicated to exposing the brutal realities of war. Through meticulous curation and compelling exhibits, Friedrich sought to shatter the romanticized notions of warfare propagated by the authorities. In addition to objects from the First World War, paintings by Käthe Kollwitz and Otto Dix were exhibited. Furthermore, the museum founder managed to acquire and exhibit photographs of war mutilations, which were also published in a two-volume book titled "War Against War." The museum was predominantly financed through the sales of this book. The exhibition also addressed the issue of children playing with toy soldiers.

Nazi Persecution & Exile

Even before the Nazi takeover in 1933, Ernst Friedrich was terrorized by them. The windows of the Anti-War Museum were constantly destroyed, and Friedrich was regularly subjected to violent attacks. After the Reichstag fire, he was arrested on February 28, 1933. After his release, he fled in December of the same year. For some time, he found refuge in the Rest-Home project operated by Quakers. His first wife Charlotte Friedrich, née Meier (1895-1981) was able to emigrate to England. 

The Nazis looted the Anti-War Museum in March 1933 and renamed it „Richard Fiedler House“ (after SA leader Richard Fiedler). It then served as a meeting place for the SA until the demolition of the building in 1936. 

Ernst Friedrich ended up in Belgium, where he simply reopened his museum in Brussels in 1936. However, it was once again destroyed in 1940 following the German occupation of Belgium.

Joining the French Resistance

Ernst Friedrich and his son (who was also called Ernst) fled to France, where they were interned by the Vichy regime in the St. Cyprien camp, later in the Gurs camp. He managed to escape not only once but twice: First, after 18 months of imprisonment and for a second time after the Gestapo had tracked him down. While his son was arrested and forced to work as an interpreter for the Gestapo, Ernst Friedrich, despite being a committed pacifist, now joined the Resistance, fought in the liberation of Nîmes and Alès, was wounded twice, but managed to save around seventy children from a Jewish orphanage from deportation. 

Despite enduring internment in French concentration camps and facing the constant threat of arrest by Nazi agents, Friedrich remained resolute in his commitment to peace and resistance. His tireless efforts to defy oppression and aid the persecuted stand as a testament to the indomitable spirit of human resilience.

Legacy of Peace

Following the war, Friedrich became a French citizen and joined the Socialist Party, dedicating himself to the establishment of a new anti-war museum in France. In 1954, he received compensation for the loss of his property and the physical damage suffered in the Third Reich. With this, he bought approximately 3,000 square meters of wooded area on a Seine island near Le Perreux-sur-Marne (Val-de-Marne), where he established an international youth center. The "Swiss Pavilion", the "Berlin Pavilion", and the "Tolstoy House" built here together had fifty beds. With the help of a German union, the "Île de la Paix" (Peace Island) became an international meeting place for working youth from 1961 onwards. Friedrich now symbolically appointed himself as the "World Minister of Peace“. 

Plagued by severe depression in his final years, he died in 1967. His grave is located in the 5th Division of the cemetery of Le Perreux-sur-Marne, Val-de-Marne department. Peace Island was sold after his death and his written legacy destroyed.

A new Anti-War Museum 

On May 2, 1982, the 15th anniversary of Friedrich's death, his museum was re-established in Berlin. It was temporarily located in Berlin-Kreuzberg (which had a large anarchist population at that point) and has been at its current location in the district of Wedding since October 1984. Since then, Ernst Friedrich's grandson, Tommy Spree, and a group of volunteers have been running it. It is now recognized as a non-profit organization and is largely funded by donations. The museum's volunteers support the idea of peace and collaborate with students, politicians, artists, and scholars to design exhibitions. It displays relics from both World Wars. Rotating exhibitions also explore peace movements worldwide. Modern warfare with chemical and biological weapons is also depicted. A highlight of the visit is the trip to the basement, which is an original air raid shelter from World War II. In the cramped, light-tight space, visitors can immerse themselves in the feeling of the anxious nights spent in the bunker.

At the old location of the first Anti-War Museum, where the building no longer exists, a memorial plaque has been installed, with two World War I helmets hanging from the wall, in which flowers are growing.

Matti Geyer is a historical tour guide in Berlin: www.toursofberlin.com. His "Off the beaten path"-tour goes past the site of the first Anti-War Museum.

References

1. Bartolf, Christian, and Dominique Miething. "Ernst Friedrich (1894–1967)." Handbuch Anarchismus, Springer VS, Wiesbaden, 2023.

2. Kegel, Thomas. "Ernst Friedrich. Anarchistische Pädagogik in Aktion." In: Ulrich Klemm (Ed.): Anarchismus und Pädagogik. Studien zur Rekonstruktion einer vergessenen Tradition, pp. 126–137. Dipa Verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 1991.

3. Kegel, Thomas. "‘Krieg dem Krieg!’ Ernst Friedrich – Anarchist und revolutionärer Antimilitarist." Graswurzelrevolution, Heft 115, June 1986.

4. Klemm, Ulrich. "Ernst Friedrich." In: Hans Jürgen Degen (Ed.): Lexikon der Anarchie.Verlag Schwarzer Nachtschatten, Bösdorf/Plön, 1993, ISBN 3-89041-008-1.

5. Linse, Ulrich. "Ernst Friedrich zum 10. Todestag." (Europäische Ideen, Heft 29). Verlag Europäische Ideen, Berlin, 1977.

6. Opel, Jürgen. "Vergessen in Deutschland - Das Anti-Kriegsmuseum des Ernst Friedrich." Freitag, September 6, 1991, p. 13.

7. Spree, Tommy. Ich kenne keine ‘Feinde’. Der Pazifist Ernst Friedrich. Ein Lebensbild.Anti-Kriegs-Museum, Selbstverlag, Berlin, 2000.

What was it like for Women in Edwardian Britain?

The end of the nineteenth century ushered in a new era, not just of social change but a new monarch, with the death of Queen Victoria in 1901. Edward VII (1901 – 1910) ascended the throne and the Edwardian era began. The twentieth century soon became plunged into war that marked a period of turmoil for Britain and Europe. Britain controlled a vast empire dominating globally and advancements in technology opened up new opportunities within domestic life, such as widespread use of electricity and in the speed of travel. This period of history underwent an acceleration of technological change with the conveniences of telegrams, telephones and the automobile.  The Edwardian era also experienced a fierce rise of female suffrage and the call for equality between the classes. This article explores the social changes that occurred in Britain during the Edwardian era and how the role of women shifted that contributed to a call for female suffrage.

Amy Chandler returns to the site and explains.

A 1909 poster Votes for Women. By Hilda Dallas.

After the death of Queen Victoria in 1901, her funeral was the picture of elegance, popularity and decadence that symbolized the end of the Victorian era of strict moral values and the rise of Edward VII and the golden age of decadence. Edward VII was seen as a socialite and a popular royal figure, but this image angered Queen Victoria, as she disliked the negative impact this would have on the crown. Under his short reign, Edward was able to strengthen ties with many nations in Europe as a ‘peacemaker’. (1) Edward also sought to modernize the monarchy and saw the value in the ceremonial role of the crown within society and Parliament. His deep bond with his wife Queen Alexandra was perceived as the symbol of unity and stability during a time of change. Due to the short length of his reign, the Edwardian era is seen as a golden age of development before the darkness of The Great War in 1914. For the middle and upper classes the Edwardian era experienced the steady incline in adopting an extravagant lifestyle with 25% of the population categorized as middle class.

The new woman

By the end of the nineteenth century, the role of middle-class women underwent radical changes with the emergence of the ‘New Woman’. Historically, wealthy women were often seen as second-class citizens without much independence, and their place in society remained firmly in the domestic sphere as the ‘Angel in the house’. In comparison, working class women had no choice but to work, and still look after their children.

This new image of women became a significant cultural icon coined by writer and public speaker Sarah Grand in 1894. (2) The stereotypical Victorian woman as a homemaker and child bearer was directly challenged by this radical image of an intelligent, educated, emancipated, independent and self-supporting woman. This was a movement that was not just confined to the select few of middle class, but also factory and office workers. (2) This new gender ideology played an integral role in influencing complex social change and the redefinition of gender roles within society. This was a significant factor in consolidating women’s rights and overcoming what many deemed as masculine supremacy. Other factors that propelled the success of the new woman included, developments of women entering the labor force, divorce legislation and education for women. (2) The turn of the century offered new opportunities for women that only gained in momentum for female suffrage. Statistics show that by 1901, 14% of women under the age of 45 did not marry and often became ostracized from society with their only options to continue living with family or become a companion to an older woman or widow.

The new woman was a popular figure for public ridicule by the press and satirist magazine Punch magazine that undermined the movement. One cartoon entitled, ‘The new woman’ published in 1895 by George du Maurier, depicted two women wearing androgynous clothing, smoking and lounging in two armchairs talking to a man hastily leaving the room. These actions in themselves were unladylike by Victorian standards.

The dialogue reads:

"You're not leaving us, Jack? Tea will be here directly!"

"Oh, I'm going for a cup of tea in the servants' hall. I can't get on without female society, you know!" (3)

George du Maurier’s cartoon emphasizes the growing uneasiness that some men experienced in this radical new woman and the growing confidence these women gained by challenging society’s views of what a woman should do and how to dress. Not all women left their husbands to become a new woman and many in the Edwardian era used their fine clothing to compound their femininity and status through how they dressed, acted and what events they attended. But this was just the start of new opportunities for women as technology offered another form of freedom for middle class women – employment.

The introduction of the typewriter to offices across Britain in the Edwardian era offered a new opportunity and freedom for women in the middle class through office work. An office clerk was traditionally a male profession and many documents were created by hand. However, the introduction of the typewriter and the increased demand for quick creation of documents birthed the role of the typist. Society saw typists as a suitable occupation for women as the power and roles of men were unaffected in the workplace. Typist roles appealed to middle-class women who were traditionally homebound and unemployed. This provided many women with the potential for financial independence and opened the doors for female entrepreneurs.

The number of female typists varied throughout the country, for example in Scotland, 99% of typists were women. (4) Like with any new occupation the new employees needed training, which led to the emergence of typing schools offering lessons in typing, shorthand and bookkeeping. Typists became a skilled profession that required a depth and breadth of knowledge and language skills. Society overlooked typing as a skilled profession in general as it was seen as easy for women to perform. This meant that the profession and offices became female dominated. Furthermore, the introduction of the bicycle in the 1890s offered social mobility for women as they could travel without a chaperone, which created a greater sense of independence. The Edwardian era and the end of the nineteenth century opened up discussion for equality and challenging gender norms in society. These changes in society also paved the way for women to join the workforce during the war effort and take charge of traditionally male dominated roles. The call of female suffrage after 1918 only grew in numbers and the government couldn’t deny that women played a vital role in running the country through industry, while men were conscripted to fight in the war. Gender roles were shifting whether Parliament liked it or not and change was on the horizon.

The call for equal suffrage

Britain’s class structure dominated the social, political and economic landscape throughout history and resulted in many protests, clashes of ideas and the rise of radical groups. 1848 was titled the Year of Revolution as many countries across Europe called for political and social change. Despite the complaints to Parliament for change, Britain never truly experienced an overrule of its government nor violence to the extent that Europe experienced. The campaigns for change from the perspective of the working class were often received with violence and disappointment. Social and political change was a slow process that took years to benefit those involved. The idyllic lifestyle of the middle and upper classes dominating the social and political scene did not last long as this new age of the Edwardian era ushered in the start of social unrest and power to the working class.

The desire for equality between the classes began to take shape with The Chartist Movement in 1848 where the working class demanded the vote for all men in Parliament, not just the wealthy. The Great Reform Act of 1832 proclaimed that middle class men were allowed to participate in parliamentary voting. Women were seen as even less important to the political sphere irrespective of their social standing. Similarly, wealthy men dictated the course of British politics, despite the working class’s contribution to British economy. By April 1848, the group organized a rally in South East London where they marched towards Parliament with a petition signed by two million men. (5) The Chartists included fake signatures on their petitions to gain more support, these names included Queen Victoria. This movement did not achieve their goals of votes for all men, but did gain an increased interest throughout the working class. It was not until the Second Great Reform Act of 1867 that the eligibility to vote was extended further, but still excluded working class men and all women the right to vote. The representation of the wide population was uneven and dictated by property ownership, money and gender. By 1868, only 300,000 men were registered to vote that made up only 10% of the population that was not representative of the diverse population. (5)

By 1900 the number of names registered to vote on the electoral role were approximately 58% of men over the age of 21 (6731,000). (6) Despite the increase of men on the electoral role, Parliament still created barriers under the People Act of 1867 and 1885, the Registration Act of 1885 and required voters to have residency over 12 months and occupancy of a property worth £10 a year in rent. (6) This excluded the working class and continued to uphold a barrier to democracy and Parliamentary equality. The inequality also meant that some men had the opportunity to vote in more than one constituency through owning a business premise, university qualifications or a second residence. By the outbreak of war in 1914, those who could vote and those who couldn’t were fighting side-by-side strengthening the outcry for electoral equality. The twentieth century was an era of radical and social change across Britain and the stuffy morals were a thought of the past as the world began to change. However, women were still barred from any democratic authority that consolidated their powerlessness in society, despite the long history of upper-class women using their status and money in an attempt to influence prominent figures. For example, Mary Wollstonecraft published, A Vindication of the Rights of Women (1792), which challenged the educational system of the time and argued that education should allow equal opportunity for both sexes. In the nineteenth century, there was several groups headed by women that campaigned for female suffrage, but these lacked progress or impact. In 1903, Emmeline Pankhurst founded the Women’s social and political union (WSPU) and understood that the group needed a radical approach to the movement, with disruptive tactics that challenged civil order. The Edwardian era was the beginning of change towards all women achieving the right to vote, but progress was interrupted by the war and the death of Edward VII in 1910 welcomed a new monarch that marked the start of the modern monarchy and society. Despite the wheels of change in the Edwardian era, it was not until the Equal Franchise Act of 1928 that all women over the age of 21 achieved the same voting right as men, increasing the female eligibility to vote to 15 million in Britain. (7)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Edwardian era not only witnessed a shift in monarchy that stepped away from the long reign of Queen Victoria and the high morals associated with the Victorians, but also a change in socio-political structures that destabilized the divide between the working class and the wealthy aristocratic circles. The shift from all men achieving the electoral authority created an even greater schism between the genders that was only emphasized after women joined the war effort. Social unrest became common with many members of the working class publicly addressing their disgruntlement for their lack of equality and the poor working conditions. The turmoil in Europe consolidated the changing world that made Victorian ideals a distant memory. The new woman also helped strengthen the radical idea of female independence that departed from male authority.  Therefore, when coupled with opportunities of employment and other advancement in technology the call for female suffrage was undeniable. Middle class women joining the workforce had a greater significance than initially thought, as women had a new space to develop their skills away from the dominating male gaze and the stiflingly rigid aristocratic social circles. This created the opportunity for momentous changes to take place. These changes altered the engrained stereotypes of classes and gender that had dominated within society. Society took a different shape and built the foundations for equality for future generations.

Enjoy that piece? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

(1)   RMG, ‘The death of Queen Victoria’, 2024, Royal Museums Greenwich < https://www.rmg.co.uk/stories/topics/death-queen-victoria#:~:text=This%20persona%20caused%20much%20upset,well%20for%20World%20War%20I >[accessed 17 January 2024].

(2)   A. Diniejko, ‘The New Woman Fiction’, 2011, Victorian Web < https://www.victorianweb.org/gender/diniejko1.html >[accessed 17 January 2024].   

(3)   G. Du Maurier, ‘The New Woman’, 1895, Punch Magazine <https://magazine.punch.co.uk/image/I0000rc87lkkUS5Y >[accessed 19 January 2024].

(4)   National Museums Scotland, ‘Women and the Typewriter’, 2024, National Museums Scotland <https://www.nms.ac.uk/explore-our-collections/stories/science-and-technology/the-typewriter/typewriter-chapters/women-and-typewriters/#:~:text=The%20role%20of%20the%20typist%20was%20seen%20as%20a%20suitable,had%20done%20well%20at%20school>[accessed 19 January 2024].

(5)   Museum of London, ‘Pocket Histories: The Political Protest in London, 1750 – 1900’, 2011, Museum of London <https://www.museumoflondon.org.uk/application/files/3614/5580/1573/political-protest-london.pdf >[accessed 15 January 2024].

(6)   D. Butler, ‘Electors and Elected’ in A. H Halsey and Josephine Webb, eds., Twentieth Century British Social Trends (Hampshire, Macmillan Press,2000),p.385.

(7)   UK Parliament, ‘Women get the vote’, 2024, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/electionsvoting/womenvote/overview/thevote/ >[accessed 29 January 2024].

Britain’s Failure in the Indian Subcontinent: Events that led to the Partition of India

The Partition of India in 1947 led to major implications took place after the British ended their rule of India. It had huge impacts, including the creation of two countries, around one million deaths, and the displacement of over ten million people (estimates vary on the exact amount). Romaan Anwar explains the events that led up to the Partition.

A refugee train on a journey to the Punjab, Pakistan in 1947.

Imagine this: two brothers are prisoners shackled in a cell in 1947. Now, they are free, and chains are broken. However, instead of enjoying their freedom, they are practically fighting each other to the death! This is the case for partition between India and Pakistan.

Prior to the independence of both nations in 1947, the fight for self-determination dominated the minds of the inhabitants within the Subcontinent. Possibly, the independence of both countries is the most defining moment for both since their freedom. Manifest in conflicts such as that in Kashmir, as well as the most recent major war known as the Bangladeshi Liberation War of 1971, the effects of partition are clearly still felt to this day. Not only did self-determination shape the future of those residing in the Subcontinent, but it also struck a huge blow to British prestige. Many speak of the partition and its consequences; however, many also do not fully grasp the events which led to the partition. From Gandhi’s Quit India movement in 1942, to Direct Action Day in 1946, I will shed light on key events which occurred shortly before Indian and Pakistani independence. I believe these events were the most pivotal in shaping how the partition played out.

Quit India Movement and the Cripps Mission, 1942

Before the climax of the Second World War in 1945, Indian demands for independence were very much in full swing. In a meeting with Congress in 1942, Gandhi instructed other Indian leaders that it was the perfect time to seize power.He demanded that Britain departs from India and grants independence to the country. Congress would then agree on a peaceful mass movement and passed the “Quit India Resolution”, thus giving birth to the Quit India movement.[1]This was done in response to a failed mission by Sir Stafford Cripps, the British Chancellor at the time. Within the same year, Cripps was sent by Churchill to make terms with the Indian Congress. He offered that if India gives full support for the war effort, Britain will grant India complete independence once the war concluded. Congress overestimated British desperation in the war and rejected. They countered with the demand that India gains instant independence, which Churchill and Lord Linlithgow would not grant.[2] The Cripps mission completely broke down, and this event shows how stern Congress was in demanding immediate independence. By this point, the Indian people were exhausted, and had enough of fighting in the war for the British. This sentiment only intensified when the Japanese were gaining traction during their Southeast Asian conquests and were beginning to encroach on Burma.

Furthermore, Gandhi’s arrest by British authorities increased dissent within the population of the Subcontinent. Particularly in regions such as Bengal, there was a significant upsurge in anti-British sentiment within the rural areas especially. The Quit India Movement of 1942 has been compared by historians to the Great Revolt of 1857 in terms of sheer scale.[3] The arrest of Gandhi and other Congress leaders had also given the more extreme nationalists less restraint. Bolstering their confidence, a violent offensive was launched in what is known as the ‘August Revolution’. Telephone wires were cut, train rails were destroyed, police stations were stormed, and Congress flags were planted on key government offices. Multiple districts were seized and were occupied by the nationalist rebels. An ever-increasing number of peasants had also joined the fray, and uproar against British rule was surging. The government was rapidly losing control of the situation. However, the allies were gaining traction in the war against Japan, and the revolution gradually dwindled up until the end of August.[4]

Failure of the Simla Conference, 1945

Transitioning over to June 1945, the Simla conference was another example of the British failure to maintain their authority over India, and a contributor to their eventual departure. Viceroy Lord Wavell was eager to solve India’s communal and political problems due to World War Two almost concluding. He wanted representatives of India to agree on a national government to resolve disputes particularly between Jinnah’s Muslim League and the Congress. Yet another example of British failure in India, the conference proved unsuccessful. Jinnah had demands for nominations exclusively for members of the Muslim League as ministers. However, when Wavell tried to create a government, himself mainly consisting of Muslim league members, Jinnah rejected this proposal. In response, Wavell created the ‘Breakdown Plan’ which threatened to restrict Pakistan just to Punjab and the Bengal. However, British policy regarding India was indecisive and unclear seeing as Clement Atlee was unhappy with Wavell’s proposals in the Simla conference. He sent a cabinet mission to remedy the situation in India, but due to the unclear decision from Britain’s end, the conference negotiations broke down.[5] The rejection from Jinnah shows that political leaders in India were less willing to entertain British proposals, and aimed to manifest their own ideas of how an independent India should be structured. Therefore, it is evident that increased movements toward independence contributed toward British decolonisation between 1945 and 1970, especially in context of Indian independence.

Increase of Communal Violence: Direct Action Day, 1946

Additionally, the sheer intensity of communal violence within British India had escalated, adding pressure on the British government to decide regarding partition. Under the leadership of Ali Jinnah, the Muslim League called for the ‘Direct Action Day’ in August 1946. Initially meant to be a peaceful demonstration to affirm the demand for a separate Muslim state, it transformed into a massacre in Calcutta in the form of looting, arson and fighting between Muslim and Hindu mobs. Many ordinary people going about their daily lives were killed, beaten, or robbed. This solidified the idea that Muslims and Hindus cannot possibly co-exist in a single state, and potentially unintentionally aided Jinnah’s efforts to create Pakistan. It was a prelude to the partition massacres that would unfold later.[6] Overall, the increase in communal hostility between Muslims and Hindus highlighted Britain’s inability to control the situation in India. It was clear that Britain had been losing authority as was manifested through its ineffective response to the killings.

Mountbatten Plan and Partition, 1947

By 1947, tensions had reached an absolute boiling point. Major cities in Punjab were practically on fire. Gangs walked the streets of various major cities in the region and continuously fired weapons, threw rocks, and set shops on fire. In Bombay, Muslim, Hindu, and Sikh communities became increasingly paranoid regarding approaching each other’s ‘zones’, even when there was a delay in episodic stabbings. Most families had to acquire basic arms and barricade their houses to protect themselves from the raging violence. On the political scale, Jinnah and the Muslim League were still vocal about their demands for a separate state for Muslims, known as Pakistan. Louis Mountbatten was sent to India as the next and final Viceroy to attempt a partition plan.[7] The British administration could barely manage the Indian political situation at the time, and Clement Atlee (Who was then the Prime Minister) famously remarked that British rule would end there “a date not later than June 1948”. Considered to be the champion of Muslim minority rights in India, Muhammad Ali Jinnah was renowned for demanding extra political rights for the Muslims. Hence, this would evolve into a demand for an entirely new state.[8] Mountbatten knew that partition had to occur, as by this point, the idea that Muslims and Hindus could co-exist in one state had long been thrown out due to the sheer intensity of communal violence. Cyril Radcliffe, a British lawyer who had never even visited India, was commissioned with the arduous task of drawing the borders between India and Pakistan. This was to be done purely on religious grounds.[9]Once this was done on August 17, 1947 (two days after the independence of both countries), a massive diaspora would occur. Many refugees and locals would struggle due to this change, and they had to take the perilous journey of migrating to a completely new homeland based on their faith.[10] Thus, the modern states of India and Pakistan were born through bloodshed, diaspora and political turmoil.

Do you want to read more history articles? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1] Boissoneault, Lorraine. “The Speech That Brought India to the Brink of Independence”. Smithsonian Magazine. 2017. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/speech-brought-india-brink-independence-180964366/

[2] McLeod, John. “The History of India. Greenwood Histories of the Modern Nations.” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group: 2002.) p 122

[3] Chatterjee, Pranab Kumar. “QUIT INDIA MOVEMENT OF 1942 AND THE NATURE OF URBAN RESPONSE IN BENGAL.” Proceedings of the Indian History Congress, vol. 43, 1982: 687–94. pp 687-688

[4] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). p 251.

[5] Kulke, Hermann and Dietmar Rothermund. “A History of India.” Sixth edition. (London: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group: 2016). pp 256-257

[6] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 63-66

[7] Khan, Yasmin. “The Great Partition: the making of India and Pakistan”. New edition. (New Haven; London, Yale University Press: 2017). pp 83-87

[8] Philips, Sean. “Why was British India Partitioned in 1947? Considering the role of Muhammad Ali Jinnah” University of Oxford. https://www.history.ox.ac.uk/why-was-british-india-partitioned-in-1947-considering-the-role-of-muhammad-ali-0

[9] Menon, Jisha. “The Performance of Nationalism : India, Pakistan, and the Memory of Partition”. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). p 29

[10] Singh, Amritjit, Iyer, Nalini, and Gairola, Rahul K., editors. “Revisiting India's Partition : New Essays on Memory, Culture, and Politics.” (Blue Ridge Summit: Lexington Books/Fortress Academic, 2016). pp 165-166